On the Coronation of King Charles III

Since the Act of Union in 1707, there have been only thirteen British monarchs, the first being Queen Anne.  The current royal family, if we discuss direct and not remote ancestry, dates back only to William of Orange, who was king from 1689 to 1702, prior to the Act of Union.  Anne was his successor and reigned until 1714.  She was in ill health most of the time.

Had the throne passed to Anne's nearest relatives, it would have gone to a member of the House of Stuart, who were Catholic. Anne was an Anglican, but she was the daughter of Charles II who became Catholic on his deathbed and who harbored strong Catholic sympathies, in spite of living a wild life, his entire life.  Indeed, his father Charles I was a High Church Anglican who teetered on that edge himself.  George I was chosen over 60 Stuart claimants simply because the Whigs had taken control of parliament, and he was a protestant.

I note this as people not familiar with the English monarchy, or perhaps more accurately the monarchy of the United Kingdom, seem to assume that the throne has always been inherited.  Not so.  It's been inherited since George I, when he was crowned the King over Catholic claimants who held undoubtedly better claims.

The second item of interest there is that the British monarchy is, therefore, by recent tradition, and by law, "Protestant", which his to say, Anglican.

Those watching the coronation yesterday, if they were not familiar with the process, would have been struck by how deeply religious it was.  I don't think people, or perhaps more accurately Americans, expected that, as Americans have the stupid Disney view of monarchy, in which there'd be a two-minute coronation involving beautiful people, rather than an hours long service.  Moreover, people with some religious knowledge, but not familiar with the process, would have been surprised that it was recognizable as a Mass, in Catholic terms.

Indeed, some commentators, including the Catholic Cardinal who participated in it, noted that it has "some" Catholic elements. 

"Some"?

Baloney, it's 100% Catholic in form save for the King having to take the mandatory oath that he support the United Kingdom's Protestant faith.

That became a topic running up to this because, in spite of the impressive performance, the Church of England is in real trouble in England.  It does remain strong in some places, but not in its old footholds.  In the United States and Canada, its North American expression, the Episcopal Church, is in really deep trouble.  In the UK, more Catholics attend services weekly than members of the Church of England, which is really something given that Catholics are a minority religion in the UK and have been at least since Elizabeth I forced the "religious settlement" on the country.  Lest that seem too encouraging for Catholics, all devout religious adherence has been on the decline in the UK for a very long time, a product of the disaster of the Reformation, which is playing out presently.

Be that as it may, at least to Catholic eyes, the absurdity of the English Reformation is brought to full light by such events.  The ceremony was so Catholic that the question has to be asked why the Church of England doesn't just come back into the fold, something which is becoming increasingly difficult in light of its recent accommodations to popular social trends.

Which brings me to my next observation.

I know one fallen away Episcopalian who is deeply anti-Catholic.  It's interesting how that tends to be the last thing that those raised in the "main line" Protestant Churches retain.  The Baby Boomer children of adherent Main Line Protestant churches may have chosen to ignore their faiths in favor of the world and its delights, but they remember the fables and hatred that the Reformation used to justify its actions, and still cite it as if they were buddies with John Calvin himself.  Odd.

I know that I'm personally tired of it.  But in part, that's because I'm tired of having to listen to two people I personally know debate religious topics as if it's a sport.  It isn't.  It's serious.  But then maybe I'm tired of people who argue just for sport as well.

Profoundly Christian, and frankly about as close to Catholic in form as you can get and not be Catholic, another interesting aspect of the coronation was reinforcing the United Kingdom's Christian heritage. 

And that's a good thing.

The Coronation really brought the monarchy haters out in droves, which was interesting.  Lots of "Not My King" and "Not My Queen" individual protests were here and there. Well, unless Parliament abolished the monarchy, if you are English or a resident of the English Commonwealth, he is your king.  You don't have to love him, but that doesn't mean he isn't the king.

This also brought out a lot of sanctimonious blathering by people who hail from former imperial possessions about the horrors of the British Empire. Well, whatever they may be, King Charles III and his mother Queen Elizabeth II weren't responsible for any of them.

