Prix Nobel: Pinter ou l’anti-Churchill (What a difference 50 years make!)

Je n’ai pas protesté contre la répression russe de la Révolte hongroise (…) parce que ce n’était pas nécessaire. La plupart du soi-disant monde occidental protestait déjà. Quelques uns ont fortement dénoncé le coup d’éclat de Suez, mais la plupart n’ont pas bronché. Bertrand Russell

Ce que nous savons c’est que cette folie infantile – détenir des armes nucléaires et menacer de s’en servir – est au cœur de la philosophie politique américaine actuelle. Harold Pinter (2005)

En ces jours présents, nous vivons curieusement sous le signe, on pourrait dire sous la protection, de la bombe atomique. La bombe atomique est toujours aux mains d’un État et d’une nation dont nous savons qu’ils ne l’utiliseront jamais autrement que pour la cause du droit et de la liberté. Mais il se peut aussi que d’ici quelques années, cette énorme puissance de destruction soit largement connue et répandue, et alors la catastrophe engendrée par l’emploi de la bombe atomique par des peuples en guerre, signifierait non seulement la fin de tout ce que nous nous représentons sous le mot de civilisation, mais aussi peut-être la dislocation de notre globe. Winston Churchill, 1946

Suite à notre billet du mois dernier sur la Légion d’honneur attribuée au dramaturge britannique et prix Nobel de littérature 2005 Harold Pinter, ainsi qu’accessoirement pourfendeur patenté de “l’empire [américain] du mensonge” et défenseur passionné des grands bienfaiteurs de l’humanité comme les Castro, Milosevic, Saddam, Mollah Omar, Ben Laden et autres Zawahiri, il nous a semblé intéressant, à titre de comparaison, de revenir sur un autre prix Nobel de littérature britannique il y a plus de 50 ans, celui de 1953, un certain… Churchill!

C’était l’époque où les lauréats ne lisaient pas leur propre hommage et avaient apparemment des choses à défendre.

Même si, autre prix Nobel britannique (1950), un certain Bertrand Russell avait dénoncé l’entrée de son pays dans la première guerre mondial puis Suez mais pas Budapest en bon compagnon de route et plus tard monté, avec notre Sartre national, son tristement célèbre tribunal contre les « crimes de guerre de l’armée américaine » – mais aurait-il osé traiter un Churchill de… « caniche de l’Amérique »?

Car qui peut oublier que ce maitre historien et mémorialiste (certes assisté et quelque peu porté à l’auto-glorification) mais surtout orateur hors pair (« pour la perfection avec laquelle il a présenté la matière historique et biographique ainsi que pour l’éloquence brillante avec laquelle il s’est fait le défenseur des hautes valeurs humaines », se sentit obligé d’ajouter le Comité Nobel, pour cet amateur déclaré des citations des autres: le fameux « Non offro nè paga, nè quartiere, nè provvigioni. Offro fame, sete, marce forzate, battaglie e morte » de Garibaldi) était avant tout l’un des principaux architectes de la victoire alliée sur le totalitarisme nazi et donc de la défense de la démocratie en Europe et dans le monde?

Qui peut oublier, en ces temps de défaitisme et d’esprit munichois renouvelés (comme d’étrange cécité et légèreté) face au nouveau péril du totalitarisme nazislamiste, les « I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears, and sweat » (« Je n’ai à offrir que du sang, de la peine, des larmes et de la sueur »), les « We shall never surrender » (« Nous ne nous rendrons jamais »), les « Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few » (« Jamais dans l’histoire des conflits, tant de gens n’ont dû autant à si peu »), les « Never give in. Never give in. Never, never, never, never–in nothing, great or small, large or petty–never give in, except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force. Never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy » (« N’abandonnez jamais. N’abandonnez jamais. Jamais, ô grand jamais, n’abandonnez jamais en rien, si ce n’est pour l’honneur et le bon sens. Ne cédez jamais à la force. Ne cédez jamais à l’apparente puissance de l’ennemi »), les « Democracy is the worst form of government – except for all those other forms, that have been tried from time to time » (« La démocratie est le plus mauvais système de gouvernement – à l’exception de tous les autres qui ont pu être expérimentés dans l’histoire ») ou les « You had a choice between war and dishonor and chose dishonor and still got war » (« Vous aviez à choisir entre la guerre et le déshonneur; vous avez choisi le déshonneur et vous aurez la guerre »)?

Mais qui sait encore que celui qui inspira à De Gaulle ses Mémoires de guerre (débutés un an après la publication de « The Second World War ») fut aussi le principal initiateur de la construction européenne, « une sorte d’États-Unis d’Europe » (certes sans la Grande-Bretagne mais un peu à l’image de son Commonwealth), comme le montre son fameux discours de Zürich de 1946?

Discours de Winston Churchill (Zurich, 19 septembre 1946)

Monsieur le Président,

Mesdames et Messieurs,

J’ai l’honneur aujourd’hui d’être reçu par votre vénérable université et je voudrais vous parler de la tragédie de l’Europe. Ce continent magnifique, qui comprend les parties les plus belles et les plus civilisées de la terre, qui a un climat tempéré et agréable et qui est la patrie de tous les grands peuples apparentés du monde occidental. L’Europe est aussi le berceau du christianisme et de la morale chrétienne. Elle est à l’origine de la plus grande partie de la culture, des arts, de la philosophie et de la science du passé et du présent. Si l’Europe pouvait s’unir pour jouir de cet héritage commun, il n’y aurait pas de limite à son bonheur, à sa prospérité, à sa gloire, dont jouiraient ses 300 ou 400 millions d’habitants. En revanche, c’est aussi d’Europe qu’est partie cette série de guerres nationalistes épouvantables déclenchées par les Teutons dans leur course à la puissance et que nous avons vus au XXe siècle. La paix a été ainsi troublée et les espérances de l’humanité entière réduites à néant.

