Churchills opinions of Germans

Yeah, a couple things.

At any point in its history, a nation is apt to exhibit 'national characteristics'. That is, as a group it is apt to behave in certain somewhat distinct ways. But this is mostly, I would opine, a consequence of what might be described as historical events rather than any 'racial' characteristics of its people, i.e., anything genetically transmitted. Historic factors in this sense include, but are not limited to, the geography the country finds itself in with all its ramifications; its relations to its neighbors: have they been tranquil for several generations or has there been fighting; is its economy prospering or do its people feel that they are being left behind, especially in a way that is somehow 'unfair'; do its people identify highly with the national ethos, or do they tend to draw their identities more from their individual lives? And so on.

I think all of these and more were factors in Germany's belligerence and expansionism from about the mid-nineteenth to mid-twentieth century. And note carefully that Germany was not the only country engaged in imperialist expansion at that time. Furthermore, all countries so doing were apt to be to one degree or another fairly ruthless in that pursuit.

This is not to exonerate Germany from any horrors it might have committed during that era, but to place it in perspective.

Bear in mind that Churchill's world outlook was essentially Victorian, and that he lived through a considerable period of international turbulence which was in no small part due to the upheaval caused by the unification of Germany. OTOH Churchill said a lot of unkind things about any number of people.

Umm, I do not believe it is possible to describe Germans as a _race_, a nationality perhaps. The mention of Churchill above does not specify race either. Faced with an economic and military rival which upset the prevailing balance of power it is no great surprise to see him attributing unpleasant characteristics to them! I don't think anyone could honestly claim that all, many or even some germans are necessarily more 'cruel & ruuthless' than any other national group.

I could make some comments about this complete bu****it, but I suspect the moderators might not approve.

slander.

Funnily enough 'racism' wasn't considered a terribly big deal until the 1960s, as Churchill died in 1965 then his comments need to be placed in their historical context.

Cheers

Apart from WW2 the Germans don't have a history of cruelty or ruthlessness that is any worse than other European countries'. In fact, I would say that they have a rather less bloody history.

My mother is from a small town in Italy which was under German and then British control. There were no violent incidences whatsoever while the Germans were there but numerous ones under the Brits who were supposedly there as liberators. That's not to say the Brits are the baddies but just a point to make that cruel behaviour has nothing to do with race.

Regards, Dan

Things apparently wrong here . . .

1. There was very little 'upheaval caused by the unification of Germany,' formally completed 1871 (i.e. before Churchill was born) and in fact progressively negotiated from aboout 1835. Prussia fought three small and successful wars in order to establish itself as top dog: but the 'unification of Germany' was taken for granted by everyone including the Austrians, French, British, etc.

2. 'International turbulence' was not caused by German unification so much as the things Germany chose to do 30 years after unification (naval arms race, Agadir, taking sides in Balkan wars etc., culminating in the decision simultaneously to invade Russia and neutral Belgium, en route to Paris.)

3. The main 'Victorian outlook' of Churchill's day was that Britain and Germany had so many things obviously in common, quite apart from the kinship of their kings, that they ought to be 'natural allies.' Churchill did not maintain this 'Victorian outlook,' at least from 1914 onward, although in his last years as PM, in the 1950s, he was no less friendly to Adenauer's West German Republic than to any other country. Generally, Churchill's writings and speeches suggest he discussed other European countries in a remarkably even-handed way. If he believed Britain had any 'natural allies' they were the Commonwealth dominions overseas (yes, a typically Victorian assumption) and the USA (very much _not_ a Victorian outlook.)

4. Churchill probably maintained to the end of his life certain broad Victorian generalizations about race and culture, e.g. that Sikhs and Frenchmen were brave but possibly treacherous, Gurkhas and Canadians brave and loyal to death, Americans and Australians enterprising but naive, etc. etc. He probably also thought Scotchmen were tight-fisted (cf. Bonar Law, Ramsay Macdonald) and Welshmen plausible but untrustworthy (cf. Lloyd George). But so did contemporaries like Foch, Pershing, Hitler, FDR and the majority of human beings in Churchill's day.

Why? Don't forget the atrocities in WWI (overblown by the press, of course, but still real). If you are referring to colonial cruelty, the Germans were latecomers but still managed their share. If they have a less bloody history, it's mostly because of German disunity.

Cruel behavior has nothing to do with race. If your mother had been a fortunate escapee from a small town in Italy that had been wiped out by the Germans (and those existed), she might have had a different viewpoint on German vs. British cruelty.

Has it occurred to anyone that Churchill, as a wartime leader, and I am counting his wilderness years in this, and needed to engage in a certain amount of rhetoric in order to motivate and lead? After all, we will mobilize all available resources is a lot less inspiring that we will fight them on the beaches ect.

