by Alan Watson
He also understood what he was up against. The French showed an almost Russian desire for revenge based on fear. They wanted reparations to cripple Germany and prevent any chance of it ever threatening France again. They demanded a permanent Allied occupation of the Ruhr – one in which, of course, the Soviet Union would have been delighted to participate. Britain and America saw this as a route to catastrophe. There could be no European recovery and no chance ultimately of safeguarding democracy in Western Europe without a healthy and vigorous West German economy. The French were bitterly opposed as de Gaulle was to make clear after the Zurich speech.
However, Churchill knew something else. George C. Marshall had been recalled by President Truman from his negotiations in China and it seemed clear that his focus would now be Europe and the Atlantic Alliance. He also knew from Marshall’s opposition to Soviet proposals that the United States was moving to its own initiative on the restoration of the shattered economies of Europe. He was aware that there were powerful minds in Congress who questioned the brutal ending on Land-Lease to Britain and France. But to move American political opinion towards the grand ambition of what became the Marshall Plan would require a change of vision by the French. He could not have foreseen how events would conjoin to break through the impasse. He could not know as he approached his Zurich speech in September 1946 that Jean Monnet would persuade de Gaulle that without this plan for France’s economic modernisation, France could never recover her greatness. Nor could he foresee that in Monnet’s economic plan for France, George C. Marshall would recognise the outline of a ‘much larger scale’ programme ‘involving several countries’.8 Nor could he foresee that Monnet and France’s foreign minister, Robert Schuman, would succeed within a year in persuading the French government to propose a merger of the coal and steel industries of Germany and France, thus meeting America’s demand for a quite revolutionary level of European co-operation. Churchill could not have predicted this remarkable sequence of changing interests and perceptions. Neither could he have known that Marshall’s plan would save Monnet’s plan and this would mitigate de Gaulle’s initial rejection of all he would say at Zurich. But what Churchill’s instinct told him on the eve of Zurich was enough. He knew that once again he could grasp the mantle of history and, by doing so, demonstrate that democracies did not need to be imprisoned by the past. Like the Spanish prisoner they could find the dungeon door open.
In his Zurich speech, Churchill led the prisoner to the dungeon door he imagined locked for ever and urged him to push it open: France – defeated, occupied, liberated. France, exhausted and embittered, could ‘exercise the only worthwhile prize of Victory . . . the power to forgive’. In understanding this potential for transformation and initiating the process through his words, Churchill demonstrated the power of his maxim ‘In Victory, Magnanimity’.
So it is now to Churchill’s Zurich speech that we must turn and to the extraordinary reversal of US policy towards Europe instigated by the arrival of George C. Marshall as the US secretary of state. Churchill’s two 1946 speeches – Fulton and Zurich – constitute a vital prelude to America’s change of heart, and of mind.
PART V
EUROPE RESTORED
16
Zurich
‘I am now going to say something that will astonish you . . .’
As with his Fulton speech, Churchill’s second great intervention of 1946 was activated by an academic invitation facilitated by a holiday. There was a conjunction of platform, pleasure and the hinge of fate. To put it another way, Churchill believed in seizing the hem of history and in September 1946 he did not doubt he held it in his grip. He was not the dispirited man who in the previous year had spotted the opportunity provided by Truman’s footnote on the invitation from Westminster College in Missouri. He was newly invigorated and confident. Thus the invitation now before him, to speak at the University of Zurich, represented an opportunity he grasped without hesitation. It was made all the more attractive by the Swiss government’s offer of an excellent holiday in their country, as their guest.
In August, accompanied by his wife, Clementine, and his daughter, Mary, he arrived in Switzerland to savour Swiss hospitality. Churchill rejoiced in its undamaged beauty, an oasis at the heart of war-torn Europe, and received endless tributes to his statesmanship and Britain’s wartime courage. He returned the flattery with his own. On arriving in Zurich at the Town Hall, showered with flowers and the cheers of the crowd, he said to the Swiss:
You have solved many of the difficulties which have led other countries into suffering and misfortune. You have thus managed to be united in spite of the differences of language and race and there is no reason why your example should not be followed throughout the whole of this wrecked continent of Europe.1
His purpose was not to advocate the neutrality that had kept Switzerland out of the war. The last thing he wanted was a neutral Western Europe, helpless before Stalin. His wish, fervently held, was for Western Europe to unite, economically, politically, spiritually – overcoming the ‘differences of language and race’. The idea of a restored Europe would motivate and justify the commitment of the USA. It would be helped by Britain and the Commonwealth. It could turn the tide in what would soon be recognised as the Cold War.
For this to happen, however, Churchill would once again, as at Fulton, have to startle and indeed ‘astonish’ the world. He knew he had the power to provoke and inspire and, since Fulton, he also knew that he had the authority to do so. This time was different in that he did not need the backing of the British Foreign Office, which he neither requested nor received. This was his moment and he would fulfil his mission by articulating a vision of European reconciliation so bold that Europe’s self-awareness would be reshaped for ever.