Indeed, it's been eons since there was a king or queen really had extensive power.  Maybe since King Charles II.  The UK has been a constitutional monarch at least since Queen Anne.  If monarchy had been what people imagine, one of her Stuart relatives would have been the next monarch, not King George I.  So if people have a beef with the British Empire, it shouldn't really be with Queen Elizabeth, whom some proclaimed they could not mourn, or with King Charles III, whom some proclaim they cannot celebrate.

Let's make no mistake.  Colonialism in general was bigoted and racist by its very nature.  The underlying premise of it was that the European colonial power, and here we will limit this to European powers, was empowered by some sort of superior value which gave it a right to take the land of others and rule its people. That was the underlying thesis of colonialism everywhere. Generally the "superior" something they had was technology, which made it possible, but which didn't make it right.

But before we get too self-righteous about it, we probably need to take a look at in context, and over time, and then ask if the compulsion that gives rise to it is a universal human norm. That would not mean that it was right, but it might lessen the overall guilt.

Indeed, in spite of what people might now wish for claim, when European colonialism started the concept of one nation ruling over another was not only common, it was the norm.  In the early 17th Century when British Colonialism really started, Ireland and Wales were already unwelcome members, to some extent, of the United Kingdom, and Scotland wasn't all that keen on it. Figuring out who governed in the Low Countries and the German Principalities requires an epic flow chart.  Russia ruled vasts lands with no Russians. This condition would go on well into the 19th Century, and even to some extent into the 20th Century.  Contrary to what people claim, national feelings existed, but people didn't regard empires and monarchies that ruled over a collection of nations to be abnormal.

And it would have been extremely difficult for Europeans, early on, to be confronted with foreign cultures beyond their seas and treat them as equals given the varied states of development.  It's easy for us to say that the British should have landed at Jamestown in 1607 only after asking for permission, but frankly, it would have been impossible for them to have conceived it that way at the time.

This might not be the case for later European colonial efforts, but by that time competition between European powers nearly mandated acquiring colonies and a person would have to be naive to imagine that if the British had abstained, the French, Dutch, Germans, Spanish, and so on, would have done so also.

Indeed, frankly, if we were to land humans on Mars today, and find something waddle up and address us in some bizarre Martian tongue, I don't believe we'd abstain from colonizing the planet now.

Which gets to this point.  I can't really think easily of a people anywhere that had the power to colonize, and didn't do it.  Everyone did.  It seems to go back to our earliest days.  That doesn't make it right, once again, but it's obviously a common human trait.

Which means in turn that the only really valid criticism of empire that mean anything today has to come in terms of relatively recent historical context.

A conversation on this point the other day made me realize how different my "relatively recent" is.  The actual conversation was on British primogenitor in the monarchy.  I sincerely regard everything after 1066 as recent in terms of the British monarchy.  

Apparently, other people don't.

In this context, however, i.e., that of empire, I'd probably go back to 1800 or so.  If you are going to levy guilt on the British, therefore, you might have to start in 1858 when Parliament caused the British to officially take over India.  

There's a lot to blame the English for after that, but then there's a lot to blame the French, Belgians, Dutch and Germans for after that as well.

It's really the late 19th Century and 20th Century when you get into the full-blown "shouldn't you people have known better" type of situation. The Scramble for Africa is pretty difficult to justify in any sense.

Which takes us, I suppose, to this.  In its late stages, while it was still an empire, and should have known better, at least the British did a good job of trying to administer what it was administering well. Its actions weren't always admirable or successful.  The Bengal Famine of 1943 provides a shocking example of that.  And frankly, there's no way to reconcile the claim that the British were fighting for freedom only during World War Two, except comparatively.  I.e., the Axis wasn't seeking to liberate colonial peoples, but to enslave them to somebody else less democratic yet.   But, having said that, the British, more than any other colonial power, managed to depart from empire gracefully and with some rationale hope that the best things it had given to the people it had occupied would remain.

It didn't always work out, but to a surprising degree it did.  British Dominions largely did evolve into full-blown parliamentary democracies and largely separated from the UK peaceably, although this was notably not the case with Ireland.  Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Ireland and South Africa are all democracies today due to the British example.  So, frankly, is the United States, the UK's first failed imperial endeavor.