Et qu’est-il advenu dans tout cela de l’Europe ? Quelques petits États ont atteint une certaine prospérité, mais de vastes régions de l’Europe offrent l’aspect d’une masse d’êtres humains torturés, affamés, sanglotants et malheureux, qui vivent dans les ruines de leurs villes et de leurs maisons et voient se former un nouvel amoncellement de nuages, de tyrannie et de terreur qui obscurcissent le ciel à l’approche de nouveaux dangers. Parmi les vainqueurs, c’est un brouhaha de voix ; chez les vaincus : silence et désespoir. Voilà tout ce que la race allemande a atteint en allant répandre au loin la terreur. La grande république au-delà de l’Atlantique a compris avec le temps que la ruine ou l’esclavage de l’Europe mettrait en jeu son propre destin et elle a alors avancé une main secourable faute de quoi les âges sombres seraient revenus avec toutes leurs horreurs. Ces horreurs, Messieurs, peuvent encore se répéter.

Mais il y a un remède ; s’il était accepté par la grande majorité de la population de plusieurs États, comme par miracle toute la scène serait transformée, et en quelques années l’Europe, ou pour le moins la majeure partie du continent, vivrait aussi libre et heureuse que les Suisses le sont aujourd’hui. En quoi consiste ce remède souverain ? Il consiste à reconstituer la famille européenne, ou tout au moins la plus grande partie possible de la famille européenne, puis de dresser un cadre de telle manière qu’elle puisse se développer dans la paix, la sécurité et la liberté. Nous devons ériger quelque chose comme les États-Unis d’Europe. C’est la voie pour que des centaines de millions d’êtres humains aient la possibilité de s’accorder ces petites joies et ces espoirs qui font que la vie vaut la peine d’être vécue. On peut y arriver d’une manière fort simple. Il suffit de la résolution des centaines de millions d’hommes et de femmes de faire le bien au lieu du mal, pour récolter alors la bénédiction au lieu de la malédiction.

Mesdames, Messieurs, l’Union paneuropéenne a fait beaucoup pour arriver à ce but et ce mouvement doit beaucoup au comte Coudenhove-Kalergi et à ce grand patriote et homme d’État français que fut Aristide Briand. Il y a eu aussi cet immense corps de doctrine et de procédure, qui fut créé après la première guerre et à laquelle s’attachèrent tant d’espoirs, je veux parler de la Société des Nations. Si la Société des Nations n’a pas connu le succès, ce n’est pas parce que ses principes firent défaut, mais bien du fait que les États qui l’avaient fondée ont renoncé à ces principes. Elle a échoué parce que les gouvernements d’alors n’osèrent pas regarder les choses en face. Il ne faut pas que ce malheur se répète. Nous avons maintenant davantage d’expérience, acquise à un prix amer, pour continuer de bâtir.

C’est avec une profonde satisfaction que j’ai lu dans la presse, il y a deux jours, que mon ami le président Truman avait fait part de son intérêt et de sa sympathie pour ce plan grandiose. Il n’y a aucune raison pour que l’organisation de l’Europe entre en conflit d’une manière quelconque avec l’Organisation mondiale des Nations unies. Au contraire, je crois que l’organisation générale ne peut subsister que si elle s’appuie sur des groupements naturellement forgés. Il existe déjà un tel groupement d’États dans l’hémisphère occidental. Nous autres Britanniques, nous avons le Commonwealth. L’organisation du monde ne s’en trouve pas affaiblie, mais au contraire renforcée et elle y trouve en réalité ses maîtres piliers. Et pourquoi n’y aurait-il pas un groupement européen qui donnerait à des peuples éloignés l’un de l’autre le sentiment d’un patriotisme plus large et d’une sorte de nationalité commune ? Et pourquoi un groupement européen ne devrait-il pas occuper la place qui lui revient au milieu des autres grands groupements et contribuer à diriger la barque de l’humanité ? Afin de pouvoir atteindre ce but, il faut que les millions de familles collaborent sciemment et soient animées de la foi nécessaire, quelle que puisse être la langue de leurs pères.

Nous savons tous que les deux guerres mondiales que nous avons vécues sont nées des efforts vaniteux de l’Allemagne nouvellement unie de jouer un rôle dominateur dans le monde. La dernière guerre a été marquée par des crimes et des massacres tels qu’il faut remonter jusqu’à l’invasion des Mongols, au XIVe siècle, pour trouver quelque chose d’approchant, et tels aussi que l’histoire de l’humanité n’en avait encore jamais connu jusqu’alors. Le coupable doit être châtié. Il faut mettre l’Allemagne dans l’impossibilité de s’armer à nouveau et de déclencher une nouvelle guerre d’agression. Quand cela sera chose faite, et cela le sera, il faudra que se produise ce que Gladstone nommait jadis « l’acte béni de l’oubli ». Nous devons tous tourner le dos aux horreurs du passé et porter nos regards vers l’avenir. Nous ne pouvons pas continuer de porter dans les années à venir la haine et le désir de vengeance tels qu’ils sont nés des injustices passées. Si l’on veut préserver l’Europe d’une misère sans nom, il faut faire place à la foi en la famille européenne et oublier toutes les folies et tous les crimes du passé. Les peuples libres de l’Europe pourront-ils se hisser au niveau de cette décision ? S’ils en sont capables, les injustices causées seront partout lavées par la somme de misères endurées. L’agonie doit-elle se prolonger ? La seule leçon de l’histoire est-elle que l’humanité est fermée à tout enseignement ? Faisons place à la justice et à la liberté. Les peuples n’ont qu’à le vouloir pour que leurs espoirs se réalisent.

