Subscribe now and receive weekly newsletters with educational materials, new courses, interesting posts, popular books, and much more!
Articles
“The fascists of the future will call themselves anti-fascists.” Not WSC.
- By RICHARD M. LANGWORTH
- | July 9, 2020
- Category: Q & A Understanding Churchill
Churchill campaigning at Uxbridge, 27 June 1945. He had many fiery things to say about the opposition, but he refrained applying “fascists” in the ad-hominem sense. (Imperial War Museum, public domain)
The question
It comes to us frequently of late, and is always the same: “I’m a reporter writing to ask whether a certain quote attributed to Winston Churchill was actually spoken or written by him.
The quote is: ‘The fascists of the future will call themselves anti-fascists.’ There does not seem to be credible information on the internet linking those words to Churchill, but I would appreciate your input.”
Churchillian Drift
Manufacturing Churchill quotes is a parlor game. Nigel Rees, host of the BBC program Quote…Unquote, describes what he calls “Churchillian Drift.” It’s a proces whereby a quote’s originator “is elbowed to one side and replaced by someone more famous. So to Churchill or Napoleon would be ascribed what, actually, a lesser-known political figure said.” Churchill, Napoleon, Lincoln, Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr.—they are all victims. (As is indeed Yogi Berra. “I never said half the things I said,” Yogi said—allegedly.)
Right now, the popular quote about fascists and anti-fascists is almost as frequent as that hardy perennial, “If you’re going through hell, keep going.” Churchill never said either. The Churchill Project has a way to verify this. We have scanned some 80 million published words by and about Churchill into a searchable facility for scholars. Churchill himself accounts for about 20 million (books, articles, speeches, letters, papers), including 23 volumes of The Churchill Documents. There are also 60 million words of biography, specialized studies, related works on the World Wars, and memoirs by Churchill’s associates. Of course some quotes in these secondary sources are hearsay, so one has to consider the source.
Politically, those words are in vogue. It’s a popular reflex to call someone with authoritarian impulses a fascist. Attaching it to Churchill gives it credibility. Like most examples of “Churchillian Drift,” it is quite impossible to track. Some begin with words he said, distorted out of recognition. Others are simply made up. Churchill quotation books and websites abound, but any item without solid attribution is suspect. Nearly 150 are listed on my blogsite—with notes as to their origins (if known).
Fascists and anti-fascists
We are very confident that Churchill made no pronouncement about fascists of the future. Not only because the quotation or parts of it does not come up in digital searches; but because Churchill didn’t use “fascist” in the generic sense—or as a pejorative against political opponents, as so frequently today. In most of the 97 times he used the word, he referred to specific entities. Examples: the pre-World War II Yugoslav Anti-fascist Coalition, or the postwar Italian Anti-fascist Council.
For Churchill to label a political opponent a fascist would be inconceivable. We might think he would have said that, say, about Clement Attlee, his socialist opposite and successor as Prime Minister in 1945. But Churchill would never think of it.
One of the striking things about The Churchill Documents, volume 22 (1945-51) is the civility of their discourse. In debate, Churchill criticized Attlee fiercely and often, and these criticisms are in the volume. Several times in the House of Commons, he called Attlee’s competence into question. Yet they both worked to keep channels open with each other, where mutually aligned in the nation’s interest. Churchill would brook no generic criticism of Attlee, who certainly could be accused of authoritarian impulses. On the floor they went at it hammers and tongs. Off the floor there was mutual respect. It was a relationship of cordiality and fairness.
“The Creeds of the Devil”
There is a third reason why Churchill would not have said this popular phrase. To speak in sweeping terms about “fascists” doesn’t even sound like him. It’s too pat, too simple; not natural nor realistic. Churchill’s views on extreme and tyrannical government were specific. They first occur in a beautiful 1937 essay, “The Infernal Twins.” In it he compares Nazism with Communism, then takes pains to distinguish Italian fascism.
Nazism and Communism imagine themselves as exact opposites. They are at each other’s throats wherever they exist all over the world. They actually breed each other; for the reaction against Communism is Nazism, and beneath Nazism or Fascism Communism stirs convulsively.
Yet they are similar in all essentials. First of all, their simplicity is remarkable. You leave out God and put in the Devil; you leave out love and put in hate; and everything thereafter works quite straightforwardly and logically.
They are, in fact, as alike as two peas. Tweedledum and Tweedledee are two quite distinctive personalities compared to these two rival religions.