The coronation of King Charles III probably contains within it a series of lessons that will only be evident in the coming days.  But for those who want to protest it, well you probably would better spend your time on real problems of the world, of which there are many.

Related Items:

King Charles III

Britain's projection of its hopes and gossip on its royal family may be more useful than America's projection on its presidential families

Friday, Febraury 12, 1943. Roosevelt addresses the nation.

World War Two U.S. poster, part of a series, which sought to portray all Allied soldiers as fighting for the same cause.  This poster depicts a Red Army sniper, although the photograph is a bit odd.  The soldier wears an Adrian French style helmet, which the Soviets did in fact use, but which they had started to replace in 1939.  Therefore, this photograph would have had to have been from very early in the war.  Additionally, the scope on his rifle is much more substantial than that typically used by the Red Army.  In truth, of course, the Red Army soldier was not fighting for freedom, but for the preservation of the Soviet Union at this point in the war. Earlier in the war, he'd fought for the reincorporation of lost regions of the Russian Empire into the USSR.  He was also fighting directly for his family and the Russian people, who were subject to German barbarism, but freedom wasn't really part of the equation. This topic would be loosely addressed by Roosevelt in his speech.

President Roosevelt address the nation on the result of the recent Casablanca Conference, in which he stated:

It is nearly two years since I attended the last dinner of our White House Correspondents' Association. A great deal of water has flowed over the dam since then.

And several people have flown over the water.

Two years ago—many months before Pearl Harbor—I spoke to you of the thought that was then uppermost in our minds— of the determination of America to become the arsenal of democracy. Almost all Americans had by that time determined to play their full part in helping to save civilization from the barbarians. Even then, we were in the midst of the historic job of production- a job which the American people have been performing with zest and skill and, above all, with success.

Tonight, as I speak to you, we are in the war, and another thought is uppermost in our minds. That is our determination to fight this war through to the finish- to the day when United Nations forces march in triumph through the streets of Berlin, and Rome, and Tokyo.

Last September, as some of our publisher friends here tonight knew at the time, I made a tour of inspection through this country. I saw war plants at work. I saw Army and Navy training camps and flying fields. I saw American men and women—management and labor alike—working with the objective of beating production schedules. I saw American soldiers and sailors and fliers doing the job of training for the fighting that lay ahead.

Now I have returned from one of the fronts overseas, where the production from American factories and the training given in American camps are being applied in actual warfare against the enemy. I have seen our troops in the field. I have inspected their superb equipment. I have talked and laughed and eaten with them.

I have seen our men- the Nation's men- in Trinidad, in Belem and Natal in Brazil, in Liberia, in Gambia. We must remember that in these places there is no actual fighting, but there is hard, dangerous, essential work, and there is a tremendous strain on the endurance and the spirit of our troops. They are standing up magnificently under that strain. And I want them to know that we have not forgotten them.

I have seen our men—and some of our American women—in North Africa. Out there it is war. Those men know that before this war is over, many of them will have given their lives to their Nation. But they know also that they are fighting to destroy the power of the enemies of this country, that they are fighting for a peace that will be a real and lasting peace and a far better world for the future.

Our men in the field are worthy of the great faith, the high hopes that we have placed in them. That applies as well to the men of our Navy, without whom no American expeditionary force could land safely on foreign shores. And it applies equally to the men of our merchant marine who carry the essential munitions and supplies, without which neither the United States nor our allies could continue the battle.

No American can look at these men, soldiers or sailors, without a very great emotion and great pride—and a deep sense of our responsibility to them.

Because of the necessary secrecy of my trip, the men of our armed forces in every place I visited were completely surprised. And the expression on their faces certainly proved that.

I wish that I could pay similar surprise visits to our men in the other fields of operations. And don't let anybody assume, because I have said that, that next month I am flying to Guadalcanal. But I wish I could see our men, and our naval bases, and the islands of the Pacific, and Australia, on the mainland and the islands of Alaska, the islands of the Atlantic, the two Guianas, the Canal Zone, Iceland, Britain, Central Africa, the Middle East, India, Burma, and China. I wish I could tell them face to face that their Government and their people are very proud of the great job that they are doing, in helping to strengthen the vise that is slowly but surely squeezing the breath out of our enemies.