J’en viens maintenant à une déclaration qui va vous étonner. Le premier pas vers une nouvelle formation de la famille européenne doit consister à faire de la France et de l’Allemagne des partenaires. Seul, ce moyen peut permettre à la France de reprendre la conduite de l’Europe. On ne peut pas s’imaginer une renaissance de l’Europe sans une France intellectuellement grande et sans une Allemagne intellectuellement grande. Si l’on veut mener à bien sincèrement l’œuvre de construction des États-Unis d’Europe, leur structure devra être conçue de telle sorte que la puissance matérielle de chaque État sera sans importance. Les petits pays compteront autant que les grands et s’assureront le respect par leur contribution à la cause commune. Il se peut que les anciens États et les principautés de l’Allemagne, réunis dans un système fédératif avec leur accord réciproque, viennent occuper leur place au sein des États-Unis d’Europe. Je ne veux pas essayer d’élaborer dans le détail un programme pour les centaines de millions d’êtres humains qui veulent vivre heureux et libres, à l’abri du besoin et du danger, qui désirent jouir des quatre libertés dont parlait le grand président Roosevelt et qui demandent à vivre conformément aux principes de la Charte de l’Atlantique. Si tel est leur désir, ils n’ont qu’à le dire et l’on trouvera certainement les moyens d’exaucer pleinement ce voeu.

Mais j’aimerais lancer un avertissement. Nous n’avons pas beaucoup de temps devant nous. Nous vivons aujourd’hui un moment de répit. Les canons ont cessé de cracher la mitraille et le combat a pris fin, mais les dangers n’ont pas disparu. Si nous voulons créer les États-Unis d’Europe, ou quelque nom qu’on leur donne, il nous faut commencer maintenant.

En ces jours présents, nous vivons curieusement sous le signe, on pourrait dire sous la protection, de la bombe atomique. La bombe atomique est toujours aux mains d’un État et d’une nation dont nous savons qu’ils ne l’utiliseront jamais autrement que pour la cause du droit et de la liberté. Mais il se peut aussi que d’ici quelques années, cette énorme puissance de destruction soit largement connue et répandue, et alors la catastrophe engendrée par l’emploi de la bombe atomique par des peuples en guerre, signifierait non seulement la fin de tout ce que nous nous représentons sous le mot de civilisation, mais aussi peut-être la dislocation de notre globe.

Je veux maintenant formuler ces propositions devant vous. Il faut que notre but permanent soit d’accroître et de renforcer la puissance de l’Organisation des nations unies. Il nous faut re-créer la famille européenne en la dotant d’une structure régionale placée sous cette organisation mondiale, et cette famille pourra alors s’appeler les États-Unis d’Europe. Le premier pas pratique dans cette voie prendra la forme d’un Conseil de l’Europe. Si, au début, tous les États européens ne veulent ou ne peuvent pas adhérer à l’Union européenne, nous devrons néanmoins réunir les pays qui le désirent et le peuvent. Le salut de l’homme quelconque de toute race et de tout pays, ainsi que sa préservation de la guerre ou de l’esclavage, ont besoin de fondements solides et de la volonté de tous les hommes et de toutes les femmes de mourir plutôt que de se soumettre à la tyrannie. En vue de cette tâche impérieuse, la France et l’Allemagne doivent se réconcilier ; la Grande-Bretagne, le Commonwealth des nations britanniques, la puissante Amérique, et, je l’espère, la Russie soviétique – car tout serait alors résolu – doivent être les amis et les protecteurs de la nouvelle Europe et défendre son droit à la vie et à la prospérité.

Et c’est dans cet esprit que je vous dis :
Que l’Europe ressuscite !

Speech by Winston Churchill (Zurich, 19 September 1946)

I wish to speak about the tragedy of Europe, this noble continent, the home of all the great parent races of the Western world, the foundation of Christian faith and ethics, 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, prosperity and glory which its 300 million or 400 million people would enjoy. Yet it is from Europe that has sprung that series of frightful nationalistic quarrels, originated by the Teutonic nations in their rise to power, which we have seen in this 20th century and in our own lifetime wreck the peace and mar the prospects of all mankind.

What is this plight to which Europe has been reduced? Some of the smaller states have indeed made a good recovery, but over wide areas are a vast, quivering mass of tormented, hungry, careworn and bewildered human beings, who wait in the ruins of their cities and homes and scan the dark horizons for the approach of some new form of tyranny or terror. Among the victors there is a Babel of voices, among the vanquished the sullen silence of despair. That is all that Europeans, grouped in so many ancient states and nations, and that is all that the Germanic races 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 realised that the ruin or enslavement of Europe would involve her own fate as well, and 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 by the great majority of people in many lands, would as 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 happy as Switzerland is today. What is this sovereign remedy? It is to recreate the European fabric, or as much of it as we can, and to provide it with a structure under which it can dwell in peace, safety and 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 to 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 the famous French patriot and statesman Aristide Briand. There is also that immense body which was brought into being amidst high hopes after the First World War — the League of Nations. The League did not fail because of its principles or conceptions. It failed because those principles were deserted by those states which brought it into being, because the governments of those states 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, dearly bought experience to spur.

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 can only survive if it is founded upon broad 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 mighty continent? And why should it not take its rightful place with other great groupings and help to shape the honourable destiny of man? In order that this may be accomplished there must be an act of faith in which the 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 Germany to play a dominating part in the world. In this last struggle crimes and massacres have been committed for which there is no parallel since the Mongol invasion of the 13th century, 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 and look to the future. We cannot afford to drag forward across the years to come 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 this act of faith in the European family, this act of oblivion against all crimes and follies of the past. Can the peoples of Europe rise to the heights of the soul and of the instinct and spirit of man? If they could, the wrongs and injuries which have been inflicted would have been washed away on all sides by the miseries which have been endured. Is there any need for further floods of agony? Is the only lesson of history to be that mankind is unteachable? Let there be justice, mercy and freedom. The peoples have only to will it and all will achieve their heart’s 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 and cultural 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 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 a contribution to the common cause. The ancient States and principalities of Germany, freely joined for mutual convenience in a federal system, might take their individual places among the United States of Europe.

