Churchill, the Ostrich, and South America – Folha de S. Paulo, January 31, 1971

 

by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira

 

All the wreckage, soot, and dust of these past three decades—so laden with tragedies, fears, and forgetfulness—has fallen upon the Munich Agreement. However, it seems impossible to develop my reasoning in this article without referencing that historical fact. So, let me recall it briefly.

In that distant year of 1938, Europe was divided into three main blocs: 1) the Nazi-Fascist Rome-Berlin axis; 2) democratic France and England; 3) the neutrals. Apparently, three major powers that would later be deeply involved in tragedy were outside the game: semi-European, semi-Asian Russia; Japan in the Far East; and, on the other side, the United States.

On the international stage, a sharp clash of interests existed between the German-Italian and Anglo-French blocs. Focusing only on its European ambitions, Nazi Germany sought to incorporate the German-speaking areas of Czechoslovakia (the Sudetenland) and Poland (the Danzig Corridor). It had already annexed the “Ruhrgebiet” and Austria. With these conquests, Hitler believed he could eventually defeat France and England, establishing dominance over Europe. Meanwhile, Mussolini aimed to expand Italy’s territory to gain total control over the entire Mediterranean coast of the former Roman Empire, known as “Mare Nostrum.” Naturally, France and England rejected these plans and were determined to maintain the existing balance of power.

This deep-rooted disagreement among what is now called the “big four” of non-communist Europe was further complicated by other factors, two of which are especially relevant to this article.

Germany and Italy were under totalitarian regimes, while France and England maintained democracies. This difference in political systems led to varied mindsets, goals, lifestyles, and actions, creating divides between the groups and political factions of each side. Naturally, this caused misunderstandings and hostility, which greatly damaged the effort to achieve peace.

Another reason for disagreement is that the Nazi and fascist groups were fueled by aggressive patriotism. For them, the common good wasn’t about peace, abundance, or a worry-free daily life but about the glory and power achieved through the excitement of war, violence, and heroic death. Conversely, the ruling elites in England and France were just as blindly and fanatically pacifist as the warmongers on the other side, and key segments of public opinion in both countries were completely dominated by this unwavering pacifism. For them, everything revolved around the pleasures of civilian life. To them, military glory held little significance, and war was seen as the greatest evil.

Fanatical warmongers are known for ranting and attacking. Fanatical pacifists are known for ignoring problems, giving in, and retreating.

Basically, the Munich Agreement resulted from a combination of factors. Hitler announced his plan to invade the Sudetenland region of Czechoslovakia, and Mussolini supported him. The prime ministers of England and France, Chamberlain and Daladier, felt obligated by an old alliance to support Czechoslovakia, which was under threat. War seemed likely. Hitler then promised not to invade the “German” areas of Poland, as long as France and England broke their pledge to Czechoslovakia and accepted the annexation of the Sudetenland.

In this move, the difference between the “delusions” was clear. For the Axis dictators, their word was meaningless and could be broken at any moment to achieve the glorious (!) ends of imperialist expansion. The end intoxicated them and led to justifying the means. For the “delusional” pacifists, it was time to bury their heads in the sand, to believe Hitler’s word, ignore the shameful abandonment of Czechoslovakia, accept the annexation of the Sudetenland, and fully imagine that sacrificing this victim would definitively satisfy the frenzied German dictator’s thirst for conquest. Thus, the Munich Agreement was signed.

Hitler and Mussolini emerged triumphant from the negotiations.

From left to right: Chamberlain, Daladier, Hitler, Mussolini, and Ciano after signing the Munich Agreement

Chamberlain and Daladier returned to their countries with their reputations damaged, but convinced they had ‘saved the peace.’ When they arrived, large crowds greeted and thanked them for this great “benefit.”

 From his corner, old Churchill — who had already crossed the threshold of old age when he began his life’s grand odyssey— addressed Chamberlain and his enthusiasts with these definitive words: “You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.”

A few months after Munich, Germany invaded Poland. The war had begun.

* * *

I have dwelled at length on these historical facts because Munich was not just a significant episode in the history of this century. It is a symbolic event in the history of all time. Whenever, at any time and in any place, there is a diplomatic confrontation between delusional warmongers and delusional pacifists, the advantage will lie with the former, and frustration with the latter. If there is a lucid man to consider the confrontation and frustration, he will criticize the future Chamberlains and Daladiers with Churchill’s words: “You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.”

* * *

I argue that South America in 1971 resembles Europe in 1938. It is on the brink of an outbreak that could shake it to its core, from Colombia or Venezuela to Uruguay and Patagonia, obviously extending from north to south through Brazil. In this increasingly volatile situation, some governments and opinions are frantic with warmongering, while others are equally frantic with pacifism.

