On Understanding History

[porphyry]

Recently, I’ve been thinking a lot about history and how it’s presented, taught, or learned about generally outside the United States. I’ve been thinking about this because I’ve realized as I’ve grown older that sometimes the understanding I have about history or historical figures—at least, the way it was presented to me—is nowhere near universally true, even about the things I thought couldn’t be argued otherwise. Two things recently occurred on LJ that made me want to write about it because I hope to get input so that I can better understand the discrepancy between what I learned and what I’ve heard.

I realize that history isn’t simply a matter of the Good Guys and the Bad Guys; that history or the study of it is not about making moral judgments. Sometimes, though, others respond to my mention of certain historical figures that quite surprise me; the two lately on LJ have been Winston Churchill and Josef Stalin.

Here in America, Churchill is presented in the history books—and I must say, my college history courses didn’t present him much differently than my high school classes—primarily as a figure to be admired. My personal experience with those I’ve met from England, though, is much different. I can’t think of one person I’ve met from the UK who professed admiration for Churchill. Why is this?

Second, and much more shocking to me, is the attitude to Stalin held by some Russians. Malkhos recently rose to the bait (how like him) from a post by some Russian woman describing how many of her ancestors and relatives had been killed by Nazis during the War. His response was a little nicer than this, but he basically asked her, “How many were killed by Communists?” She and others replied directly and said that none had been, and then said while the Communists of that period might not have been perfect, there was no way of comparing them with Nazis. Malkhos offered that as far as he could see there was no difference between Nazis and Communists—Hitler and Stalin—except perhaps that Stalin had killed even more than Hitler. He was told that his mind had been blinded by propaganda and therefore no further communication with him on the subject was possible. Malkhos explained that many political factions had and still do find it in their interest to rehabilitate Stalin, but considering what a vicious murderous bastard he was,, how can that be, how can they seemingly teach school children to do anything but despise him?

Comments

[petrusplancius.livejournal.com]

With regard to the first point, you probably haven't met typical English people, Churchill is generally regarded with considerable admiration here. When there was a television programme a few years ago in which people had to vote for 'the greatest Briton', it was he won, to nobody's great surprise. The main difference between British and American attitudes to him lies in the greater awareness that British people (at least educted ones) have of his political background. He is almost universally admired as a war leader, but there are great differences of opinion about his position in domestic politics. It is significant that he lost the General Election after the war (although he became Prime Minister again later). Some people on the left hate him intensely. Discussion can be unbalanced because a certain amount of mythology has grown up around some of his actions an attitudes, but there is no doubt that he did have fairly extreme views on certain issues (e.g. in relation to the advance toward independence in India). The fact is that he was an extremely complex figure who cannot easily be classified in simple party or left-right terms; he was partly a Whiggish romantic, partly a reactionary Conservative, partly an open-minded reformer who played a crucial role in the Liberal reforming government before the First World War. I get equally irritated with people who will hear no bad of him and people who will hear no good of him.

It is salutary to think that until quite recently, people of 'progressive' views in the West would equally one of being a victim of propaganda if one compared Stalin to Hitler. There is no doubt that there is a considerable nostalgia for strong rule in Russia which is being encouraged by the present regime, and that this colours attitudes to Stalin. Also the fact that Stalin led the country in defeating the Nazi invaders.

[malkhos.livejournal.com]

Thank you for your reply--on the simplest level, it is quite a relief for me to know that overall Churchill is given the admiration I think he deserves. I was aware that his views of independence of India caused him a great deal of political loss in England ("It is both alarming and nauseating that he [Gandhi] should come here half-dressed up the steps to sit among the vice-regals"--I will never forget reading that because I found it funny) all the way up to the bombing of Dresden which, from what I understand revisionist-historians want to rename a war crime, and after that have made him so complex. Malkhos says he was voted out of office right after the second war because he would never have gone along with the social programs and reforms that were gaining ground in England right after the war was over. And yes, you're right; I was taught about him more in the international perspective of the war rather than in a domestic context.

[petrusplancius.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure that he wouldn't haven't accepted any social reforms (the reports on which the 'welfare state' was based were drawn up during the war with his approval), it's primarily that he proposed to concentrate mainly on foreign affairs in the immediate future; it's true that he wouldn't have nationalized various industries as the Labour government did, but that hardly turned out to be a good idea. I'm afraid that mass bombing of cities was something that was practised and accepted by both sides during that period, it is simply absurd to look back on it now and brand it as a war crime. At this distance of time, when the immeasurable human suffering is long past, the destruction of so much of Germany's historical heritage is what I most regret about the war; it is painful to look through old collections of photographs of German towns and cities.