I am reminded of the North Pole and South Pole. They are at opposite ends of the earth, but if you woke up at either Pole tomorrow morning you could not tell which one it was. Perhaps there might be more penguins at one, or more Polar bears at the other; but all around would be ice and snow and the blast of a biting wind.
“Fertile fields of freedom”
Extending his geographic analogies, Churchill contrasts these totalitarian forms of government with his own and those of the great democracies:
I have made up my mind, however far I may travel, whatever countries I may see, I will not go to the Arctic or to the Antarctic regions. Give me London, give me Paris, give me New York, give me some of the beautiful capitals of the British Dominions.
Let us go somewhere where our breath is not frozen on our lips because of the Secret Police…somewhere where there are green pastures and the shade of venerable trees. Let us not wander away from the broad fertile fields of freedom into these gaunt, grim, dim, gloomy abstractions of morbid and sterile thought.
Next Churchill explains specific differences, applying the word “fascist” only to Mussolini:
There are, of course, differences between the dictatorships. Yet they are largely discounted by one significant fact. It is easy to imagine Mussolini or Hitler as head of a Communist State or Stalin as Fascist Duce or Führer. Nothing in Communism or Fascism, as we know them, or in the characters and records of these three men, makes such a situation incredible.”
It is fair to conclude Churchill took pains not to use the generic term “fascists” as an offhand dismissal of those with totalitarian ideas. He was always careful to describe which fascists he was talking about—though he regarded both those of the Left and the Right as equally repugnant in their denial of liberty.
Further reading
“The Creeds of the Devil” was published in The Sunday Chronicle, London, 27 June 1937, followed by a sequel, “A Better Way,” on 4 July. The two essays were combined under the title “The Infernal Twins” in Collier’s (USA) on 3 July 1937. Republished in Michael Wolff, ed., The Collected Essays of Sir Winston Churchill, 4 vols., (London: Library of Imperial History, 1975), II, 394-97. A transcript is available by email from [email protected].
I’m going to show this to everyone who spouts that spurious quote and attributes it to Churchill. I’ve heard and read so many misattributed quotes, from Berra to Durocher. For example, neither Benjamin Franklin nor George Washington denounced the Jews. Those quotes first surfaced in the 1930s, a natural time for anti-Semitic quotes. They are usually written by people with pen knives to grind.
See George Washington’s letter to the Hebrew Congregation of Newport, Rhode Island, which frequently appears on Hillsdale College holiday cards.
At least the words themselves are true.
If WSC didn’t say it, its still a great quote, and Ronald Reagan actually made a quote quite similar to it; “If fascism ever comes to America, it will come in the name of liberalism.”
Cole Feix writes: “I thoroughly enjoyed your article on Churchill and fascism this week. It’s a timely reminder about how simple our discourse has become – even our insults – in comparison. If you have the chance I would love to read those two essays or the combined version that you mentioned. Thank you.”
.
Thanks for the kind words. I attach “The Creeds of the Devil,” Cohen C540a.1 from the Collected Essays. Alas I find I do not have C540a.2 “The Better Way.” Nor do I have the text of the combined articles in Collier’s, “The Internal Twins” (C540b). Neither was published in the Collected Essays. We are seeking the missing text. The Ronald Cohen Collection at Hillsdale College contains Churchill’s massive contributions to books, periodicals, reports of speeches, letters, memoranda, etc. It includes dozens of pieces like “The Better Way” which have not seen print since publication. Reading them is undiscovered country. RML
The quote isn’t linguistically sound for something Churchill would say, as it sounds more like a modern catch slogan. But the words are true, according to this article, that Churchill was skeptical of some Antifascist organizations. I think with that in mind, we ought to be aware that some claiming to be anti-facsist today act more like the fascists they say they oppose. Regardless of whether the quote is Churchill’s, it’s still correct that a group posing as anti-fascist can be, itself, fascist.
I believe this anti-fascist quote is attributed to Huey Long who was a pro-populist economics thinker and a democrat who happened to be hated by FDR. It looks like he said it in 1935 and the quote was, “Sure we’ll have fascism [in the US] and we’ll call it anti-fascism.”
–
What is the source? -Eds.
No, Huey Long didn’t say it either although it’s popularly attributed to him. See Quote Investigator for details.
