On June 13, 1940, then French Premier Paul Reynaud addressed
the French and British publics, in a broadcast that received full coverage in
major British newspapers. He vowed, “We
will fight before Paris; we will fight behind Paris; we will fight in the
provinces and, if we are driven out, we will go to North Africa, and if
necessary, to our possessions in America.”[1] The following day, the Queen addressed the
women of France saying, “A nation defended by such men and loved by such women
must sooner or later attain victory.”[2][3] Given the events of the following days, these
valiant and courageous words found little room in historical memory. They were overshadowed by larger events, most
notably the French defeat, and Reynaud’s poignant words were left behind. Churchill’s well-known (and similarly
constructed) June 4 speech, on the other hand, is not only still quoted today,
but is attributed as one of the greatest speeches in British History: “We shall
fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans…we shall defend our
island, whatever the cost may be.”[4]
Churchill’s speech ‘made history’, it is claimed. However, this term and idea, ‘making
history’, is so often thrown around without much thought to what it actually
means. This seemingly innocent phrase
punches above its weight, implying that an event or even a moment stood above
the rest, predestined to enter the ranks of national memory, making up and even
defining the context in which a nation understands itself. In the days following Reynaud’s speech and
the French collapse, the Guardian,
which had previously championed his words and the valiant struggles of the
French, turned on his efforts, claiming that they were “interpreted…as
“pre-capitulationist” and it had a bad effect on the troops.”[5] The same article went on to blame Reynaud’s
delivery style for the ultimate ineffectiveness of the speech: “Reynaud was
full of good intentions, but he lacked great dynamic vigour and failed to
inspire the people as Clemenceau would have done.”[6] It is notable that Reynaud was compared to a
predecessor who was ultimately victorious, as also it is crucial to note that
the emphasis was placed not on the material factors of the fight, but on the
strength of Reynaud’s actual words.
Clemenceau made history as a victor, just as Churchill would do. It was this victory that fully confirmed the
rhetorical value of his speeches.
Ultimately, ‘making history’ is a
misleading concept, which oversimplifies events and often attributes a sense of
preordained destiny and greatness to an individual or group’s words, actions,
or outcome. George Orwell sagely wrote
in his essay ‘My Country Right or Left’, “Contrary to popular belief, the past
was not more eventful than the present.”
He argues that historical events that are given such significance today
are built up over time through nostalgia and indeed, the passing of time and
the need to attribute meaning and significance to the actions of the
nation. Of the Battle of the Marne,
spoken of today with reverence he says, “…you disentangle your real memories from their later accretions, you
find that it was not usually the big events that stirred you at the time. I
don't believe that the Battle of the Marne, for instance, had for the general
public the melodramatic quality that it was afterwards given. I do not ever
remember hearing the phrase ‘Battle of the Marne’ till years later.”[7] The study of history is crucial for
understanding not only what and how events in the past took place, but also,
for questioning why we remember them in a particular way and how that shift
came about. In this vein, a more
critical eye is needed to scrutinize not only the perceived ‘moments of
greatness’ in the life of a nation, but, indeed, why and how they are
remembered in this context.
[1] ‘M.
Reynaud’s Earlier Message,’ June 14, 1940, Manchester
Guardian, 5
[2]
‘To the Women of France: Queen’s Broadcast,’ June 15, 1940, Manchester Guardian, 7
[3] To
say nothing of the heavily gendered tone of the message…
[4]
Hansard Milbanks Parliamentary Debates Online, ‘War Situation’, June 4, 1940
[5]
Former Paris Correspondent, “The Riddle of the French Capitulation, Pétain and
the Men Behind Him,” Manchester Guardian,
June 25, 1940, 10
[6]
Ibid, 10
[7]
George Orwell, ‘My Country Right or Left’, George Orwell Library Online, http://orwell.ru/library/articles/My_Country/english/e_mcrol
Your reference to Orwell reminded me of Constantin Fasolt's "The Limits of History", who went even further in his appraisal, a critique even, of History. In his review of that treatise, Allan Megill writes: "History casts a spell on our minds more powerful than science or religion. It does not root us in the past at all. It rather flatters us with the belief in our ability to recreate the world in our image. It is a form of self-assertion that brooks no opposition or dissent and shelters us from the experience of time. So argues Constantin Fasolt ... He concludes that history is a ritual designed to maintain the modern faith in the autonomy of states and individuals. ... The truth, Fasolt insists, only begins where that illusion ends."
ReplyDelete