In every battalion, and in every ship's crew, you will find every kind of American citizen representing every occupation, every section, every origin, every religion, and every political viewpoint.

Ask them what they are fighting for, and every one of them will say, "I am fighting for my country." Ask them what they really mean by that, and you will get what on the surface may seem to be a wide variety of answers.

One will say that he is fighting for the right to say what he pleases, and to read and listen to what he likes.

Another will say he is fighting because he never wants to see the Nazi swastika flying over the old First Baptist Church on Elm Street.

Another soldier will say that he is fighting for the right to work, and to earn three square meals a day for himself and his folks.

And another one will say that he is fighting in this world war so that his children and his grandchildren will not have to go back to Europe, or Africa, or Asia, or the Solomon Islands, to do this ugly job all over again.

But all these answers really add up to the same thing; every American is fighting for freedom. And today the personal freedom of every American and his family depends, and in the future will increasingly depend, upon the freedom of his neighbors in other lands.

For today the more you travel, the more you realize that the whole world is one neighborhood. That is why this war that had its beginnings in seemingly remote areas—China—Poland—has spread to every continent, and most of the islands of the sea, involving the lives and the liberties of the entire human race. And unless the peace that follows recognizes that the whole world is one neighborhood and does justice to the whole human race, the germs of another world war will remain as a constant threat to mankind.

Yes, I talked with many people in our armed forces, along the coast and through the islands of the Western Hemisphere, and up the coast of West Africa. Many of our soldiers and sailors were concerned about the state of the home front. They receive all kinds of exaggerated reports and rumors that there is too much complaining back here at home, and too little recognition of the realities of war; that selfish labor leaders are threatening to call strikes that would greatly curtail the output of our war industries; that some farm groups are trying to profiteer on prices, and are letting us down on food production; that many people are bitter over the hardships of rationing and priorities; and especially that there is serious partisan quarrel over the petty things of life here in our Capital City of Washington, D.C.

I told them that most of these reports are just gross exaggerations; that the people as a whole in the United States are in this war to see it through with heart and body and soul; and that our population is willing and glad to give up some of their shoes, and their sugar, and coffee, and automobile riding—and privileges and profits—for the sake of the common cause.

I could not truthfully deny to our troops that a few chiselers, a few politicians, and a few—to use a polite term—publicists -fortunately a very few- have placed their personal ambition or greed above the Nation's interests.

Our troops know that the Nazis and the Fascists and the Japanese are trying hard to sell the untruths of propaganda to certain types of Americans. But our troops also know that even if you pile up a lot of molehills of deception one on top of the other, you still cannot make a mountain big enough, or high enough, or solid enough to fool many people, or to block the road to victory and to an effective peace.

I think a fundamental of an effective peace is the assurance to those men who are fighting our battles, that when they come home they will find a country with an economy firm enough and fair enough to provide jobs for all those who are willing to work.

I am certain that private enterprise will be able to provide the vast majority of those jobs, and in those cases where this cannot be accomplished that the Congress of the United States will pass the legislation that will make good the assurance of earning a living.

There are still a few men who say we cannot achieve this and other honorable, reasonable aims for the postwar period. And in speaking of those professional skeptics—those men of little faith -there comes to my mind an old word in our language- the word "petriloggers."

The formal dictionary definition and derivation of the word are neither here nor there. To most of us "pettifogger" brings to mind a man who is small, mean and tricky, and picayune. In a word—petty. It is the type of man who is always seeking to create a smoke screen and fog, for the purpose of obscuring the plain truth. And you and I know some pettifoggers.

Today, those pettifoggers are attempting to obscure the essential truths of this war. They are seeking to befog the present and the future, and the clear purposes and the high principles for which the free world now maintains the promise of undimmed victory.

To use one example, in a small sector of the world's surface in North Africa—we are now massing armies—British, French, and American- for one of the major battles of this war.

The enemy's purpose in the battle of Tunisia is to hold at all costs their last bridgehead in Africa, to prevent us from gaining access to the Straits that lead to Nazi-dominated Europe.

Our prime purpose in this battle of Tunisia is to drive our enemies into the sea.