–
Quote Investigator does good work, and does cite many attributions to Long, e.g. “Sure but it will be called anti-fascism.” But QI found no direct attribution in Long’s recorded words. Their research also shows how quickly an original phrase gets mangled and rewritten, and how it drifted into Churchill in 2008. -RML
He had praised fascism until October 1938: https://spartacus-educational.com/spartacus-blogURL118.htm
–
Author’s response:
Churchill dealt easily with concepts and political ideas. If he had genuinely admired Fascism (as opposed to one particular fascist, Mussolini, in 1927), then he would undoubtedly have said so in so many words. That he never did is proof that he did not admire Fascism per se.
.
The cited article begins by stating that he was pro-Appeasement “for most of the 1930s,” which is approximate but not dispositive. The author says dates are important. So is context. Churchill’s words to Danzig Gauleiter Forster are from his report to the Foreign Office on 14 July 1938, when WSC was still hoping to encourage a firm response over Czechoslovakia. Omitted context is in italics:
.
“I remarked that I was glad they had not introduced the Anti-Jewish laws in Danzig. Herr Forster said the Jewish problem was not acute in Danzig, but he was anxious to know whether this type of legislation in Germany would prevent an understanding with England. I replied that it was a hindrance and an irritation, but probably not a complete obstacle to a working agreement, though it might be to comprehension. He appeared to attach great importance to this point, and returned to it at a later stage…. I said that I was not an opponent of the greatness of Germany, and that most people in England wanted to see her take her place as one of the two or three leading powers in the world: that we would not resent gradual peaceful increase of German commercial influence in the Danube basin, but that any violent move would almost inevitably lead to a world war. The situation was going from bad to worse. All countries were wasting their substance on armaments. (The Churchill Documents, vol. 13, Hillsdale College Press, 2009, 1101)
.
“Not a complete obstacle” conveys the likely attitude of Chamberlain’s government. Also, Churchill wished to convince Chamberlain’s Foreign Office of his support for a peaceful solution, and the context demonstrates his effort to wheedle Forster in that direction. Churchill broke with Appeasement over the betrayal of Czechoslovakia three months later.
.
The article claims “Churchill was a great admirer of fascism,” but offers only (1) a 1927 letter from WSC to his wife about Italy, and (2) his compliments of Mussolini after his 1927 visit. (1) Churchill was greatly exercised about the spread of communism and would tend privately to admire Mussolini’s forestalling it. (2) In 1927 Churchill, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, had just secured Mussolini’s promise (unfulfilled) to repay Italy’s £592 million war debt. You tend to say nice things about people who promise to pay you a lot of money.
.
Another thing to remember was that Churchill was political man. Also he was a democratic man. He needed, and thought it was right that he needed, the votes of a majority. If he lived in an age when voters were ardent for peace (and most ages are that), then of course he would be careful not to offend their position.
.
The article contains other criticisms that are well argued, but magnifies out of context quotes to support narrow conclusions. What matters is Churchill’s broad view, as William Manchester wrote: “He always had second and third thoughts, and they usually improved as he went along. It was part of this pattern of response to any political issue that while his early reactions were often emotional, and even unworthy of him, they were usually succeeded by reason and generosity.”
Fine rebuttal. And consider the source!
Thanks, this is still the perfect explanation for two poles, both horribly wrong. The zone of freedom is explicitly halfway between. I’m happy to quote that everywhere.
I am an 80 year old Ex-GI. I spent the second half of my enlistment, 12/’60-06/’62 as Public information Office photographer for the 8th Trans. Bn, Lt. Helicopters, stationed 5 miles from both Munich and Dachau. As such, I had a lot of time to meet and interview survivors of, and escapees from, Socialism—National (Nazi) and International (Soviet), because the Displaced Persons (DP) Camps were still up and filled with escapees. Their stories were eerily similar. I now live in a little community across the river from the capital of California that happens to have the largest number of Russian speakers in the United States. When I look at AnitFa and BLM I’m constantly reminded of the wisdom of my late great grandmother: “I hear what you say, but then I see what you do.” The two groups and those who excuse them are cut from the same cloth as the Fascists of the past because they act the same. No matter what they proclaim, it’s what they do that counts.
@John Besharian “I hear what you say, but then I see what you do.” That is exactly what I believe also. Totalitarianism of any kind is wrong. The Isms say, “Hold my views or else.” Some with physical violence, some with ideological brainwashing all promising utopia and freedom while the outcomes from both end up in poverty and ultimately the exact opposite of those “isms” Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness already established and started in 1776 is still the best deterrent to those horrific views.
Actually it was Ignazio Sillione who said: “If fascism comes back it won’t say: I’m fascism. No he will say: I’m anti-fascism.”
–
Source?