In South America today, reckless warmongering is clearly demonstrated by two governments led by a political-philosophical sect willing to do anything. I am referring to the governments of Cuba and Chile. I mention Cuba as if it were South American because of the significance of the subversive actions it promotes across the continent. Although I am not fully informed about the Bolivian government, some political analysts might include it in this list. In terms of opinion trends, reckless warmongering obviously depends on Communist Parties of all kinds, as well as the Uruguayan and non-Uruguayan Tupamaros, among others.

Of course, as I write in 1971, I do not use the term “warmongering” in the exact sense it had in the political context of 1938.

Therefore, the goal of today’s delusional warmongers in Latin America is not to provoke a war between Chile and Cuba against Brazil or any other country. Such a scenario seems very unlikely, at least in the short term. But today, nations are not conquered solely through wars. For example, if tomorrow Uruguay becomes communist—God forbid—it will become, by default, a colony of Russia or China without either of those countries sending a single soldier to our continent. Uruguay will have fallen just as Chile did, through a sinister coalition with communists, leftist clergy, bourgeois “turncoats,” Christian Democrats, socialists, progressives, and soft-line military personnel. This is the kind of support that makes it possible to conquer a nation today. Warmongering can now achieve many of its goals through this complex form of conquest.

Therefore, comparing the South American warmongers of 1971 to their European counterparts of 1938, I will now examine the similarities and differences between those of our continent today and those of Europe 33 years ago.

What is this neo-pacifist ostrich of 1971 like? He’s someone who ignores internal dangers, just as those in 1938 ignored external dangers.

Today’s ostrich is someone who focuses solely on economic progress. For him, development is the answer to all problems.

That is why he believes communism has no chance of winning, at least in Brazil, where material development is truly impressive. So, the ostrich’s strategy is to request giving communists some freedom—if not full freedom—as long as they don’t cause too much trouble. They suggest that the Reds be given good public and private positions, as long as they refrain from making a lot of noise about their sect. Today’s ostrich thinks it can appease the communists by giving them these means of action, just as Chamberlain and Daladier believed they could appease Hitler by letting him take over new territories that increased his power. Both the people of ’38 and the people of ’71 trust in the tactic of appeasing jaguars by giving them blood to drink.

Today, some ostriches go even further. They dream of appeasing communists by supporting some of the reforms they see as necessary steps to gain power. I repeat: this is exactly like appeasing a jaguar by giving it blood to drink.

Of course — let it be said in passing — the ostrich hates the TFP. Why? Because the communists hate it, and anything that displeases them must be silenced and neutralized.

How, then, does the neo-ostrich hope to eliminate communism if it feeds its henchmen such stimulating food to make them fat? — By removing their air. In prosperity, communists, no matter how well fed, would perish without a suitable environment. So, the ostrich continues living while comfortably yielding and retreating, covering itself with shame, and happily filling its pockets. And while banking on the anticommunist protection of wealth, the ostrich deliberately ignores the swarm of well-fed and bitterly communist clergymen and bourgeois, whether consciously or not, paving the way for the enemy. Naturally, this does not surprise the ostrich. An ostrich is an ostrich.

Yes, and a jaguar is still a jaguar. When the communist jaguar has fattened itself by freely consuming the flesh and bones of today’s society, it will also eat the ostrich!

Until that happens, the ostrich will keep its head buried in the sand, ignoring the plots being hatched in our country and abroad by Moscow and Beijing, as they pass through Havana and Santiago. It continues living its little life and reciting its creed: “I believe in one God, money almighty, creator of abundance and tranquility,” and so on.

* * *

Due to their lack of foresight, millions of such ostriches refused to notice the danger in Chile, crossed their arms, and discouraged resistance against the toad-clergy-communist coalition, thereby causing a catastrophe that wouldn’t have been possible without them.

Throughout Latin America, Brazilian and other ostriches present a real danger.

On our continent, the communist movement, along with its fringe of sacristy and salon leftists, would be insignificant if not for them. And pygmy Allende would have never been more than an obscure extremist senator.

Let there be no doubt: if the field is left open to the ostriches, some South American Munich will arrive sooner or later. We will choose shame over fighting and will plunge into chaos.

* * *

What should be done then? — The opposite of what the ostrich does by maintaining constant alertness against the dangers of ‘ostrichism.’ Where the ostrich practices the politics of closed eyes, foolish carelessness, frivolous ideological inertia, and reckless concessions, one should encourage clarity, foresight, and ideological resistance.

The biggest danger right now isn’t communism or leftism; it’s “ostrichism.”