Wednesday, February 13, 2019

British historian and columnist Arthur Bryant, exaggerated British pride and the mirthless chuckle of history





In the year 1938 Britain was no longer the admiration of the world, except for her automotive industry, and this flourished thanks to one man: William Richard Morris, Viscount of Nuffield. He was another, the British Henry Ford, so everything seemed to be possible for his Nuffield Organisation. The Organisation produced more and more motorcars, like this MG PA-based racer, with a still unique in Europe reputation for producing high-quality cars and a policy of cutting prices.
Lothar Spurzem (edited by Alchemist-hp) - Own work, CC B-Y 2.0




You may read in the English language Wikipedia that: "Bryant was in fact a Nazi sympathiser and fascist fellow-traveller, who only narrowly escaped internment as a potential traitor in 1940." That's unfortunately a phoney information. The judgement of his attitude as "English romantic exceptionalism" seems to be far more accurate. So, it would be much better to read some of his own opinions.


The huge allocations for the material of war that Britain has been making over the past few months bring fear of another world war to the hearts of many.”


But the past policy of Britain, when she tried by example to induce the other nations of the world to work for peace by disarming, brought feelings of greater alarm to the majority of the peoples of the Empire.” So much introduction to the subject, from the then time Australian press, and now some another phrases, depicting these remarkable views.
(Rearmament, The Beaudesert Times (Qld. : 1908 - 1954), Fr. April 30 1937, p. 4)


Mr. Arthur Bryant, writing in the "London Illustrated News," commends rearmament, and in doing so draws a vivid picture of the wealthy British Empire, in a weakened state, being ravaged by a pack of avaricious wolves, who wreck the whole of present-day civilisation in their mad, greedy lust. He says it is no doubt a fine thing that Britain should at last be rearming.”




In this world there can only be peace when wealth and power are in the same hands.”


Once let them be divided and an ugly scramble is certain to ensue.” He made it clear that all countries that only want to take over a number of economically undeveloped British colonies are rogue states too.


So long, for instance, as the temporal power is as firmly maintained as it is in England, no man is likely to covet the works of art in the National Gallery. But abolish the Metropolitan Police Force in the name of human brotherhood and the steps of the National Gallery would probably run red with the blood of art dealers and collectors.”




Then he compared all other nations to farm labourers who could not accumulate wealth in their lifetime, due to their inborn stupidity


Even if such peoples could divide all British protected areas among themselves, he did not believe that they could do anything about it. “A British Empire unarmed is, therefore, a standing temptation to every necessitous nation. To keep it unguarded is like leaving money on the dressing-table of a house whose servants are notoriously in want of it. So a Britain rearmed will be a Britain that has ceased to be an incitement to a war of partition, and that at least will be very much to the world's good. For however we came by our [colonial] possessions, they are infinitely of more use to mankind when peaceably preserved in one strong hand than when snatched and fought for by many weak ones.” So, now we could much better understand why the Munich conference has provided peace for tomorrow, but not for the day after tomorrow.


Then, as if to soften the bad impression among the numerous foreigners who had knowledge of English at that time already, the later Sir Arthur added: “We must be realists in a world of realists.”




Bryant's further arguments were also a hint for British politicians, or rather they were a reflection of the views of the Britain' and her dominions deep staters


But there are one or two other considerations which even realists must take into account. It is right that we should prepare for war in order to remove the temptation of war. But it is not right that we should prepare for war in order to have war. And there is more than a tendency in Britain to-day to talk of our war-like preparations as though they were an inevitable and even rather exciting prelude to war itself. [...]


For the greatest enthusiasts for this new Armageddon — like the last, a war to end war — are the extreme pacifists of a few years ago. These dyed-in-the-wool heroes of Geneva and the Albert Hall look round like Hotspur and ask for blood.”




The then famous publicist did not hesitate to explain the purpose of all the British rearmament


At the same time, the principle was clear to him; fools and the weak nations must be leaved to the wolves. “For it would appear that the war that is to come is not to be fought in defence of threatened national interests, but for something far nobler — the cause of collective security. It is to be a crusade, and one in which a rearmed Britain is to play a leading and glorious role. An outbreak of hostilities in a remote corner of Europe is to be followed, in the name of human goodwill and reason, by a world war. The misery of a few thousands is to become the misery of millions.”




It was really ironical!


The Britishers, at these crucial moments in the world history, have unbelievably overestimated their powers and possibilities. In connection with this they have made the decision not to voluntarily cede a single square mile from their empire to other European countries or to Japan. On the basis of this false premise, Britain’s upper class has probably chosen to wage new great war, only for preserving the command of the sea.


The consequences of such policies couldn’t be other as only devastating. As a result of the second huge clash between the Prussian-German spirit of extreme discipline and sacrifice and the Anglo-Saxons, the winners also were losers. The British Empire, formed for the previous three hundred years, has ceased to exist within the next thirty years. Sir Arthur Bryant, the historian of his country, should live his earthly life long enough to see the dissolution of the largest world state in world history and to praise it's pitiful end as a reasonable and useful thing.






No comments:

Post a Comment