But I must give you warning, time may be short. At present there is a breathing space. The cannons have ceased firing. The fighting has stopped. But the dangers have not stopped. If we are to form a United States of Europe, or whatever name it may take, we must begin now. In these present days we dwell strangely and precariously under the shield, and I even say protection, of the atomic bomb. The atomic bomb is still only in the hands of a 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 that 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 now sum up the propositions which are before you. Our constant aim must be to build and fortify 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, and the first practical step will be to form a Council of Europe. If at first all the States of Europe are not willing or able to join a union we must nevertheless proceed to assemble and combine those who will and who can. The salvation of the common people of every race and every land from war and servitude must be established on solid foundations, and must be created by the readiness of all men and women to die rather than to submit to tyranny. In this urgent work France and Germany must take the lead together. Great Britain, the British Commonwealth of Nations, mighty America ‚Äî and, I trust, Soviet Russia, for then indeed all would be well ‚Äî must be the friends and sponsors of the new Europe and must champion its right to live. Therefore I say to you ‚ « Let Europe arise! »

Voir aussi le discours de présentation d’un membre de l’Académie suédoise:
The Nobel Prize in Literature 1953
Presentation Speech

Presentation Speech by S. Siwertz, Member of the Swedish Academy

Very seldom have great statesmen and warriors also been great writers. One thinks of Julius Caesar, Marcus Aurelius, and even Napoleon, whose letters to Josephine during the first Italian campaign certainly have passion and splendour. But the man who can most readily be compared with Sir Winston Churchill is Disraeli, who also was a versatile author. It can be said of Disraeli as Churchill says of Rosebery, that «he flourished in an age of great men and small events». He was never subjected to any really dreadful ordeals. His writing was partly a political springboard, partly an emotional safety valve. Through a series of romantic and self-revealing novels, at times rather difficult to read, he avenged himself for the humiliation and setbacks that he, the Jewish stranger in an England ruled by aristocrats, suffered despite his fantastic career. He was not a great writer but a great actor, who played his leading part dazzlingly. He could very well repeat Augustus’ words of farewell: «Applaud, my friends, the comedy is over!»

Churchill’s John Bull profile stands out effectively against the elder statesman’s chalk-white, exotic mask with the black lock of hair on the forehead. The conservative Disraeli revered the English way of life and tradition which Churchill, radical in many respects, has in his blood, including steadfastness in the midst of the storm and the resolute impetus which marks both word and deed. He wears no mask, shows no sign of cleavage, has no complex, enigmatic nature. The analytical morbidezza, without which the modern generation finds it hard to imagine an author, is foreign to him. He is a man for whom reality’s block has not fallen apart. There, simply, lies the world with its roads and goals under the sun, the stars, and the banners. His prose is just as conscious of the goal and the glory as a runner in the stadium. His every word is half a deed. He is heart and soul a late Victorian who has been buffeted by the gale, or rather one who chose of his own accord to breast the storm.

Churchill’s political and literary achievements are of such magnitude that one is tempted to resort to portray him as a Caesar who also has the gift of Cicero’s pen. Never before has one of history’s leading figures been so close to us by virtue of such an outstanding combination. In his great work about his ancestor, Marlborough, Churchill writes, «Words are easy and many, while great deeds are difficult and rare.» Yes, but great, living, and persuasive words are also difficult and rare. And Churchill has shown that they too can take on the character of great deeds.

It is the exciting and colourful side of Churchill’s writing which perhaps first strikes the reader. Besides much else, My Early Life (1930) is also one of the world’s most entertaining adventure stories. Even a very youthful mind can follow with the keenest pleasure the hero’s spirited start in life as a problem child in school, as a polo-playing lieutenant in the cavalry (he was considered too dense for the infantry), and as a war correspondent in Cuba, in the Indian border districts, in the Sudan, and in South Africa during the Boer War. Rapid movement, undaunted judgments, and a lively perception distinguish him even here. As a word-painter the young Churchill has not only verve but visual acuteness. Later he took up painting as a hobby, and in Thoughts and Adventures (1932) discourses charmingly on the joy it has given him. He loves brilliant colours and feels sorry for the poor brown ones. Nevertheless, Churchill paints better with words. His battle scenes have a matchless colouring. Danger is man’s oldest mistress and in the heat of action the young officer was fired to an almost visionary clear-sightedness. On a visit to Omdurman many years ago I discovered how the final struggle in the crushing of the Mahdi’s rebellion, as it is depicted in The River War (1899), was branded on my memory. I could see in front of me the dervish hordes brandishing their spears and guns, the ochre-yellow sand ramparts shot to pieces, the Anglo-Egyptian troops’ methodical advance, and the cavalry charge which nearly cost Churchill his life.

Even old battles which must be dug out of dusty archives are described by Churchill with awesome clarity. Trevelyan masterfully depicts Marlborough’s campaigns, but in illusory power it is doubtful that Churchill’s historic battle scenes can be surpassed. Take, for instance, the Battle of Blenheim. One follows in fascination the moves of the bloody chess game, one sees the cannon balls plough their furrows through the compact squares, one is carried away by the thundering charge and fierce hand-to-hand fighting of the cavalry; and after putting the book down one can waken in the night in a cold sweat, imagining he is right in the front rank of English redcoats who, without wavering, stand among the piles of dead and wounded loading their rifles and firing their flashing salvoes.

But Churchill became far more than a soldier and a delineator of war. Even in the strict but brilliant school of the parliamentary gamble for power he was, perhaps from the outset, something of a problem child. The young Hotspur learned, however, to bridle his impetuosity, and he quickly developed into an eminent political orator with the same gift of repartee as Lloyd George. His sallies, often severe, excluded neither warmth nor chivalry. In his alternation between Toryism and radicalism, he followed in the footsteps of his father, Lord Randolph Churchill. He has also portrayed the latter’s short, uneasy, tragically interrupted political and personal life in a work which has an undisputed place of honour in England’s profuse biographical literature.

