My Life

My Life - Oswald Mosleyplacards too long'. He had then evidently despaired of ever becoming Prime Minister,and to all appearances it was a just appraisal.What was the basic reason for that vast divergence of principle which separated mepermanently in politics from a man I liked so much, Winston Churchill? The answeris clearly found in his son's biography, where a letter written by Winston Churchill in1909 is quoted: 'Do you know, I would greatly like to have some practice in thehandling of large forces ... I am sure I have the root of the matter in me but never, Ifear, in this state of existence will it have a chance of flowering ... in bright red bloom'.He had other moods, as his son points out, but it appeared to me that this attitudeprevailed throughout the years which followed the First World War. It was noted inthe Second by Lloyd George, who wrote to his wife: 'Winston likes wars, I don't'.This tendency of Mr. Churchill clearly rendered impossible a close politicalassociation with someone who returned from war with my passionate dedication topeace. This became evident at an early stage and was reflected throughout ourrelationship in all things, small and great. It began with his Russian adventure in 1919and continued until the Second World War. He seemed to me constantly to risk warwithout good reason. I was only willing for Britain to fight again if our vital interestswere at stake, whereas he appeared willing to engage in military adventures whichrisked lives and wasted our substance without that purpose. The main clash belongs tothe later stage of this account, but the first encounters were sufficient to end our happyrelationship in the incipient Centre Party.My purpose here is not to write history, but to explain a personal course in life. I shalldeal at a later stage with my case against the war of 1939; it is enough here to indicatemy position in disputes which history will finally judge. My quarrel with Mr.Churchill soon after the First War related to three main issues: the Russian,Mesopotamian and Chanak adventures, as I regarded them. History may possibly holdMr. Churchill guilty on the first two counts, but not on the third. Lord Snow quotesLloyd George as saying Churchill was responsible for the initiative in both Russia andChanak. L.G. complained that in 1915 Churchill got out his map of the Dardanelles,and 'see where that landed us'. Then in describing his post-war government L.G.added: 'Before I could look round, he had got out his maps of Russia and we weremaking fools of ourselves in the Civil War. When that was over he got out his mapsagain—Greece and Turkey, and brought my tottering administration to a close.' Moststudents of the period will probably agree however with A. J. P. Taylor's view in hisOxford English History that Lloyd George himself was primarily responsible for theenterprise in Greece, and that Churchill was only a belated convert to the undertaking.For my part, I opposed all these adventures—Russia, Mesopotamia and Chanak—whoever was initially responsible, and I expressed myself on grounds of principlewith a clarity which was adequate but with an invective which was perhapsexaggerated.Lloyd George's general attitude to Churchill, described long afterwards by Lord Snow,that he was a dangerous and unsuccessful military adventurer— 'a bit of an ass'—wascertainly the view expressed in my speeches at the time. On one occasion in debateafter observing that Mr. Churchill was 'borrowing his principles from Prussia tosupply leadership to the National Liberal Party, which borrowed its name fromGermany', I summarised my view of his performances: 'My complaint is that he is an90 of 424