To the crowds around the Town Hall, who cheered him to the echo every time he waved his famous ‘V for Victory’ hand-sign, Churchill paused to explain that this, his most defiant and famous gesture, now had a different meaning. It no longer ‘stood for the victory of one group of nations over another, but for the victory of personal liberty over tyranny everywhere’.2
In a single sentence and a simple gesture, he had spelt out his leitmotiv with the commanding clarity that occurs at productions of Wagner in Bayreuth. There a trumpet plays the leitmotiv of the opera before the audience enters the theatre. With his gesture and single sentence before his speech at Zurich, Churchill had sounded the note he needed and set the tone for what was to follow. The ‘V’ sign was no longer about defiance but about reconciliation.
In victory, there needed to be more than magnanimity. There had to be, in the words of Gladstone, which he would borrow in his speech, ‘a blessed act of oblivion’. His call would be for ‘an end to retribution’. There was, in Churchill the warrior, a dimension of forgiveness and the realism of a statesman who understood that without forgiveness reconciliation would be impossible and that without reconciliation no restoration of Europe would be feasible.
This perception was at the heart of what he was about to say to his audience in the Great Hall at Zurich University.
Inside the hall was an audience somewhat smaller than that in Fulton but no less attentive. As at Fulton, there was also a global audience for media interest and the speech would be broadcast. Again, as at Fulton, there was academic formality. He was welcomed by the rector who was effusive in his praise of Churchill and of Britain, presenting him with an illuminated address of thanks. The rostrum was decked with flowers, the banners of all the student corporations were displayed. The scene was set.
The speech itself is laid out in full below, but before the text, it is important to identify its highlights and explain its structure. In the following chapter I will describe the reactions to the speech, especially those in Britain and France.
The speech challenged the status quo as robustly as Fulton, and the response was just as divided. Churchill’s oratorical skill at Zurich matches that of Fulton, but the speech was shorter, less embellished and
less Victorian, yet it depicts danger as graphically and advocates a response with greater simplicity and directness. In writing his Fulton speech, Churchill had grappled with a surfeit of themes – the two great ‘marauders’ menacing free men, namely war and tyranny; the affinity of values and language binding together Britain, the Commonwealth and the USA in an alliance that had to be made militarily effective; and the reality of the Iron Curtain.
At Zurich he focused exclusively on a message he presaged at Fulton – ‘the awful ruin of Europe’, ‘a new unity’ in Europe needed for the ‘safety of the world’, and how to initiate its creation. In both speeches the atomic bomb is both a window of opportunity and the harbinger of doom.
The power of the speech is its moral insight and the realism of its reading of relevant history. Its boldness lies in its call for Franco-German partnership – an idea made more shocking, even repugnant, by the daily revelations of German atrocities and war crimes emerging from the Nuremberg trials then under way. It pays tribute to the idealism of Count Coudenhove-Kalergi and Astride Briand and their advocacy of a ‘kind of United States of Europe’ – a phrase that he uses while remaining clear about Britain’s relationship with their initiative. In examining the reactions to the speech, we will return to the impact of the Nuremberg trials and the seeds of ambiguity sown on Britain’s view of what eventually emerged in the Treaty of Rome as ‘ever closer Union’.
But for now, let us turn to the actual text of Churchill’s second seminal speech of 1946.
‘Europe Arise’ Zurich, 19 September 1946, by Winston Churchill3
I wish to speak to you today about the tragedy of Europe. This noble continent, comprising on the whole the fairest and the most cultivated regions of the earth; enjoying a temperate and equable climate, is the home of all the great parent races of the western world. It is the fountain of Christian faith and Christian ethics. It is the origin of most of the culture, arts, philosophy and science both of ancient and modern times. If Europe were once united in the sharing of its common inheritance, there would be no limit to the happiness, to the prosperity and glory which its three or four hundred million people would enjoy. Yet it is from Europe that have sprung that series of frightful nationalistic quarrels, originated by the Teutonic nations, which we have seen even in this twentieth century and in our own lifetime, wreck the peace and mar the prospects of all mankind.
And what is the plight to which Europe has been reduced? Some of the smaller States have indeed made a good recovery, but over wide areas a vast quivering mass of tormented, hungry, care-worn and bewildered human beings gape at the ruins of their cities and homes, and scan the dark horizons for the approach of some new peril, tyranny or terror. Among the victors there is a babel of jarring voices; among the vanquished the sullen silence of despair. That is all that Europeans, grouped in so many ancient States and nations, that is all that the Germanic Powers have got by tearing each other to pieces and spreading havoc far and wide. Indeed, but for the fact that the great Republic across the Atlantic Ocean has at length realised that the ruin or enslavement of Europe would involve their own fate as well, and has stretched out hands of succour and guidance, the Dark Ages would have returned in all their cruelty and squalor. They may still return.
