Krishna
This is a history of Britain and takes on an entirely different viewpoint from the other historical fiction. It argues that almost all of the actions of Britain – including the building of its famous empire and the giving away of the empire in the forties and fifties – stem solely from the perspective of British security in Europe during the turbulent times of European wars and even thereafter, in the post WW II set up of the world and Europe.
And the author provides very convincing arguments in support of his viewpoint. So, it is definitely a book worth reading even if to consider a completely different viewpoint of British and European history than the one we are accustomed to.
On top of that, the timing of this book is interesting. This was written when James Cameron made his monumental decision to subject Brexit to the referendum but before the vote had already taken place (when most people were convinced that Brexit would never be the choice of the majority in the referendum.
What are Brendan’s main points?
Brendan Simms argues that Europe is an inalienable part of Britain and has always been. In addition, it was also written in 2016 when Brexit was just something that they started talking about. It has a lot of interesting information and persuasive argument and I think that Brexit supporters will hate what it has to say!
He talks about England and how it was always concerned about threats around it. Not just from French, whose territories English kings occupied, not just the Vikings who almost overtook the entire England before Alfred the Great put a stop to it (which is beautifully fictionalized in the Saxon Series from Bernard Cornwell from ‘The Pale Rider’ onward) but also its backyard of Scotland and Wales, which had to be subdued to prevent it collaborating with its enemies farther away.
England was richer per capita from a long time and had an independent parliament for long. From before Magna Carta times, really.
There are other interesting facts in this book. For instance, I did not know that Richard I was given the sobriquet ‘Lionheart’ not by anyone in Britain but by a French poet by the name of Ambroise. It was given in admiration for his part in the Crusades, which united all of Europe against ‘the infidels’ – language similar to today’s militants against the very Western society that used it heavily in the past.
Also England was the first country in Western Europe to limit the royal power, have a powerful parliament and also to have advanced rights. It was the first country to translate and use the Bible in the local language (English) and first to challenge papal power and their right to collect taxes, arguing for national sovereignty in the collection of taxes.
The loss of France and the threat from Philip of Spain who wanted to conquer all of Christendom to form one huge empire prompted England to support Protestant piece of Germany. Even the colonization of the New World by the Quakers is to create another piece of land where Protestant faith can grow without obvious threats – not for any economic reasons, argues the author. It is fascinating to find that Charles lost his life and the monarchy in England because Parliament was opposed to his extravagant ways to defend England. The merchant class, who wielded political power, were loath to pay for the battles abroad with no tangible results to show for it.
What also comes across is that England was bitterly opposed and concerned about the rise of the French King Charles XV!, because, his victories over other countries would spread Catholicism to the previously Protestant nations and so gave all the help it can in terms of money and people to thwart such attempts. German states and Austria were beneficiaries of these support. It is interesting to note the religious dimension to the conflicts, even as pious statements about ‘All Christendom should unite against the Turkish threat to Christianity’ were being mouthed by almost all these countries.
Also interesting is the contention by Brendan, the author, that the need to protect England required intervention in European wars, for instance containment of the French and Spanish aspirations for a pan European empire under them, as well as protecting Scandinavia and Germany, which were Protestant against the threat of Catholicism taking over, threatening both the religion (Protestant) and the way of life (as Catholic emperors will want to restore absolute monarchy in Britain, negating the hard fought gains of Parliamentary rights). These expenses necessitated taxes (including the taxes on tea) that precipitated rebellion in the US, and also Ireland, India and other places. So, in a way, the seeds of the American War of Independence were sown in European power play!
Napolean was a major thorn on England’s side and England helped other countries counter him for the same reasons as above.
You are taken through a more familiar territory of the First and Second World War as well as the independence of British colonies, which is a more familiar territory. It is interesting to read that when England declared war on Germany, Canada, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand were in favour but Ireland remained neutral. I did not know that!
Also, did you know that faced with the Nazi threat that seemed to be sweeping everything in its path in its spread, Churchill offered to merge France and England into one country to combine their might to offer resistance? (I assume that this proposal went nowhere but if it had come to pass, what would that country be like today? )
The other thing surprising is that when England was successful in its application to join EEC (as the EU was known as then) – after twice being rejected by France – England was enthusiastic but Scotland and Northern Ireland were not very interested! In Brexit today, it is exactly the opposite! Interesting comparisons today.
Margaret Thatcher was backpedaling and was worried about European integration handing power back to Germany. Tony Blair was very pro Europe.
Slowly it dawns on you that the unification has always been through a crisis and sudden. UK was formed due to threat from Prussia and France. US was formed due to the fear of states that got independence of interference from foreign powers – England, France, Spain and others. Where this alliance was not forced (India, South America, China) foreign powers were able to play one against the other.
Add to it that the unification (of any country, state and others) is the necessity to trade one group’s (city, clan, district) sovereignty for security and in the absence of any imminent threat of war, the sovereignty gains importance – witness the breakup movements all over the world, including UK, Canada and many others. No gradual unification scheme in the absence of existential threats has ever worked.
So the EU project, which wants incremental integration, and consensus to decide everything is doomed from the start – or so the author argues, persuasively. He also points out that the threat from foreign powers is real. A resurgent Russia and does not respect known international boundaries (according to the author), China’s projection of might in its backyard, the retreat of democracy and rise of strongman politics all over the world means that the EU breakup at this vulnerable moment would spell doom for British security.
Interesting stuff to read. Makes you think, whether you buy this argument wholesale or not.
A great read.
8/10
– – Krishna