Authors: Winston Churchill
Never Give In! (84 page)
Moreover, a curious paradox has emerged. Let me put it simply. After a certain point has been passed it may be said, ‘The worse things get, the better.’
The broad effect of the latest developments is to spread almost indefinitely and at least to a vast extent the area of mortal danger. This should certainly increase the deterrent upon Soviet Russia by putting her enormous spaces and scattered population on an equality or near-equality of vulnerability with our small densely populated island and with Western Europe.
I cannot regard this development as adding to our dangers. We have reached the maximum already. On the contrary, to this form of attack continents are vulnerable as well as islands. Hitherto, crowded countries, as I have said, like the United Kingdom and Western Europe, have had this outstanding vulnerability to carry. But the hydrogen bomb, with its vast range of destruction and the even wider area of contamination, would be effective also against nations whose population, hitherto, has been so widely dispersed over large land areas as to make them feel that they were not in any danger at all.
They, too, become highly vulnerable, not yet equally perhaps, but, still, highly and increasingly vulnerable. Here again we see the value of deterrents, immune against surprise and well understood by all persons on both sides – I repeat ‘on both sides’ – who have the power to control events. That is why I have hoped for a long time for a top-level conference where these matters could be put plainly and bluntly from one friendly visitor to the conference to another.
Then it may well be that we shall by a process of sublime irony have reached a stage in this story where safety will be the sturdy child of terror, and survival the twin brother of annihilation. . . .
I am anxious to repeat and to emphasise the one word which is the theme of my remarks, namely, ‘Deterrent.’ That is the main theme.
The hydrogen bomb has made an astounding incursion into the structure of our lives and thoughts. Its impact is prodigious and profound, but I do not agree with those who say, ‘Let us sweep away forthwith all our existing defence services and concentrate our energy and resources on nuclear weapons and their immediate ancillaries.’ The policy of the deterrent cannot rest on nuclear weapons alone. We must, together with our NATO allies, maintain the defensive shield in Western Europe.
Unless the NATO Powers had effective forces there on the ground and could make a front, there would be nothing to prevent piecemeal advance and encroachment by the Communists in this time of so-called peace. By successive infiltrations, the Communists could progressively undermine the security of Europe. Unless we were prepared to unleash a full-scale nuclear war as soon as some local incident occurs in some distant country, we must have conventional forces in readiness to deal with such situations as they arise.
We must, therefore, honour our undertaking to maintain our contribution to the NATO forces in Europe in time of peace. In war, this defensive shield would be of vital importance, for we must do our utmost to hold the Soviet and satellite forces at arms’ length in order to prevent short-range air and rocket attack on these islands. Thus, substantial strength in conventional forces has still a vital part to play in the policy of the deterrent. It is perhaps of even greater importance in the cold war.
Though world war may be prevented by the deterrent power of nuclear weapons, the Communists may well resort to military action in furtherance of their policy of infiltration and encroachment in many parts of the world. There may well be limited wars on the Korean model, with limited objectives. We must be able to play our part in these, if called upon by the United Nations Organisation. In the conditions of today, this is also an aspect of our Commonwealth responsibility. We shall need substantial strength in conventional forces to fulfil our world-wide obligations in these days of uneasy peace and extreme bad temper. . . .
The argument which I have been endeavouring to unfold and consolidate gives us in this island an interlude. Let us not waste it. Let us hope we shall use it to augment or at least to prolong our security and that of mankind. But how? There are those who believe, or at any rate say, ‘If we have the protection of the overwhelmingly powerful United States, we need not make the hydrogen bomb for ourselves or build a fleet of bombers for its delivery. We can leave that to our friends across the ocean. Our contribution should be criticism of any unwise policy into which they may drift or plunge. We should throw our hearts and consciences into that.’
Personally, I cannot feel that we should have much influence over their policy or actions, wise or unwise, while we are largely dependent, as we are today, upon their protection. We, too, must possess substantial deterrent power of our own. We must also never allow, above all, I hold, the growing sense of unity and brotherhood between the United Kingdom and the United States and throughout the English-speaking world to be injured or retarded. Its maintenance, its stimulation, and its fortifying is one of the first duties of every person who wishes to see peace in the world and wishes to see the survival of this country.
To conclude: mercifully, there is time and hope if we combine patience and courage. All deterrents will improve and gain authority during the next ten years. By that time, the deterrent may well reach its acme and reap its final reward. The day may dawn when fair play, love for one’s fellow-men, respect for justice and freedom, will enable tormented generations to march forth serene and triumphant from the hideous epoch in which we have to dwell. Meanwhile, never flinch, never weary, never despair.
4 April 1955
No.
