Mehdi Hasan

Mehdi Hasan’s polemical take on politics, economics and foreign affairs

Cameron, Blair and historical gaffes

Some history on the lack of history . . .

By Mehdi Hasan Published 22 July 2010 10:32

David Cameron is taking a battering in the newspapers and the blogosphere. In the midst of his first visit to the United States as prime minister, he told Sky's Adam Boulton:

I think it's important in life to speak as it is, and the fact is that we are a very effective partner of the US, but we are the junior partner. We were the junior partner in 1940 when we were fighting the Nazis.

Hmm. The Americans, of course, didn't participate in the Battle of Britain. In fact, the United States was plunged into the Second World War by the "surprise" Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941, followed by Adolf Hitler's declaration of war against America.

The Daily Mail has gone to town on the story, citing General Sir Patrick Cordingley, former commander of the Desert Rats: "I am quite sure if Winston Churchill were alive today he would be dismayed." The Spectator's James Forsyth writes: "The error is even odder given Cameron's penchant for war movies: he's watched Where Eagles Dare 17 times apparently."

So what did Cameron gain from his expensive Eton education? You'd think, given the British educational establishment's obsession with the Second World War, that our collective historical knowledge of this particular conflict might be, um, er, above average. But you'd be wrong.

Cameron is the self-professed "heir to Blair" and Blair himself made a similar gaffe in the run-up to the Iraq war. As Robert Fisk has written:

Blair, of course, also tried on Churchill's waistcoat and jacket for size. No "appeaser" he. America was Britain's oldest ally, he proclaimed -- and both Bush and Blair reminded journalists that the US had stood shoulder-to-shoulder with Britain in her hour of need in 1940.

But none of this was true.

Britain's old ally was not the United States. It was Portugal, a neutral fascist state during World War Two. Only my own newspaper, the Independent, picked this up.

Nor did America fight alongside Britain in her hour of need in 1940, when Hitler threatened invasion and the German air force blitzed London. No, in 1940 America was enjoying a very profitable period of neutrality -- and did not join Britain in the war until Japan attacked the US naval base at Pearl Harbor in December of 1941.

Ouch!

Blair exposed his embarrassing ignorance of history on several different occasions. Once, during an interview with Channel 4's Jon Snow on the subject of Iran and its alleged nuclear threat, the then prime minister had to concede that he had never heard of Muhammed Mossadeq -- the democratically elected Iranian prime minister that Britain helped depose in a 1953 coup.

But, hold on, things just got a bit better: it seems Niall Ferguson and Andrew Roberts are on their way to rescue our school history lessons!

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

Tags: David Cameron Tony Blair

More from Mehdi Hasan

View the discussion thread.

19 comments

Thu, 2010-07-22 12:41 — Dave C (not verified)

@frances smith

If, as you say, Michael Howard preferred Gideon to David then an explanation might be found here:

Jeff Randall, writing in The Daily Telegraph where he is a senior executive, said he would not trust Mr Cameron "with my daughter's pocket money".

"To describe Cameron's approach to corporate PR as unhelpful and evasive overstates by a widish margin the clarity and plain-speaking that he brought to the job of being Michael Green's mouthpiece," wrote the ex-BBC business editor.

"In my experience, Cameron never gave a straight answer when dissemblance was a plausible alternative, which probably makes him perfectly suited for the role he now seeks: the next Tony Blair," Mr Randall wrote.

Sun business editor Ian King, recalling the same era, described Mr Cameron as a "poisonous, slippery individual".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/4502656.stm

Fri, 2010-07-23 15:19 — jie4v7i14

Even Eton has their thickos, and rich thickos at that. His old history teacher there must be dusting his cane down as we speak, or whatever they call it in Eton. Drop your strides Dave, or whatever they call...

Fri, 2010-07-23 15:26 — jie4v7i14

...and for future reference Dave, US entered The Great War, now known as World War One, in April 1917.

...and stop watching all those hollywood war movies too, you have obviously been corrupted, Dave.

Thu, 2010-07-22 13:17 — Niffy Nog (not verified)

They did capture the Enigma machine from the Nazis, I saw it for myself on the Hollyweird film U-571, so it must be true

Thu, 2010-07-22 13:51 — Matt M (not verified)

Well if England is not a junior partner to the US, what do you propose they were? Yes, the US was not involved in the Battle of Britain but there were major components of the victory in Europe and in Asia, and in today's world, I think junior partner is quite appropriate considering Europe's prominence slowly disintegrating to the likes of India, China and Brasil.

