A Matter of History

A Matter of History
Legacy: Why do our leaders seem so small compared with the World War
II generation? Wait for the secret memos to come out, and Bush and
Blair may someday look much larger than they do now.
By Sir Martin Gilbert
Newsweek International

Issues 2005 - People often ask how history will remember our
generation of leaders in comparison with the second world war leaders
Winston Churchill and Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Many comment that
today's leaders look small compared with the giants of the past. This
is, I believe, a misconception. In their day, both Churchill and
Roosevelt were frequently criticized, often savagely, by their fellow
countrymen, including legislators who had little knowledge of the
behind-the-scenes reality of the war.

The passage of time both elevates and reduces reputations. Today there
is a cult of Churchill, particularly in the United States, but also
far greater scholarly criticism, which regards him, increasingly, as a
flawed war leader. The same is true of Roosevelt: his recent
biographers are constantly revealing—to their satisfaction, at
least—feet of clay.

Although it can easily be argued that George W. Bush and Tony Blair
face a far lesser challenge than Roosevelt and Churchill did—that the
war on terror is not a third world war—they may well, with the passage
of time and the opening of the archives, join the ranks of Roosevelt
and Churchill. Their own societies are too divided today to deliver a
calm judgment, and many of their achievements may be in the future:
when Iraq has a stable democracy, with Al Qaeda neutralized, and when
Israel and the Palestinian Authority are independent democracies,
living side by side in constructive economic cooperation. If they can
move this latter aim, to which Bush and Blair pledged themselves on
Nov. 12, it will be a leadership achievement of historic proportions.

The leadership of Churchill and Roosevelt in the second world war was
conducted in such a way that only many years after the war were its
true parameters clear. This is also true of Bush and Blair: only when
the secret telegrams and conversations become available will we really
know who did what, who influenced whom. Before the war against Saddam
Hussein, Blair's emissary Sir David Manning was flying almost weekly
to Washington, but it may be many years before we know what decisions
were reached during these journeys. Any accurate assessment of Bush
and Blair must wait, perhaps a decade or longer, until the record can
be scrutinized.

Yet some comparisons are already clear.

Controversy was never absent in the second world war, either. When
Churchill became prime minister in May 1940, he had to struggle to
overcome defeatists who urged a negotiated peace with Hitler.
Similarly, Blair overcame opposition from within his own Labour Party
to the war in Iraq, prevailing over the doubters in parliamentary
debate on the eve of the Iraq war.

President Roosevelt faced a Congress resolutely opposed to going to
war against Hitler. He used every means to circumvent America's
neutrality legislation, and to provide Britain with essential war
material (some of it by the back door, across the border to Canada).
Bush faced no such hurdle: Congress approved the overthrow of Hussein.

It would be wrong to minimize the challenges facing Blair and Bush.
"Even in miniature," Churchill oncewrote, "war is hideous and
appalling." Both men had to deploy all their persuasive skills to make
the case for overthrowing Hussein, despite the obvious evil of his
regime. Hitler's bombing of civilians, including in Warsaw, Rotterdam,
Coventry, London and Belgrade; his submarine sinking of merchant
ships, and his evil racial policies left no room for doubt as to his
nature.

Another burden Blair and Bush share with the earlier generation is
that of explaining the troubled course of the war. Between 1939 and
1945 there were many setbacks that alarmed Britain and America, among
them the Dunkirk evacuation, the Dieppe raid and the loss of the
Philippines, then an American possession. Today, the war in Iraq
continues with daily casualty lists, suicide bombings and rebel
violence.

Churchill wrote and delivered a series of now famous speeches as bombs
fell on British cities (with as many as 4,000 civilian deaths each
week). Those carefully crafted speeches gave people hope. Both Blair
and Bush also address their people in urgent appeals. Blair conveys
his sense of moral purpose in clear, articulate phrases. Bush seems
less at ease with words that, in many cases, others have crafted for
him.

In 1940, Churchill made a point of ending political warfare in
Britain. "Let pre-war hatreds die," he declared. He brought in cabinet
ministers from the opposition, and gave the most demanding wartime
tasks to the most capable. Today, Blair and Bush conduct war in
partisan terms, ensuring a vociferous opposition.

Yet they are great supporters of one another. Bush recently said at a
White House meeting with Blair: "I am a lucky person, a lucky
president, to be holding office at the same time this man holds the
prime ministership." This brings to mind Roosevelt's comment to
Churchill: "It is fun being in the same decade as you." Behind these
words are a hidden wealth of allied cooperation on the future.

Churchill and Roosevelt worked together to shape the postwar world.
The Atlantic Charter, which they both signed in August 1941, set out
the parameters of self-government, free elections and democracy for
all those nations that had been subjected to Nazi tyranny. In Iraq,
Bush and Blair have adhered to the Atlantic Charter concept. Hussein
was overthrown in order that a democratic Iraqi leader could be put in
his place, and both leaders are persevering in this task. One problem
echoes that faced by Churchill and Roosevelt: the opposition of a
powerful ally.

After the second world war, Stalin opposed the return of independent,
democratic states. By force of will and arms, he prevailed over
Churchill and Roosevelt. He used the Red Army to impose Communist
systems on eight states of Eastern and Central Europe, leaving only
Greece on the Western side. Bush and Blair confront a different
opponent: Muslim extremism, a perversion of the Islamic creed. In
November they faced, from the midst of their ally Saudi Arabia, an
edict issued by prominent religious scholars prohibiting Muslims of
Iraq from supporting military operations by American or British
forces.

A final parallel is most telling. Churchill planned a peace conference
after the war, at which he and Roosevelt could persuade the King of
Saudi Arabia to agree to the creation of a Jewish sovereign state in
Palestine. Roosevelt died and Churchill was thrown out of office
before the conference could take place. Instead of a Jewish State
being created with Arab approval, the United Nations proposed two
States, one Jewish, one Arab, with Jerusalem under international
control. The Jews accepted. The Arabs did not, and launched five
armies against the Jewish state: a failure of Arab leadership that has
led to six decades of conflict.

It may be that in our time Bush and Blair will show the leadership
needed to set the two-state solution back on track. Both are now
firmly in the political saddle. Their leadership qualities will be put
to the test in bringing the Israelis and Palestinians together in
working toward an agreement. If they succeed, they will have completed
what Churchill and Roosevelt inspired, and will, without doubt, have
sealed their place in history.

Martin Gilbert is a leading historian. Among his books are "Churchill:
A Life" and "Israel: A History."
© 2004 Newsweek, Inc.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6728160/site/newsweek/