Even the First World War, despite all setbacks, meant a vast expansion for Churchill as both politician and writer. In his historical works the personal and the factual elements have been intimately blended. He knows what he is talking about. In gauging the dynamics of events, his profound experience is unmistakable. He is the man who has himself been through the fire, taken risks, and withstood extreme pressure. This gives his words a vibrating power. Occasionally, perhaps, the personal side gets the upper hand. Balfour called The World Crisis (1923-29) «Winston’s brilliant autobiography, disguised as world history.» With all due respect to archives and documents, there is something special about history written by a man who has himself helped to make it.

In his great book on the Duke of Marlborough (1933-38), whose life’s work is so similar to Churchill’s own, he makes an intrepid attack on his ancestor’s detractors. I do not know what professional historians say of his polemic against Macaulay, but these diatribes against the great general’s persistent haters and revilers are certainly diverting and temperamental.

The Marlborough book is not only a series of vivid battle scenes and a skillful defence of the statesman and warrior. It is also a penetrating study of an enigmatic and unique personality; it shows that Churchill, in addition to all else, is capable of real character-drawing. He returns again and again to the confusing mixture in Marlborough of methodical niggardliness and dazzling virtuosity: «His private fortune was amassed», he says, «upon the same principles as marked the staff-work of his campaigns, and was a part of the same design. It was only in love or on the battlefield that he took all risks. In these supreme exaltations he was swept from his system and rule of living, and blazed resplendent with the heroic virtues. In his marriage and in his victories the worldly prudence, the calculation, the reinsurance, which regulated his ordinary life and sustained his strategy, fell from him like a too heavily embroidered cloak, and the genius within sprang forth in sure and triumphant command.» In his military enthusiasm Churchill forgets for a moment that Marlborough’s famous and dearly loved Sarah was by no means one to let herself be ordered about. But it is a wonderful passage.

Churchill regretted that he had never been able to study at Oxford. He had to devote his leisure hours to educating himself. But there are certainly no educational gaps noticeable in his mature prose. Take, for example, Great Contemporaries (1937), one of his most charming books. He is said to have moulded his style on Gibbon, Burke, and Macaulay, but here he is supremely himself What a deft touch and at the same time what a fund of human knowledge, generosity, and gay malice are in this portrait gallery!

Churchill’s reaction to Bernard Shaw is very amusing, a piquant meeting between two of England’s greatest literary personalities. Churchill cannot resist poking fun at Shaw’s blithely irresponsible talk and flippancy, which contrasted with the latter’s fundamental gravity. Half amused, half appalled, he winces at the way in which the incorrigibly clowning genius was forever tripping himself up and turning somersaults between the most extreme antitheses. It is the contrast between the writer, who must at all costs create surprises, and the statesman, whose task it is to meet and master them.

It is not easy to sum up briefly the greatness of Churchill’s style. He says of his old friend, the Liberal statesman, John Morley, «Though in conversation he paraded and manœuvred nimbly and elegantly around his own convictions, offering his salutations and the gay compliments of old-time war to the other side, [he] always returned to his fortified camp to sleep.» As a stylist Churchill himself, despite his mettlesome chivalry, is not prone to such amiable arabesques. He does not beat about the bush, but is a man of plain speaking. His fervour is realistic, his striking – power is tempered only by broad-mindedness and humour. He knows that a good story tells itself. He scorns unnecessary frills and his metaphors are rare but expressive.

Behind Churchill the writer is Churchill the orator – hence the resilience and pungency of his phrases. We often characterize ourselves unconsciously through the praise we give others. Churchill, for instance, says of another of his friends, Lord Birkenhead, «As he warmed to his subject, there grew that glow of conviction and appeal, instinctive and priceless, which constitutes true eloquence.» The words might with greater justification have been said of Churchill himself.

The famous desert warrior, Lawrence of Arabia, the author of The Seven Pillars of Wisdom, is another who has both made and written history. Of him Churchill says, «Just as an aeroplane only flies by its speed and pressure against the air, so he flew best and easiest in the hurricane.» It is again striking how Churchill here too speaks of the same genius that carried his own words through the storm of events.

Churchill’s mature oratory is swift, unerring in its aim, and moving in its grandeur. There is the power which forges the links of history. Napoleon’s proclamations were often effective in their lapidary style. But Churchill’s eloquence in the fateful hours of freedom and human dignity was heart-stirring in quite another way. With his great speeches he has, perhaps, himself erected his most enduring monument.

Lady Churchill – The Swedish Academy expresses its joy at your presence and asks you to convey to Sir Winston a greeting of deep respect. A literary prize is intended to cast lustre over the author, but here it is the author who gives lustre to the prize. I ask you now to accept, on behalf of your husband, the 1953 Nobel Prize in Literature from the hands of His Majesty the King.

From Nobel Lectures, Literature 1901-1967, Editor Horst Frenz, Elsevier Publishing Company, Amsterdam, 1969

Winston Churchill
The Nobel Prize in Literature 1953
Biography

The Right Honourable Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill (1874-1965), the son of Lord Randolph Churchill and an American mother, was educated at Harrow and Sandhurst. After a brief but eventful career in the army, he became a Conservative Member of Parliament in 1900. He held many high posts in Liberal and Conservative governments during the first three decades of the century. At the outbreak of the Second World War, he was appointed First Lord of the Admiralty – a post which he had earlier held from 1911 to 1915. In May, 1940, he became Prime Minister and Minister of Defence and remained in office until 1945. He took over the premiership again in the Conservative victory of 1951 and resigned in 1955. However, he remained a Member of Parliament until the general election of 1964, when he did not seek re-election. Queen Elizabeth II conferred on Churchill the dignity of Knighthood and invested him with the insignia of the Order of the Garter in 1953. Among the other countless honours and decorations he received, special mention should be made of the honorary citizenship of the United States which President Kennedy conferred on him in 1963.

