Winston's War_ Churchill, 1940-1945 - Max Hastings [276]
A marked shift in American media sentiment was taking place. Conservative commentators, hitherto bitterly sceptical about British foreign policy, now showed themselves sympathetic to Churchill’s efforts to check the onset of European Communism. The liberal press, however, deplored what it perceived as new manifestations of British imperialism. It is a striking reflection upon the mood of those days that perceived British misconduct in Greece and Italy provoked much more comment and protest in the United States than did Russia’s ruthless handling of its newly occupied eastern European territories.
Many American papers asserted the right of resistance movements, whatever their political complexion, to a voice in the governance of their countries. A State Department opinion survey stated: “‘Liberal’ papers, pleading for a greater representation1005 for Resistance forces, were critical of Churchill’s alleged attempt to maintain a reactionary regime against the wishes of the Greek people.” William Shirer of CBS urged that the United States back up its words by taking action in opposition to British “toryism.” The State Department said: “Substantially universal approval has greeted the proposition1006 that the composition of governments in Italy and in ‘liberated territories’ is an internal affair … Representatives of Greek-American organizations visited the State Department to protest British intervention in Greece … The Department also received numerous letters from organizations and individuals protesting British policy and applauding the United States’s [December 5] declaration.”
Many American newspapers perceived the Soviets and British as tarred with the same brush, both seeking to impose their selfish wills on free peoples. Isolationists blamed Britain, and explicitly Churchill, for “seeking to bury1007 the Atlantic Charter” with its declared right to self-determination. The Raleigh, North Carolina, News & Observer, for instance, cited “the shooting of Greeks for no greater crime than opposing a Government which seeks to bring back a discredited King” as being “not only a mistake but a tragedy.” There were increasing demands, echoed in Congress, for a revision of Lend-Lease legislation to link U.S. aid to Britain and Russia with less high-handed foreign policies in those countries. The Chicago Sun, urging Lend-Lease revision, observed that “Washington has both the right and obligation to let the British government know that we do not propose to aid the enemies of democracy in Italy, Greece, or elsewhere through Lend-Lease or any other means.”
A Princeton poll1008 in December found that Americans thought Britain likely to be a much less trustworthy postwar ally than China. On December 13, 1944, the U.S. press reported anti-British student protests and marches at Harvard, Radcliffe, Wellesley and Northeastern. In Boston, students waved placards proclaiming: AMERICANS SUPPORT CHURCHILL AS WAR LEADER, NOT TORY. The protesters issued a statement: “We are not against Churchill as a war leader, but against his reactionary policy in Belgium, Italy, and Greece.” U.S. trades unionists also demonstrated against British policy.
An attack on the prime minister by H. G. Wells was widely reported. “Churchill must go,” the aged British literary sage wrote in Tribune: “Winston Churchill, the present1009 would-be British Führer, is a person with a range of ideas limited to the adventures and opportunities of British political life … Now he seems to have lost his