10 Downing Street
The day before Churchill submitted his resignation and stepped down as Prime Minister, the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh paid my grandparents the rare honour of dining as their guests at 10 Downing Street.
I have the honour of proposing a toast which I used to enjoy drinking during the years when I was a cavalry subaltern in the reign of your Majesty’s great-great-grandmother, Queen Victoria.
Having served in office or in Parliament under the four sovereigns who have reigned since those days, I felt, with these credentials, that in asking your Majesty’s gracious permission to propose this toast I should not be leading to the creation of a precedent which would often cause inconvenience.
Madam, I should like to express the deep and lively sense of gratitude which we and all your peoples feel to you and to his Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh for all the help and inspiration we receive in our daily lives and which spreads with ever-growing strength throughout the British realm and the Commonwealth and Empire.
Never have we needed it more than in the anxious and darkening age through which we are passing and through which we hope to help the world to pass.
Never have the august duties which fall upon the British monarchy been discharged with more devotion than in the brilliant opening of your Majesty’s reign. We thank God for the gift he has bestowed upon us and vow ourselves anew to the sacred cause, and wise and kindly way of life of which your Majesty is the young, gleaming champion.
‘The Queen.’
21 June 1955
The Guildhall, London
Following Churchill’s resignation, Sir Anthony Eden became Prime Minister and, at the General Election of 26 May, the Conservatives secured a majority of more than 50 seats. The City of London had commissioned a statue of Churchill by Oscar Nemon and had invited him to unveil it.
It has been my lot to live as a grown-up person through more than half of the most violent century in human record. I remember well the scene which spread before us at the close of the Victorian era. The vast majority of the nation looked with confidence upon our island as the centre of a vast empire spreading all over the world, as its leader in commerce, manufacture, and invention, as the model of orthodox finance and fiscal policy, as the author of Parliamentary government and all guarded by the unchallengeable power of a navy which only cost about £20 millions a year. Little did we realise how mighty was the world which was growing up around us, or how terrible and gigantic were the struggles into which all its people were to be plunged. Now we look out upon a different prospect. All the values and proportions are changed. We have emerged on the victorious side from two world wars in which scores of millions have perished. They were wars which in their scope and scale seemed far to surpass our resources, and at times to threaten us with doom. . . .
But now I leave the past, and I leave the present. It is to the future that we must turn our gaze. I confess that, like Disraeli, I am on the side of the optimists. I do not believe that humanity is going to destroy itself. I have for some time thought it would be a good thing if the leaders of the great nations talked freely to one another without too much of the formality of diplomacy. I am very glad that this is now going to happen. We must not count upon complete and immediate success. Whatever is the outcome, we must persevere in the maintenance of peace through strength. A period of relaxation of tension may well be all that is now within our grasp. But such a phase would not be sterile. On the contrary it would give the time for science to show the magnitude of her blessings rather than of her terrors; and this again may lead us into a more genial climate of opinion and resolve. Let us go boldly forward and play our part in all this.
The victorious campaigner casts his vote in Woodford, Election Day, 1951.
HONORARY CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES
9 April 1963
The White House, Washington, DC
Churchill, 88 years of age, was not well enough to make the journey to Washington to receive this unique honour. In his place he sent his son, Randolph who, at a ceremony in the Rose Garden of the White House, delivered his father’s reply to President Kennedy. I accompanied my father to the ceremony, which was the crowning of all the many honours my grandfather had received.
Mr President, I have been informed by Mr David Bruce that it is your intention to sign a Bill conferring upon me Honorary citizenship of the United States.
I have received many kindnesses from the United States of America, but the honour which you now accord me is without parallel. I accept it with deep gratitude and affection.
I am also most sensible of the warm-hearted action of the individual States who accorded me the great compliment of their own honorary citizenships as a prelude to this Act of Congress.
It is a remarkable comment on our affairs that the former Prime Minister of a great sovereign state should thus be received as an honorary citizen of another. I say ‘great sovereign state’ with design and emphasis, for I reject the view that Britain and the Commonwealth should now be relegated to a tame and minor role in the world. Our past is the key to our future, which I firmly trust and believe will be no less fertile and glorious. Let no man underrate our energies, our potentialities and our abiding power for good.
I am, as you know, half American by blood, and the story of my association with that mighty and benevolent nation goes back nearly ninety years to the day of my father’s marriage. In this century of storm and tragedy I contemplate with high satisfaction the constant factor of the interwoven and upward progress of our peoples. Our comradeship and our brotherhood in war were unexampled. We stood together, and because of that fact the free world now stands. Nor has our partnership any exclusive nature: the Atlantic community is a dream that can well be fulfilled to the detriment of none and to the enduring benefit and honour of the great democracies.