The British First Army in this battle, commanded by General Anderson, contains many veterans of Flanders and Dunkirk. Those men have a score to settle with the Nazis, and they are going to even that score.

The British Eighth Army, commanded by General Montgomery, has to its eternal credit the smashing defeat of Marshal Rommel's Army, and the now historic fifteen-hundred-mile pursuit of those once triumphant Nazi-Fascist forces.

The enemy in Tunisia will be attacked from the south by this great Eighth Army, and by the French forces who have made a remarkable march all the way across the Sahara Desert under General Le Clerc, one of General de Gaulle's officers. From the west the enemy will be attacked by the combined forces of British and Americans, together with French troops under the command of General Giraud.

And I think that we take a certain satisfaction tonight that all of these forces are commanded by General Eisenhower. I spent many hours in Casablanca with this young general- a descendant of Kansas pioneers. I know what a fine, tough job he has done, and how carefully and skillfully he is directing the soldiers under him. I want to say to you tonight—and to him—that we have every confidence in his leadership. High tribute was paid to his qualities as a man when the British Government, through Mr. Churchill, took the lead at Casablanca in proposing him for the supreme command of all the great Allied operations which are imminent in North Africa.

The deputy to General Eisenhower is General Alexander, one of Britain's greatest fighting men. He commanded all the British forces in the Middle East, including the Eighth Army that won the decisive battle at El Alamein. He and General Montgomery planned that engagement and the stupendous advance that followed. At this moment—as I speak to you tonight—General Alexander is standing at the right hand of General Eisenhower planning new military operations.

These important facts reveal not merely cooperation but active collaboration between the United Nations. Let these facts be duly noted by our enemies.

Our soldiers in Tunisia are well trained and equipped, but they are facing for the first time actual combat with formidable opponents. We can be absolutely certain that they will conduct themselves as bravely and as effectively as did those young Americans under General Pershing who drove Germany's best troops through the Argonne forest and across the River Meuse.

I think we should be prepared for the fact that Tunisia will cost us heavily in casualties. Yes, we must face that fact now, with the same calm courage as our men are facing it on the battlefield itself.

The enemy has strong forces, and strong positions. His supply lines are maintained at great cost, but Hitler has been willing to pay that cost because he knows the consequences of Allied victory in Tunisia.

The consequences are simple. They are the actual invasions of the continent of Europe. And we do not disguise our intention to make these invasions. The pressure on Germany and Italy will be constant and unrelenting. The amazing Russian armies in eastern Europe have been delivering overpowering blows; we must do likewise in the west. The enemy must be hit and hit hard from so many directions that he will never know which is his bow and which is his stern.

And it was made clear also at Casablanca that all Frenchmen outside of France, for we know little of what is happening in France, but all Frenchmen who can, are uniting in one great paramount objective—the complete liberation of France and of the French people who now suffer the torture of the Nazi yoke. As each day passes, a spirit of unselfishness is more greatly uniting all Frenchmen who have the opportunity to strike that blow for liberation.

In the years of the American Revolution, and the French Revolution, the fundamental principle that guided our democracies was established. Indeed the whole cornerstone of our democratic edifice was the principle that from the people and the people alone flows the authority of government.

It is one of our war aims, as expressed in the Atlantic Charter, that the conquered populations of today- shall again become the masters of their destiny. There must be no doubt anywhere that it is the unalterable purpose of the United Nations to restore to conquered peoples their sacred rights.

French sovereignty rests with the people of France. Its expression has been temporarily suspended by German occupation. Once the triumphant armies of the United Nations have expelled the common foe, Frenchmen will be represented by a government of their own popular choice.

And it will be a free choice in every way. No Nation in all the world that is free to make a choice is going to set itself up under a Fascist form of government, or a Nazi form of government, or a Japanese war-lord form of government. For such forms are the offspring of seizure of power followed by the abridgment of freedom. Therefore- and this is plain logic- the United Nations can properly say of these forms of government—Nazism, Fascism, Japanism—if I might coin a new word-the United Nations can properly say to that form of government two simple words, "Never again."

For the right of self-determination included in the Atlantic Charter does not carry with it the right of any Government anywhere in the world to commit wholesale murder, or the right to make slaves of its own people, or of any other peoples in the world.