As for the college professor, there are a number of things people 'just know' that are wrong.

Certainly FDR and WSC were of this belief. Interestingly, Stalin dismissed FDR's comment that Hitler was insane.

Just look at the two training movies

It still goes to show that they are not a cruel and ruthless race. It's what I was trying to point out. No nation has its hands clean.

There seems to be a real problem with people paying attention to what they read on this group. Please reread what I wrote at the end of my post regarding '....Brits not being the baddies...'. Again I was trying to make the point that Germans are not a cruel and ruthless race by nature. Put the right conditions and people together and you can have cruel and ruthless behaviour.

Regarding my mother, she knows all about German cruelty as she witnessed what it did to my father. He was a 'POW' of the Germans after the armistice between Italy and the allies. But she has also seen British cruelty. Some Germans saw Canadian cruelty on the Normandy beaches, East Africans saw Italian cruelty as some Yugoslavians probably also did. Again, my point being that no nation has its hands clean.

There is something else in defense of German behaviour that does not fit the stereotype questioned by the original poster. My parents know several Italian 'POWs' who were sent to work on the farms of Germans and their experience was a positive one (under the circumstances). My father experienced acts of kindness in German camps by guards and in one case by an officer.

I hope I am not coming off as an apologist for the crimes the Germans did

Well you're gonna catch it on this one for sure! But anyway...

There are so many problems with this claim...What is character? Is the definition different for individuals and groups of people? How much of 'german character' is cultural (nurture) or inherent (nature)? Even when all of the definitions are settled, is it possible to realistically describe a group of millions of people with one concept, the idea of national character? It's hard enough to defend something like 'Many Germans thought this or that' when someone insists on pinning down numbers. It may be possible to explain Churchill's ideas (assuming they are as stated), but they cannot be defended.

Also, during my collage years in a history class my

For this we need to know what the professor's original claim was. What was the professor trying to explain using a proposed German inferiority complex?

Suppose a student in a class said, 'the second world war was caused by powerful German political leaders who believed that warfare and eventually genocide were ultimately the only solutions to the problems that Germany faced.'

One possible attack on this claim might be something like, 'no, I can show with historical documents that German political leaders made every possible attempt to negotiate peace.' If such evidence is produced, the attack is legitimate and the students claim is defeated. Very little such evidence has been produced to date.

But if the professor responds 'no, the wars were caused by aggresion fueled by a German inferiority complex,' it is a statement that belongs in the garbage can. Such 'arguments' rephrase the original claim into something easily attacked or defended successfully. Many times the rephrasing is done with an eye to introducing subjective feelings in place of objective facts. This particular statement also attacks the character of Germans, instead of addressing the original claim, with some black and white thinking and overgeneralization thrown in for good measure.

I don't know what actually happened in your case but I think the pattern is quite common in many so-called 'arguments.'

It's hard to know if you're being deliberately provacative, have no idea what you're talking about, or are just plain confused! I'll rise to the bait this once.

WWII was not about WSC being convinced about Germans being evil. It was about Hitler being evil. It was Hitler who invaded Poland, not Churchill. It was Hitler who invaded the rump of Czechoslovakia, not Churchill. It was Hitler who invaded Norway, not Churchill (Chamberlain was PM at the time). It was Hitler who invaded neutral Holland, not Churchill. It was Hitler who invaded neutral Belgium, not Churchill. It was Hitler who invaded neutral Luxembourg, not Churchill. It was Hitler who invaded France, not Churchill.

I could go on in this vein, (USSR, Greece, Yugoslavia) but I'm sure everyone else will have grasped the point by now.

Of course the Japanese were also aggressors, but it is unlikely that they would have done much against French, British and Dutch interests in SE Asia had those powers not been involved in fighting Hitler.

I am amazed at the powers you grant to Churchill. Just how did he manage to start an entire world war by himself, when he wasn't even a minister, let alone PM until the outbreak of war?

WW2 started because Hitler wanted it. Maybe not at the time it started, maybe not in the way he wanted it to start. But he knew his policies would cause war, and he accepted that.

I heartily wish you would place the blame where it belongs, and stop trying contort the truth to meet your own political/quasi-historical position, against the overwhelming weight of evidence.

Martin Clements

Not really, because this rephrases the source question as two arguments, not one: #1 = aggressive acts, #2 = sociological cause.

But the simplest factual evidence seems to sustain the professor: #1: chronology: in both WW1 and WW2 Germany (and ally Austria in WW1) took the initiative by invading neighbour countries. Germany's aggressive acts were done before those of the Western Allies. #2: In WW1 German propaganda claimed its troops were the finest in the world; so did everybody else's. In WW2 Nazi propaganda claimed German troops were racially superior to all other varieties in Europe. Either way, these do not look like an 'inferiority complex' but rather the opposite.