Thread by @shaunjlawson

We fought because we had guaranteed Poland. We guaranteed Poland to maintain the Balance of Power. Nobody knew FOR SURE that Hitler was going to take over virtually the whole of Europe.

And in May 1940, many in Britain wanted to sue for peace!

https://twitter.com/SandySt77761834/status/1226609992972881920

Meanwhile, in the mid and late 1930s, as reports filtered in on what the Nazis were doing to the Jews, to political opponents, to homosexuals and so on, many in Britain flat out denied it. The Jews in particular were friendless across Europe.

Further: until as late as March 1939, Hitler could be portrayed - and was portrayed by huge numbers - as merely a Versailles revisionist.

May 1940. Richard Burgon takes a vote among the Labour membership:

"Shall we seek peace with Germany?"

Labour members vote "YES - DOWN WITH THE SCOURGE OF WAR!", so Britain sues for peace, and maybe I'm not even sitting here now.

Burgon tells Churchill: "Sorry, the Labour Party cannot join your warmongering national government. We are bound by the decision of our members".

War is not - and must never be - a popularity contest. That's what's so ludicrous about Burgon's proposals. Populism at its worst.

Also in 1940, left Twitter has concluded that the whole war is just a front for US and UK imperialism. It denounces the reports of what the Nazis are doing as "media propaganda". Some more extreme voices think that 'crisis actors' can be seen in some videos being circulated.

It hates Churchill because he's a warmongering Tory. And all Tories are the same. It reserves special hatred for those among its own ranks who think the war should be supported - because innocent civilians will inevitably die. "No blood on our hands", it demands.

It can't blame Israel for everything because Israel doesn't exist yet. It therefore settles on 'Zionists' - "the war is a front organised by the Zionists to take over Palestine, can't you see?"

No, the above isn't me being facetious. That massive numbers of Britons wanted us to sue for peace in May 1940 isn't even in doubt. The attitude to war among the left is pretty much always to blame the West first. And every day online, all sorts of ignorance is treated as fact.

Churchill - who'd gassed the Kurds, destroyed the general strike, sent the Black and Tans into Ireland and went on to try and starve Gandhi - would've been supported by left Twitter? Are you having a laugh?

All of which is why Burgon's proposals are a complete no-no.

They have the caveat "except when backed by the UN or in cases of national emergency".

1. Germany invading Poland did not represent a national emergency for us.

2. Had UN existed, USSR would've vetoed support because it had just done a deal with Germany. US would've abstained.

And lest we forget: as well as wisely vetoing action in many cases, both Russia and China also veto pretty much all action everywhere (except in places like Chechnya or Tibet of course).

The UN actually needs profound reform. At security council level, it doesn't work at all.

I'd quite like to see someone like Burgon talk about that. "What can we do to help reform the UN?"

My proposal: increase the number of vetoes required to two, and give permanent Security Council membership to Germany, Japan, India, South Africa and either Indonesia or Turkey.

The latter, because there must be a Muslim nation on the UNSC.

Instead, he just indulged in lowest common denominator populism. And continued to ignore that MPs are not delegates. They are REPRESENTATIVES. Of their party AND constituents, charged with making good decisions.

Oh, and by the way: imagine if, once the war was over, West German and French leaders had put a vote on the European Coal and Steel Community to their publics and/or to their party members. It'd have been vetoed by a million miles.

Ditto many cases of far-reaching statesmanship

Anwar Sadat: "Sorry Israel, I can't make peace with you. My people have vetoed it so we remain at war".

Robert Peel: "Sorry, I can't repeal the Corn Laws. My party won't let me".

Richard Nixon: "Sorry China, I can't do detente with you, my party won't allow it".

Sometimes - as with the Northern Ireland Peace Process securing massive democratic approval - it works out.

At others - as with peace in Colombia initially being vetoed by the public - it doesn't at all.

And the real reason the Middle East peace process has been dead for decades is: no Israeli leader has a prayer of getting substantive (or any real?) concessions past their people; nor does any Palestinian leader either.

Such are the unhappy limits of democracy.

But give me representative democracy over direct democracy any day of the week.

If Brexit hasn't taught us all that, nothing ever will.