And the world can rest assured that this total war, this sacrifice of lives all over the globe, is not being carried on for the purpose, or even with the remotest idea of keeping Quislings or Lavals in power anywhere on this earth.

The decisions that were reached, and the actual plans that were made at Casablanca were not confined to any one theater of war, or to any one continent, or ocean, or sea. Before this year is out I think it will be made known to the world, in actions rather than in words, that the Casablanca Conference produced plenty of news; and it will be bad news for the Germans and Italians—and the Japanese.

We have lately concluded a long, hard battle in the Southwest Pacific, and we have made notable gains. That battle started in the Solomons and New Guinea last summer. It has demonstrated without question our superior power in planes, and most importantly in the fighting qualities of our individual soldiers and sailors.

American armed forces in the Southwest Pacific are receiving powerful aid from Australia and New Zealand, and also directly from the British themselves.

We do not expect to spend the time that it would take to bring Japan to final defeat merely by inching our way forward from island to island across the vast expanse of the Pacific. It would take too many years.

Great and decisive actions against the Japanese will be taken to drive the invader from the soil of China. Yes, important actions are going to be taken in the skies over China—and in the skies over Japan itself.

The discussions at Casablanca have been continued in Chungking with the Generalissimo by General Arnold, and have resulted in definite plans for offensive operations.

Remember that there are many roads that lead right to Tokyo. And we are not going to neglect any of them.

In an attempt to ward off the inevitable disaster that lies ahead of them, the Axis propagandists are trying all their old tricks, in order to divide the United Nations. They seek to create the idea that if we win this war, Russia, and England, and China, and the United States are going to get into a cat-and-dog fight.

This is their final effort to turn one Nation against another, in the vain hope that they may settle with one or two at a time- that any of us may be so gullible and so forgetful as to be duped into making "deals" at the expense of our allies.

To these panicky attempts- and that is the best word to use: "panicky"—to escape the consequences of their crimes, we say —all the United Nations say- that the only terms on which we shall deal with any Axis Government, or any Axis factions, are the terms proclaimed at Casablanca: "unconditional surrender." We know, and the plain people of our enemies will eventually know, that in our uncompromising policy we mean no harm to the common people of the Axis Nations. But we do mean to impose punishment and retribution in full upon their guilty, barbaric leaders.

The Nazis must be frantic—not just panicky, but frantic if they believe that they can devise any propaganda that would turn the British and the American and the Chinese Governments and peoples against Russia—or Russia against the rest of us.

The overwhelming courage and endurance of the Russian people in withstanding and hurling back the invaders- the genius with which their great armies have been directed and led by Mr. Stalin and their military commanders—all speak for themselves.

The tragedy of the war has sharpened the vision and leadership of the peoples of all the United Nations, and I can say to you from my own full knowledge that they see the utter necessity of our standing together after the war to secure a peace based on principles of permanence.

You can be quite sure that if Japan should be the first of the Axis partners to fall, the total efforts and resources of all the United Nations would be concentrated on the job of crushing Germany.

And, on the other hand, lest there be any question in Nazi or Japanese minds that we are wholly one in the prosecution of the war to a complete victory over our enemies, the Prime Minister wished, at Casablanca, to make a formal agreement that if Germany should be conquered before Japan, all British Empire resources and manpower would, of course, join with China and us in an out-and-out final attack on Japan. And I told Mr. Churchill that no formal statement of agreement along those lines was in the least bit necessary, that the American people accept the word of a great English gentleman and that it is obvious and clear that all of us are completely in accord in our determination to destroy the forces of barbarism in Asia, as well as in Europe and in Africa. In other words, our policy toward our Japanese enemies is precisely the same as our policy toward our Nazi enemies: it is a policy of fighting hard on all fronts, and ending the war as quickly as we can, on the uncompromising terms of unconditional surrender.

Today is the anniversary of the birth of a great, plain American. The living memory of Abraham Lincoln is now honored and cherished by all of our people, wherever they may be, and by men and women and children throughout the British Commonwealth, and the Soviet Union, and the Republic of China, and all of our sister American Republics, and indeed in every land on earth where people love freedom and will give their lives for freedom.