Churchill’s literary career began with campaign reports: The Story of the Malakand Field Force (1898) and The River War (1899), an account of the campaign in the Sudan and the Battle of Omdurman. In 1900, he published his only novel, Savrola, and, six years later, his first major work, the biography of his father, Lord Randolph Churchill. His other famous biography, the life of his great ancestor, the Duke of Marlborough, was published in four volumes between 1933 and 1938. Churchill’s history of the First World War appeared in four volumes under the title of The World Crisis (1923-29); his memoirs of the Second World War ran to six volumes (1948-1953/54). After his retirement from office, Churchill wrote a History of the English-speaking Peoples (4 vols., 1956-58). His magnificent oratory survives in a dozen volumes of speeches, among them The Unrelenting Struggle (1942), The Dawn of Liberation (1945), and Victory (1946).

Churchill, a gifted amateur painter, wrote Painting as a Pastime (1948). An autobiographical account of his youth, My Early Life, appeared in 1930.

From Nobel Lectures, Literature 1901-1967, Editor Horst Frenz, Elsevier Publishing Company, Amsterdam, 1969.

This autobiography/biography was first published in the book series Les Prix Nobel. It was later edited and republished in Nobel Lectures. To cite this document, always state the source as shown above.

Winston Churchill died on January 24, 1965.

Voir enfin son fameux discours de juin 40:

We Shall Fight on the Beaches
June 4, 1940
House of Commons

The position of the B. E.F had now become critical. As a result of a most skillfully conducted retreat and German errors, the bulk of the British Forces reached the Dunkirk bridgehead. The peril facing the British nation was now suddenly and universally perceived. On May 26, « Operation Dynamo « –the evacuation from Dunkirk began. The seas remained absolutely calm. The Royal Air Force–bitterly maligned at the time by the Army–fought vehemently to deny the enemy the total air supremacy which would have wrecked the operation. At the outset, it was hoped that 45,000 men might be evacuated; in the event, over 338,000 Allied troops reached England, including 26,000 French soldiers. On June 4, Churchill reported to the House of Commons, seeking to check the mood of national euphoria and relief at the unexpected deliverance, and to make a clear appeal to the United States.

From the moment that the French defenses at Sedan and on the Meuse were broken at the end of the second week of May, only a rapid retreat to Amiens and the south could have saved the British and French Armies who had entered Belgium at the appeal of the Belgian King; but this strategic fact was not immediately realized. The French High Command hoped they would be able to close the gap, and the Armies of the north were under their orders. Moreover, a retirement of this kind would have involved almost certainly the destruction of the fine Belgian Army of over 20 divisions and the abandonment of the whole of Belgium. Therefore, when the force and scope of the German penetration were realized and when a new French Generalissimo, General Weygand, assumed command in place of General Gamelin, an effort was made by the French and British Armies in Belgium to keep on holding the right hand of the Belgians and to give their own right hand to a newly created French Army which was to have advanced across the Somme in great strength to grasp it.

However, the German eruption swept like a sharp scythe around the right and rear of the Armies of the north. Eight or nine armored divisions, each of about four hundred armored vehicles of different kinds, but carefully assorted to be complementary and divisible into small self-contained units, cut off all communications between us and the main French Armies. It severed our own communications for food and ammunition, which ran first to Amiens and afterwards through Abbeville, and it shore its way up the coast to Boulogne and Calais, and almost to Dunkirk. Behind this armored and mechanized onslaught came a number of German divisions in lorries, and behind them again there plodded comparatively slowly the dull brute mass of the ordinary German Army and German people, always so ready to be led to the trampling down in other lands of liberties and comforts which they have never known in their own.

I have said this armored scythe-stroke almost reached Dunkirk-almost but not quite. Boulogne and Calais were the scenes of desperate fighting. The Guards defended Boulogne for a while and were then withdrawn by orders from this country. The Rifle Brigade, the 60th Rifles, and the Queen Victoria’s Rifles, with a battalion of British tanks and 1,000 Frenchmen, in all about four thousand strong, defended Calais to the last. The British Brigadier was given an hour to surrender. He spurned the offer, and four days of intense street fighting passed before silence reigned over Calais, which marked the end of a memorable resistance. Only 30 unwounded survivors were brought off by the Navy, and we do not know the fate of their comrades. Their sacrifice, however, was not in vain. At least two armored divisions, which otherwise would have been turned against the British Expeditionary Force, had to be sent to overcome them. They have added another page to the glories of the light divisions, and the time gained enabled the Graveline water lines to be flooded and to be held by the French troops.

Thus it was that the port of Dunkirk was kept open. When it was found impossible for the Armies of the north to reopen their communications to Amiens with the main French Armies, only one choice remained. It seemed, indeed, forlorn. The Belgian, British and French Armies were almost surrounded. Their sole line of retreat was to a single port and to its neighboring beaches. They were pressed on every side by heavy attacks and far outnumbered in the air.

When, a week ago today, I asked the House to fix this afternoon as the occasion for a statement, I feared it would be my hard lot to announce the greatest military disaster in our long history. I thought-and some good judges agreed with me-that perhaps 20,000 or 30,000 men might be re-embarked. But it certainly seemed that the whole of the French First Army and the whole of the British Expeditionary Force north of the Amiens-Abbeville gap would be broken up in the open field or else would have to capitulate for lack of food and ammunition. These were the hard and heavy tidings for which I called upon the House and the nation to prepare themselves a week ago. The whole root and core and brain of the British Army, on which and around which we were to build, and are to build, the great British Armies in the later years of the war, seemed about to perish upon the field or to be led into an ignominious and starving captivity.