Fri, 2010-07-23 18:15 — Mrs Nobody

It's good to see the intellect and judgement of the ruling elite on grand display - it would laughable but for the fact that they are our leaders.

Tue, 2010-12-28 11:15 — Arnaud B (not verified)

I know of an old Tory who wrote memoirs of WWII. He was somewhat informed and notably provided the readers with data proving that it wasn't until the second half of 1944 that the American contribution in troops and planes to the Allied cause went beyond the British contribution. Oh, and he used the title "Alone" in one of the chapters relating to 1940 for some reason. His initials were WSC.

Thu, 2010-07-22 14:32 — MP (not verified)

@Matt M- Cameron said "We were the junior partner in 1940 when we were fighting the Nazis." He was referring to WW2 not England's current economic standing against other nations. That is the whole point of this article, Cameron got his facts wrong.

Thu, 2010-07-22 15:04 — Roshan (not verified)

Ok Cameron is historically illiterate and we've all gone to town proving how stupid he is.

But his wider point stands - Britain is the junior partner and I'm glad he's gone on the record emphasizing that.

Past leaders (Blair, Thatcher) obviously thought it was a partnership of equals!

Thu, 2010-07-22 15:36 — Sue Davies (not verified)

Hippywizard is right

"Brilliant! In one fell swoop, Cameron has annoyed lefties for sucking up to Uncle Sam, and righties for playing down Britain's manliness in The War. Oh well done."

Cameron looked like Blair ... overjoyed to be allowed to play with the big boys ... he looked totally wet and embarassing! ... and terrifyingly he and the other 'children' are dismantling what is left of the welfare state, privatising the NHS and recreating the two tier education system.

Thu, 2010-07-22 19:11 — Helen Walker (not verified)

His PR instincts went into overdrive and to curry favour he made an unnecessary, fawning comment. Yuk. Junior - in what respect? Lower, inferior, younger, secondary? I'm afraid I don't consider the UK junior in any respects to a society that executed 52 people last year.

Thu, 2010-07-22 20:09 — felix (not verified)

re historical gaffs...
here are some of Mehdi's,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhPeyxJ7vGU

Thu, 2010-07-22 20:52 — Chris Williams (not verified)

Mr Cameron must have been very loosely educated.

Fri, 2010-07-30 15:48 — ACMJ

It sadly proved Obama right when he first called Cameron a political lightweight, an d also proves me sadly right for stating that David Cameron would make Britain a laughing stock , were he ever to become Prime Minister .
This political toddler not only belittled the British resistance to Nazi Germany's attempts to invade the UK ,he also managed to humiliate the RAF for its efforts to defeat the Luftwaffe . It is rather disturbing to see that the Eton educated British PM is not even smarter than a 10year old,though he regards his deputy co leader as a "joke" . What an embarrassment to Britain David Cameron is .

Thu, 2010-07-22 10:57 — MP (not verified)

Cameron's Statement is quite worrying, not for the incorrect historical reference but because it seems he is trying to make England inferior to boost the ego of the Americans. We all remember what happened when the last prime minister had that attitude...

Thu, 2010-07-22 11:04 — Sharif

A good Article Mehdi. I remember Mossadegh, who wanted to take over oil fields. Those were the days of colonial apartheid in 50's. I am sure he would have been a better leader. Look what we have now, a mullah regime!

Thu, 2010-07-22 11:45 — Jacquie R (not verified)

With this gaffe, the mask has finally slipped and shows Cameron as he truly is - a shallow, non intellectual,uber confident, clever PR man, born with a silver spoon in his mouth. This is the man who wanted to be Prime Minister because he thought he'd be good at it. Bit scary for the rest of us really, when you consider what's at stake.

Thu, 2010-07-22 12:17 — frances smith (not verified)

with this gaffe, the mask has indeed finally slipped, and what i want to know is, given our new prime minister is turning out be completely bonkers, why as conservative leader did michael howard favour that idiot george osborne over cameron as the next leader, could it be that during the time cameron worked as a political adviser it became obvious he was bonkers. i think we should be told?

Thu, 2010-07-22 12:21 — orderfromcha0s

Brilliant! In one fell swoop, Cameron has annoyed lefties for sucking up to Uncle Sam, and righties for playing down Britain's manliness in The War. Oh well done.