Название: Churchill Defiant: Fighting On 1945–1955
Автор: Barbara Leaming
Издательство: HarperCollins
Жанр: Историческая литература
isbn: 9780007416356
isbn:
Churchill had gone to Italy in the hope of coming to peace with the people’s decision. He had tried very hard to concur with his wife that the loss of the premiership was indeed a blessing in disguise. At last, he found he could do neither. The threat of another war was too great. His confidence that he was the man to prevent it was too strong. For better or worse, it simply was not in his character to remain detached for long.
When Churchill returned to Britain on 5 October 1945, his family understood that he had made an important decision while he was abroad. Once again, in defeat he would be defiant. Whatever the obstacles, he intended to fight on. He refused to retire.
IV Old Man in a Hurry London, October 1945
It was one thing to decide to fight on, quite another to stage a political comeback in his seventies.
During his first week in London, Churchill was a whirling dervish of activity, leaving no doubt in anyone’s mind that he meant, and retained the capacity, to lead. He set policy with his Shadow Cabinet. He cut a lively figure on the Opposition front bench. He offered the first Opposition motion and he directed all Conservatives to be present the following week when he assailed a bill to prolong government controls on labour, rations, prices, and transport for five additional years. Parliamentary commentators noted his bronzed, robust appearance, and King George remarked privately that Churchill had returned from Italy and France ‘a new man’. As if he had energy to spare, Churchill capped off a busy week by attending a Friday evening performance of Oscar Wilde’s Lady Windermere’s Fan.
By the next morning, however, his efforts began to unravel. While her husband was at Lake Como, Clementine Churchill had worried that in his passion to transfer a scene to the canvas he might labour on oblivious to the chill of the evening air. Given his medical record, there was always anxiety that were he to catch cold it could escalate into pneumonia. As feared, he returned from the South of France with a cold. Despite promises to be careful, he largely ignored it. By Saturday, he had lost his voice. By Sunday, a statement went out that he was confined to his house on doctor’s orders due to an inflamed throat.
Churchill had rallied the troops, but in the end he would not be there to lead them. Instead, to his frustration, he spent the week in his sickbed unable to speak. At a moment when he had been eager to fashion an image of vitality, press reports brought up his prolonged bouts of pneumonia during the Second World War, his impending seventy-first birthday, and the undeniable fact that for a man of his years a tiny cold could prove to be a very big deal. In view of his comeback plans it was all a bit of a disaster, but as a friend once said, Churchill ‘produced his greatest efforts in disaster’. Adversity tended to stimulate him.
While he was abroad, a stack of invitations to speak had accumulated at Hyde Park Gate. One request in particular fired Churchill’s imagination by appealing to his sense of drama. F. L. McLuer, the president of Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri, asked him to lecture on international affairs. The proposal dovetailed with Clementine Churchill’s wish that they spend part of the winter in Florida for his health. Still, McLuer’s letter is likely to have been of little interest had it not been for an addendum scribbled across the page: ‘This is a wonderful school in my home state. Hope you can do it. I’ll introduce you. Best regards, Harry Truman’. Even Truman’s seconding of the invitation would have made little impact on Churchill without the offer, however casual and offhand, to introduce him.
Churchill instinctively grabbed on to those three words as if they were a lifeline, and he refused to let go until he had used them to hoist himself back up onto the world stage. Truman’s presence on the same platform would call world attention to his message about the looming Soviet threat in a way he could never hope to achieve by himself. In his present circumstances, it would mean everything to Churchill, a defeated politician after all, to be able to borrow and bask in the American leader’s power.
As Churchill crafted his reply, he went significantly beyond an attempt to formalize Truman’s commitment. He tried to draw the President further into the picture, to suggest that Truman had intended a good deal more by his words than he probably had. (In fact, Truman as yet had no real investment in the visit. An intermediary, a Westminster alumnus, had solicited his involvement in the invitation. Truman had merely added his hasty endorsement and passed the letter on as a favour to a friend.) Though it was McLuer who had written to him, Churchill cut the college administrator out of the loop by addressing his letter, dated 8 November 1945, directly to Truman. He wrote as if he had in hand an official presidential invitation to speak under Truman’s ‘aegis’. Careful to refer to his understanding that Truman planned to introduce him, Churchill insisted it would be his ‘duty’ to come to the US and do as the President requested. He pledged to Truman that the Fulton speech would be his only public address in America ‘out of respect for you and your wishes’.
Churchill was unquestionably distorting the tenor of Truman’s message, and his decision to point out that he had praised Truman in the House of Commons the previous day was also risky. At Potsdam, Truman had complained in his diary of what he perceived as Churchill’s efforts to soft-soap him. Nevertheless, having cleared the speaking engagement with his successor, Churchill sent off his answer via Attlee’s secretary, to be hand-delivered when the American and British leaders met presently to discuss atomic policy and related matters in Washington.
While Churchill waited for Truman to respond, he went to Paris and Brussels for a week to speak and be feted. His painting holiday had helped him regain perspective and confidence after the election and he was happy once again to receive honours. Now, with an eye towards a comeback, it suited him to shift public attention back to his war triumphs.
In Brussels, adoring crowds waited for hours to catch a glimpse of him. They fought their way past police and tossed flowers at his car. A girl managed to hurl herself onto the running board and kiss him, and an old woman was heard to declare that now that she had seen Churchill she was ready to die. He was made an honorary citizen and proclaimed ‘the saviour of civilization’. Hailed for his war leadership, Churchill missed no opportunity to showcase his achievements in the run-up to war as well. When he told a joint session of the Belgian Senate and Chamber on 16 November that had the Allies moved to stop Hitler early on, the Second World War (‘the unnecessary war’) would probably never have had to be fought in the first place, he was reminding people that he had been right in the 1930s and letting them know that he was right now.
In contrast to his rapturous reception abroad, there were no cheers for Churchill when he returned to London on 20 November. Immediately, he faced a new challenge to his leadership. This time the malcontents were younger parliamentarians who mocked their tired elders in the Conservative Party as ‘Rip Van Winkles’, content to sleep through the socialization of Britain. To the young Tories’ outrage, Churchill had been absent from Parliament on 19 November, resting at Chartwell after his trip, when Labour unveiled further nationalization plans. The party’s number two man, Anthony Eden, had been missing as well.
At a meeting of the backbenchers, Churchill slouched in a red leather armchair for an hour and a half, but he might as well have been enduring a slow stretch on the rack as his juniors by many years criticized his leadership. At the time of the general election, Churchill’s belligerence had landed him in trouble; now the complaint was that he was not belligerent enough. The man of blood had gone anaemic. The young people wanted him to set off a debate in the House of Commons on the broad matter of nationalization by introducing a motion of Government censure.
СКАЧАТЬ