Yet all the while there is a remedy which, if it were generally and spontaneously adopted, would as if by a miracle transform the whole scene, and would in a few years make all Europe, or the greater part of it, as free and as happy as Switzerland is today. What is this sovereign remedy? It is to re-create the European Family, or as much of it as we can, and provide it with a structure under which it can dwell in peace, in safety and in freedom. We must build a kind of United States of Europe. In this way only will hundreds of millions of toilers be able to regain the simple joys and hopes which make life worth living. The process is simple. All that is needed is the resolve of hundreds of millions of men and women to do right instead of wrong, and gain as their reward, blessing instead of cursing.
Much work has been done upon this task by the exertions of the Pan-European Union which owes so much to Count Coudenhove-Kalergi and which commanded the services of the famous French patriot and statesman Aristide Briand. There is also that immense body of doctrine and procedure, which was brought into being amid high hopes after the First World War, as the League of Nations. The League of Nations did not fail because of its principles or conceptions. It failed because these principles were deserted by those States who had brought it into being. It failed because the Governments of those days feared to face the facts and act while time remained. This disaster must not be repeated. There is, therefore, much knowledge and material with which to build; and also bitter dear-bought experience. I was very glad to read in the newspapers two days ago that my friend President Truman had expressed his interest and sympathy with this great design. There is no reason why a regional organisation of Europe should in any way conflict with the world organisation of the United Nations. On the contrary, I believe that the larger synthesis will only survive if it is founded upon coherent natural groupings. There is already a natural grouping in the Western Hemisphere. We British have our own Commonwealth of Nations. These do not weaken, on the contrary they strengthen, the world organisation. They are in fact its main support.
And why should there not be a European group which could give a sense of enlarged patriotism and common citizenship to the distracted peoples of this turbulent and mighty continent and why should it not take its rightful place with other great groupings in shaping the destinies of men?
In order that this should be accomplished, there must be an act of faith in which millions of families speaking many languages must consciously take part.
We all know that the two world wars through which we have passed arose out of the vain passion of a newly united Germany to play the dominating part in the world. In this last struggle crimes and massacres have been committed for which there is no parallel since the invasions of the Mongols in the fourteenth century and no equal at any time in human history. The guilty must be punished. Germany must be deprived of the power to rearm and make another aggressive war.
But when all this has been done, as it will be done, as it is being done, there must be an end to retribution. There must be what Mr Gladstone many years ago called ‘a blessed act of oblivion’.
We must all turn our backs upon the horrors of the past. We must look to the future. We cannot afford to drag forward across the years that are to come the hatreds and revenges which have sprung from the injuries of the past. If Europe is to be saved from infinite misery, and indeed from final doom, there must be an act of faith in the European family and an act of oblivion against all the crimes and follies of the past.
Can the free peoples of Europe rise to the height of these resolves of the soul and instincts of the spirit of man? If they can, the wrongs and injuries which have been inflicted will have been washed away on all sides by the miseries which have been endured. Is there any need for further floods of agony? Is it the only lesson of history that mankind is unteachable? Let there be justice, mercy and freedom. The peoples have only to will it, and all will achieve their hearts’ desire.
I am now going to say something that will astonish you. The first step in the re-creation of the European family must be a partnership between France and Germany. In this way only can France recover the moral leadership of Europe. There can be no revival of Europe without a spiritually great France and a spiritually great Germany. The structure of the United States of Europe, if well and truly built, will be such as to make the material strength of a single state less important. Small nations will count as much as large ones and gain their honour by their contribution to the common cause. The ancient states and principalities of Germany, freely joined together for mutual convenience in a federal system, might each take their individual place among the United States of Europe. I shall not try to make a detailed programme for hundreds of millions of people who want to be happy and free, prosp
erous and safe, who wish to enjoy the four freedoms of which the great President Roosevelt spoke, and live in accordance with the principles embodied in the Atlantic Charter. If this is their wish, they have only to say so, and means can certainly be found, and machinery erected, to carry that wish into full fruition.
But I must give you warning. Time may be short. At present there is a breathing-space. The cannon have ceased firing. The fighting has stopped; but the dangers have not stopped.
If we are to form the United States of Europe or whatever name or form it may take, we must begin now.
In these present days we dwell strangely and precariously under the shield and protection of the atomic bomb. The atomic bomb is still only in the hands of a State and nation which we know will never use it except in the cause of right and freedom. But it may well be that in a few years this awful agency of destruction will be widespread and the catastrophe following from its use by several warring nations will not only bring to an end all that we call civilisation, but may possibly disintegrate the globe itself.
I must now sum up the propositions which are before you. Our constant aim must be to build and fortify the strength of the United Nations Organisation. Under and within that world concept, we must re-create the European family in a regional structure called, it may be, the United States of Europe. The first step is to form a Council of Europe. If at first all the States of Europe are not willing or able to join the Union, we must nevertheless proceed to assemble and combine those who will and those who can. The salvation of the common people of every race and of every land from war or servitude must be established on solid foundations and must be guarded by the readiness of all men and women to die rather than submit to tyranny. In all this urgent work, France and Germany must take the lead together. Great Britain, the British Commonwealth of Nations, mighty America, and I trust Soviet Russia – for then indeed all would be well – must be the friends and sponsors of the new Europe and must champion its right to live and shine. Therefore I say to you: let Europe arise!