President Lincoln said in 1862, "Fellow citizens, we cannot escape history. We of this Congress and this administration will be remembered in spite of ourselves. No personal significance or insignificance can spare one or another of us. The fiery trial through which we pass will light us . . . in honor or dishonor, to the latest generation."

Today, eighty years after Lincoln delivered that message, the fires of war are blazing across the whole horizon of mankind from Kharkov to Kunming—from the Mediterranean to the Coral Sea—from Berlin to Tokyo.

Again—we cannot escape history. We have supreme confidence that, with the help of God, honor will prevail. We have faith that future generations will know that here, in the middle of the twentieth century, there came a time when men of good will found a way to unite, and produce, and fight to destroy the forces of ignorance, and intolerance, and slavery, and war.

The speech was notable for several reasons.

"English" soldier, who might be Welsh, Scots, Northern Irish or, in fact Irish, in the same poster campaign. He's carrying a Boys Antitank rifle, something not commonly seen by this point in the war..  He was fighting for freedom, but a definition of freedom that included ongoing colonial administration of regions of the British Empire until they were sufficiently developed so as to become part of the British Commonwealth.

For one thing, Roosevelt felt compelled to warn Americans that heavy casualties would be coming in Tunisia, probably steeling the audience to an inevitable increase in loss of life which, while it had certainly occurred in North Africa, had been relatively light so far.  He also hinted at future actions to come.

Australian soldiers, whom were largely volunteers for most of the war, were fighting for freedom, but Australia was actually a colonial power in its own right, with New Guinea being its colony.

And he also had picked up on Axis propaganda, which was in fact trying to split the Western Allies from the Soviet Union.  The fact that it was addressed must have meant that there was some Administration fear about ongoing conservative hesitance about having adopted the USSR as an Ally.

Canada has never had an empire, unless you consider the Canadian incorporation of the Canadian west to be colonialism, which stretches the definition in my view.   The same claim has been made against the United States, which I also regard as stretching the definition.  Canadian troops were stationed in Hong Kong, which was a British Crown Colony prior to the Japanese attack on it, but Hong Kong's history is really unique and in modern times has not been an example people point to in order to complaint about colonialism.

Of course, while the alliance was a fact and necessary, the concerns about the USSR were well-founded.  The Soviet Union's war aims were never the same as the West's, which perhaps might be best illustrated that the war began over the question of Polish sovereignty, which it would not regain, due to one of its original invaders, the USSR, destroying it.

What the views on the war of the average Chinese soldier were in the war are now probably lost to the ages.  China had fought off and on in a series of civil wars that had seen the country briefly united under the Nationalist before the Communist within the Nationalist government split off and were expelled, at which time the party drifted rightward and the civil war commenced.  China could not be regarded as a democracy in 1943, although it had attempted to become one at the beginning of the movement which had brought the Nationalist to power.

Roosevelt also addressed the French, which is interesting, and in doing so tried to come up with a legal theory as to why the Free French weren't outright rebels against the distasteful legitimate French government.  Sovereignty vesting in the people became the theory of the day.  As large as the French resistance had become at this point, in the form of the French military everywhere outside of France itself, and the Germans having occupied Vichy, its surprising that he bothered really.

Ethiopia was certainly not a democracy, but it was fighting for its freedeom.

The Soviets took Krasnodar, in Ukraine, on this day.

US troops attacked German the Afrika Korps at Faid, Tunisia, while the British repelled an Afrika Korps attack at Ousseltia.

Japanese counter-attacks at Donbaik and Rathedaung, Burma, were unsuccessful.

The University of Wyoming defeated Colorado State University in basketball, 57–34 in the basketball variant of "The Border War", which was a basketball series, not one single game.

Epilogue.

Most of the people who saw this poster probably thought of the Allied sailors of occupied countries who were serving on board ships that had not been captured by the Germans when their nations were overrun.  The Dutch, however, had a sizable naval contingent based in the Dutch East Indes which in fact did fight valiently in 1941-42 when the Japanese attacked there.  Having said that, the irony is that the Dutch were hated in the Dutch East Indes and the Japanese explusion of them was successful in that the British never allowed the Dutch to return.  Indonesian collaborationist were not, moreover, punished by the Indonesian population for their collaboration, and in some instances went on to successful post war political careers.  While the Japanese occupation of anything was not admiralbe, The East Indes, the thing they were attempting to grap at the start of the Pacific War, makes for a lot of odd exceptions.