That was the prospect a week ago. But another blow which might well have proved final was yet to fall upon us. The King of the Belgians had called upon us to come to his aid. Had not this Ruler and his Government severed themselves from the Allies, who rescued their country from extinction in the late war, and had they not sought refuge in what was proved to be a fatal neutrality, the French and British Armies might well at the outset have saved not only Belgium but perhaps even Poland. Yet at the last moment, when Belgium was already invaded, King Leopard called upon us to come to his aid, and even at the last moment we came. He and his brave, efficient Army, nearly half a million strong, guarded our left flank and thus kept open our only line of retreat to the sea. Suddenly, without prior consultation, with the least possible notice, without the advice of his Ministers and upon his own personal act, he sent a plenipotentiary to the German Command, surrendered his Army, and exposed our whole flank and means of retreat.

I asked the House a week ago to suspend its judgment because the facts were not clear, but I do not feel that any reason now exists why we should not form our own opinions upon this pitiful episode. The surrender of the Belgian Army compelled the British at the shortest notice to cover a flank to the sea more than 30 miles in length. Otherwise all would have been cut off, and all would have shared the fate to which King Leopold had condemned the finest Army his country had ever formed. So in doing this and in exposing this flank, as anyone who followed the operations on the map will see, contact was lost between the British and two out of the three corps forming the First French Army, who were still farther from the coast than we were, and it seemed impossible that any large number of Allied troops could reach the coast.

The enemy attacked on all sides with great strength and fierceness, and their main power, the power of their far more numerous Air Force, was thrown into the battle or else concentrated upon Dunkirk and the beaches. Pressing in upon the narrow exit, both from the east and from the west, the enemy began to fire with cannon upon the beaches by which alone the shipping could approach or depart. They sowed magnetic mines in the channels and seas; they sent repeated waves of hostile aircraft, sometimes more than a hundred strong in one formation, to cast their bombs upon the single pier that remained, and upon the sand dunes upon which the troops had their eyes for shelter. Their U-boats, one of which was sunk, and their motor launches took their toll of the vast traffic which now began. For four or five days an intense struggle reigned. All their armored divisions-or what Was left of them-together with great masses of infantry and artillery, hurled themselves in vain upon the ever-narrowing, ever-contracting appendix within which the British and French Armies fought.

Meanwhile, the Royal Navy, with the willing help of countless merchant seamen, strained every nerve to embark the British and Allied troops; 220 light warships and 650 other vessels were engaged. They had to operate upon the difficult coast, often in adverse weather, under an almost ceaseless hail of bombs and an increasing concentration of artillery fire. Nor were the seas, as I have said, themselves free from mines and torpedoes. It was in conditions such as these that our men carried on, with little or no rest, for days and nights on end, making trip after trip across the dangerous waters, bringing with them always men whom they had rescued. The numbers they have brought back are the measure of their devotion and their courage. The hospital ships, which brought off many thousands of British and French wounded, being so plainly marked were a special target for Nazi bombs; but the men and women on board them never faltered in their duty.

Meanwhile, the Royal Air Force, which had already been intervening in the battle, so far as its range would allow, from home bases, now used part of its main metropolitan fighter strength, and struck at the German bombers and at the fighters which in large numbers protected them. This struggle was protracted and fierce. Suddenly the scene has cleared, the crash and thunder has for the moment-but only for the moment-died away. A miracle of deliverance, achieved by valor, by perseverance, by perfect discipline, by faultless service, by resource, by skill, by unconquerable fidelity, is manifest to us all. The enemy was hurled back by the retreating British and French troops. He was so roughly handled that he did not hurry their departure seriously. The Royal Air Force engaged the main strength of the German Air Force, and inflicted upon them losses of at least four to one; and the Navy, using nearly 1,000 ships of all kinds, carried over 335,000 men, French and British, out of the jaws of death and shame, to their native land and to the tasks which lie immediately ahead. We must be very careful not to assign to this deliverance the attributes of a victory. Wars are not won by evacuations. But there was a victory inside this deliverance, which should be noted. It was gained by the Air Force. Many of our soldiers coming back have not seen the Air Force at work; they saw only the bombers which escaped its protective attack. They underrate its achievements. I have heard much talk of this; that is why I go out of my way to say this. I will tell you about it.

This was a great trial of strength between the British and German Air Forces. Can you conceive a greater objective for the Germans in the air than to make evacuation from these beaches impossible, and to sink all these ships which were displayed, almost to the extent of thousands? Could there have been an objective of greater military importance and significance for the whole purpose of the war than this? They tried hard, and they were beaten back; they were frustrated in their task. We got the Army away; and they have paid fourfold for any losses which they have inflicted. Very large formations of German aeroplanes-and we know that they are a very brave race-have turned on several occasions from the attack of one-quarter of their number of the Royal Air Force, and have dispersed in different directions. Twelve aeroplanes have been hunted by two. One aeroplane was driven into the water and cast away by the mere charge of a British aeroplane, which had no more ammunition. All of our types-the Hurricane, the Spitfire and the new Defiant-and all our pilots have been vindicated as superior to what they have at present to face.

When we consider how much greater would be our advantage in defending the air above this Island against an overseas attack, I must say that I find in these facts a sure basis upon which practical and reassuring thoughts may rest. I will pay my tribute to these young airmen. The great French Army was very largely, for the time being, cast back and disturbed by the onrush of a few thousands of armored vehicles. May it not also be that the cause of civilization itself will be defended by the skill and devotion of a few thousand airmen? There never has been, I suppose, in all the world, in all the history of war, such an opportunity for youth. The Knights of the Round Table, the Crusaders, all fall back into the past-not only distant but prosaic; these young men, going forth every morn to guard their native land and all that we stand for, holding in their hands these instruments of colossal and shattering power, of whom it may be said that

Every morn brought forth a noble chance
And every chance brought forth a noble knight,

deserve our gratitude, as do all the brave men who, in so many ways and on so many occasions, are ready, and continue ready to give life and all for their native land.