[benicek.livejournal.com]

You think the bombing of Dresden wasn't a war crime? I can't think what else it was. However, I agree that it was not particularly worse than carpet bombing other cites (Hamburg for example) just because they had some industrial capacity alongside all those civilians.

[petrusplancius.livejournal.com]

I would regard carpet bombing as being utterly wrong; but a war crime is something that runs contrary to the conventions of a war at a particular time, it is a juridical concept. And such bombing was a practice that was accepted by all the belligerent nations.

[benicek.livejournal.com]

'Juridical concept' makes it all sound so morally vague, but I suppose you're right. I can't think how the war with Japan would have been ended quicker without those atomic bombs.

I once went to the top of Cabot Tower in Bristol with my German friend and was explaining how much of the older part of the city had been destroyed by bombing during the war. "What did they do that for?" she asked, shaking her head sadly; so I pointed out the aircraft factories in Filton "Oh" she responded, laughing, "that's alright then!" We both understood that it wasn't 'alright' but that neither was it particularly morally bad by the standards of WW2.

[malkhos.livejournal.com]

When I think about the things that were destroyed during the bombings of WWII, I get teary-eyed. Or maybe it's because I've caught the bug that's been going through our house and my brain is addled.

[benicek.livejournal.com]

I broadly agree with Petrusplancius. I'm one of those British people on the left who is not particularly fond of Churchill. It's nothing personal however. I think he was an excellent orator and very much a product of his time and class, which excuses many of his 'faults' such as drunkenness and an attachment to colonialism. What I dislike is the Churchill myth; the semi-deification of him by right-wingers. There is a bronze statue of him in The House of Commons which has one highly polished foot because a tradition has developed whereby conservative politicians touch it for good luck as they enter the debating chamber. He's been inflated into some sort of superman, which he certainly wasn't. It's nauseating because there's always a xenophobic anti-European subtext to it. He's the hero that smashed the dirty foreigners. The small matter of being rescued by the United States from certain defeat is quietly forgotten.

Another thing that pisses me off about the Churchill myth is that his descendants continue to live off it and involve themselves in politics. I currently live in the parliamentary constituency of one of his grandsons. I can't believe that political dynasties have any place in a democracy. That goes for all the Churchills, Clintons, Bushes, Kennedys, Bhuttos, Ghandis and so on.

[lordtangent.livejournal.com]

Wasn't it Churchill himself who proposed a "United States of Europe" after the war? I also remember reading somewhere his proposal for some kind of federation of the "English-speaking peoples" around the globe. Either way he seems an unlikely touchstone for the UKIP types.

[benicek.livejournal.com]

I quite agree! But you find any tabloid reader in Britain today who can remember that speech, or would believe you if you told them. It doesn't fit in with the myth.

[petrusplancius.livejournal.com]

Churchill wanted a European federation of some kind for the (continental)Europeans, but didn't want Britain to be in it. Incidentally, I shouldn't like you to gain the idea from dear benicek that most UKIP supporters are racists or extreme right-wingers; people who dislike the EU, which is a pretty grotesque organization in many ways, have nowhere else to turn.

[malkhos.livejournal.com]

I had to do quite a bit of research into the EU and UN bureaucracies lately, and I can confirm there may be something in what you say.

[benicek.livejournal.com]

I shouldn't like you to gain the idea from dear Petrusplancius that a significant minority of UKIP supporters aren't racists or extreme right-wingers, and use the perfectly legitimate platform of criticising the EU as a thin veil for their other agenda.

I wish I'd kept a copy of the leaflet they delivered to our house the other year which depicted caricature continental Europeans mugging defenceless British pensioners. A nice thing to spring on a mixed-nationality household, I thought. I should have reported it to the police.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Never met any from the UK with a good word to say about Churchill? How odd - I can't say I know anyone at all who would say anything bad about the man.
This is fairly telling too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_Greatest_Britons

[malkhos.livejournal.com]

Well, I must admit that in my lifetime I've certainly not met a representative sample--perhaps a dozen or so in "real life" but most of them had unfavorable opinions of Churchill which as I stated in my original post was contrary to what I'd been taught about him.

It's become clearer to me reading the posts above that perhaps the disjunct occurs between the Churchill myth and the real man/politician. History books of the sort I read in general courses preserve the myth, I think, because they haven't the space nor is the goal in a general text to study a single individual closely.

It's odd--this US and Everywhere Else phenomenon. I also thought, for example, that Jerry Lewis was rather a buffoon--I never found his films all that funny--and you can imagine my surprise when I lived in France for a year and discovered they find him a comic genius. When a French person explained this to me, I could only stupidly repeat, "Vraiment? Vraiment?" or "Repetez-vous, s'il vous plait" convinced I was translating wrong!