Of interest, the series of posters I put up above, of which there are additional posters in the series, is well known, but has never struck me as an attractive series of posters.  It's interesting that it was done, as it demonstrates that there was some isolationist, nativist, resistance to the war even well into the war, and the government felt it was necessary to try to influence Americans toward believing that all the Allied soldiers were fighting for the same thing.

Of course, as noted, they weren't.  

By and large, the Western Allies, which would include the United States, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, the United Kingdom, the Free French, Poland, Norway, the Netherlands, and Belgium were, although as some latter day critics like to point out, imperfectly.   France, the UK, Australia, Belgium, and the Netherlands were imperial powers who, it can be pointed out, were not in favor of the immediate liberation of their colonial subjects.  Having said that, while the British were not yet in the "winds of change" era, they had moved as far back as the late 19th Century towards a Commonwealth of Nations theory of empire and were well down that path, which resulted in various nations achieving dominion status within the empire, at which point they were free governing nations.  It included a couple of nations that were problematic in that regard, however, as South Africa was a racist democracy at the time, and India clearly wanted out of the Empire entirely.  Nonetheless, saying that the British Commonwealth and Empire was fighting for freedom would be largely accurate.

France, for its part, was evolving in its imperial concepts, but not nearly as quickly and not in the same direction.  It had moved towards a different concept, which was the "overseas department" of France, under which some colonies simply were part of France, but with a weighted voting system.  This would result in anti-colonial wars against France following World War Two, with perhaps the saddest and most ironic one being the Algerian War, as Algerians really rallied to the French flag during World War Two.

The Dutch and the Belgians were fighting for the freedom of their homelands, but they had no concept of colonial liberation at all.  The Dutch in particular are an oddity, as the Netherlands was widely regarded as a very peaceable nation and organically opposed to Nazism, although Dutch volunteers to the German military were notable, so much so that the liberated Dutch feared what Allied soldiers would feel about photographs of family members in German uniforms. Cornelius Ryan notes that in his book A Bridge Too Far, but dresses it up by calling them conscripts.  Having said this, the Dutch resistance as large and really effective.  Anyhow, the Dutch, contrary to their reputation in Europe, were absolutely despised in their East Asian colonies where they had a well deserved reputation for cruelty. This was so much the case that the British, which were seeking to retain their own colonies at the time, would not allow the Dutch to resume control in theirs after the war.

All of this contrasts enormously, of course, with the Soviet Union.  The USSR was a German ally up until 1941, having participated in the invasion of Poland and having been given a free hand by the Germans to invade the Baltic States.  In the 1939 to 1941 period, the Soviets not only did all that, but they attacked Finland and took a piece of Romania from that country.  They were not interested in Freedom at all, and simply eliminated Poland as an entity, as had the Germans.   The German invasion of the Soviet Union came when it did (it would have come sooner or later anyway) as the Soviets overplayed their hand in negotiating with the Germans for material resources, conditioning entering the war upon a transfer of pieces of the British Empire.  Following the war Poland's real sovereignty would not be restored in spite of that being the casus belli of the war in the first place, due to the USSR, and the independence of Hungary and Romania would be lost for two generations, those nations having brought that down on themselves for siding with the Germans.

Anyhow, these posters have surprisingly long legs, in spite of not being visually appealing, in my view.  Witness the following:

The poster above is a Freedom of Russia Legion poster stating "This man is your friend. he fights fir freedom”.   The Freedom of Russia Legion is a Russian unit within the Ukrainian forces, made up of men who have left the Russian Army and turned their guns on Russia.

And then there's this:

This is obviously lifted right from the series, and well done too I might add.  I woudn't have expected this.

And we have this:

This depicts a man who, in the 1992 Los Angeles riots, during which the rioters turned on the Korean population of the town, reported to his employer at his his employer's request, to defend the business.

This, by the way, gives a good reason for the 2nd Amendment.  The rifle his is carrying appears to be an AR180.

And this isn't the end of it, there are all sorts of takes on this poser series.