I return to the Army. In the long series of very fierce battles, now on this front, now on that, fighting on three fronts at once, battles fought by two or three divisions against an equal or somewhat larger number of the enemy, and fought fiercely on some of the old grounds that so many of us knew so well-in these battles our losses in men have exceeded 30,000 killed, wounded and missing. I take occasion to express the sympathy of the House to all who have suffered bereavement or who are still anxious. The President of the Board of Trade [Sir Andrew Duncan] is not here today. His son has been killed, and many in the House have felt the pangs of affliction in the sharpest form. But I will say this about the missing: We have had a large number of wounded come home safely to this country, but I would say about the missing that there may be very many reported missing who will come back home, some day, in one way or another. In the confusion of this fight it is inevitable that many have been left in positions where honor required no further resistance from them.

Against this loss of over 30,000 men, we can set a far heavier loss certainly inflicted upon the enemy. But our losses in material are enormous. We have perhaps lost one-third of the men we lost in the opening days of the battle of 21st March, 1918, but we have lost nearly as many guns — nearly one thousand-and all our transport, all the armored vehicles that were with the Army in the north. This loss will impose a further delay on the expansion of our military strength. That expansion had not been proceeding as far as we had hoped. The best of all we had to give had gone to the British Expeditionary Force, and although they had not the numbers of tanks and some articles of equipment which were desirable, they were a very well and finely equipped Army. They had the first-fruits of all that our industry had to give, and that is gone. And now here is this further delay. How long it will be, how long it will last, depends upon the exertions which we make in this Island. An effort the like of which has never been seen in our records is now being made. Work is proceeding everywhere, night and day, Sundays and week days. Capital and Labor have cast aside their interests, rights, and customs and put them into the common stock. Already the flow of munitions has leaped forward. There is no reason why we should not in a few months overtake the sudden and serious loss that has come upon us, without retarding the development of our general program.

Nevertheless, our thankfulness at the escape of our Army and so many men, whose loved ones have passed through an agonizing week, must not blind us to the fact that what has happened in France and Belgium is a colossal military disaster. The French Army has been weakened, the Belgian Army has been lost, a large part of those fortified lines upon which so much faith had been reposed is gone, many valuable mining districts and factories have passed into the enemy’s possession, the whole of the Channel ports are in his hands, with all the tragic consequences that follow from that, and we must expect another blow to be struck almost immediately at us or at France. We are told that Herr Hitler has a plan for invading the British Isles. This has often been thought of before. When Napoleon lay at Boulogne for a year with his flat-bottomed boats and his Grand Army, he was told by someone. « There are bitter weeds in England. » There are certainly a great many more of them since the British Expeditionary Force returned.

The whole question of home defense against invasion is, of course, powerfully affected by the fact that we have for the time being in this Island incomparably more powerful military forces than we have ever had at any moment in this war or the last. But this will not continue. We shall not be content with a defensive war. We have our duty to our Ally. We have to reconstitute and build up the British Expeditionary Force once again, under its gallant Commander-in-Chief, Lord Gort. All this is in train; but in the interval we must put our defenses in this Island into such a high state of organization that the fewest possible numbers will be required to give effective security and that the largest possible potential of offensive effort may be realized. On this we are now engaged. It will be very convenient, if it be the desire of the House, to enter upon this subject in a secret Session. Not that the government would necessarily be able to reveal in very great detail military secrets, but we like to have our discussions free, without the restraint imposed by the fact that they will be read the next day by the enemy; and the Government would benefit by views freely expressed in all parts of the House by Members with their knowledge of so many different parts of the country. I understand that some request is to be made upon this subject, which will be readily acceded to by His Majesty’s Government.

We have found it necessary to take measures of increasing stringency, not only against enemy aliens and suspicious characters of other nationalities, but also against British subjects who may become a danger or a nuisance should the war be transported to the United Kingdom. I know there are a great many people affected by the orders which we have made who are the passionate enemies of Nazi Germany. I am very sorry for them, but we cannot, at the present time and under the present stress, draw all the distinctions which we should like to do. If parachute landings were attempted and fierce fighting attendant upon them followed, these unfortunate people would be far better out of the way, for their own sakes as well as for ours. There is, however, another class, for which I feel not the slightest sympathy. Parliament has given us the powers to put down Fifth Column activities with a strong hand, and we shall use those powers subject to the supervision and correction of the House, without the slightest hesitation until we are satisfied, and more than satisfied, that this malignancy in our midst has been effectively stamped out.

Turning once again, and this time more generally, to the question of invasion, I would observe that there has never been a period in all these long centuries of which we boast when an absolute guarantee against invasion, still less against serious raids, could have been given to our people. In the days of Napoleon the same wind which would have carried his transports across the Channel might have driven away the blockading fleet. There was always the chance, and it is that chance which has excited and befooled the imaginations of many Continental tyrants. Many are the tales that are told. We are assured that novel methods will be adopted, and when we see the originality of malice, the ingenuity of aggression, which our enemy displays, we may certainly prepare ourselves for every kind of novel stratagem and every kind of brutal and treacherous maneuver. I think that no idea is so outlandish that it should not be considered and viewed with a searching, but at the same time, I hope, with a steady eye. We must never forget the solid assurances of sea power and those which belong to air power if it can be locally exercised.

I have, myself, full confidence that if all do their duty, if nothing is neglected, and if the best arrangements are made, as they are being made, we shall prove ourselves once again able to defend our Island home, to ride out the storm of war, and to outlive the menace of tyranny, if necessary for years, if necessary alone. At any rate, that is what we are going to try to do. That is the resolve of His Majesty’s Government-every man of them. That is the will of Parliament and the nation. The British Empire and the French Republic, linked together in their cause and in their need, will defend to the death their native soil, aiding each other like good comrades to the utmost of their strength. Even though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Gestapo and all the odious apparatus of Nazi rule, we shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God’s good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.