A fascinating bit of uncovered history regarding gay playwright (and bon vivant) Noel Coward's anti-Nazi spying during World War II has some relevance for today. Via the New York Times Sunday Book Review:
[Coward] had been a spy for England, trained (with his friend Ian Fleming) in covert action in the secret headquarters of Bletchley Park. ...
Coward's spycraft had a Scarlet Pimpernel side. The idea was to use his public personality-the merry playboy, the "don't ask/don't tell" gay celebrity-as a mask for his passionate antifascism. By 1936, Coward's unchic loathing of appeasement and Neville Chamberlain ("that bloody conceited old sod") was turning him into something of a Churchill bore. In 1938, when his old friend Ivor Novello shed "tears of relief" over Chamberlain's let's-pretend peace, Coward threw a punch that nearly decked him. "We have nothing to worry about," he wrote to another friend, "but the destruction of civilization.' ...
Guided by a fellow celebrity-spy, Cary Grant (!), he was to assess pro- and anti-British opinion. On the right, a minority of stars-Errol Flynn, for example-were suspected of being pro-Nazi. On the left, Stalinists were using fronts like the Yanks Are Not Coming Committee to rationalize Stalin's alliance with Hitler and the defeat of Britain, while the American Communist Party began a campaign denouncing Coward as an agent of British warmongers.
Quite inspiring, really. As for the left, when will they ever learn?
More. On the 65th anniversary of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, remembering their heroism, and why it's important we never forget. Also, this timely observation (hat tip: instapundit).
25 Comments for “No Coward”
posted by Richard on
This is a new low, even for you. Only a complete and total moron would actually claim that (1) the Iraqi war is about anti-fascism, (2) its proponents care about democractization and human rights and (3) somehow “the left” (read only who disagrees with you) is alone codling unpleasant folk.
Stephen’s comments illustrate what is so un-civilized, un-human rights, un-democratic about certain elements of both the political left and right.
People who do not understand the Middle East, its complex ethnic-religious-gender-political-economic history and clevages are poorly suited to talk about how we can fight Islamic terrorism or help the region prosper and develop.
The war in Afghanistan and Iraq have become text book examples of how not to defeat terrorists, and how not to promote democracy and human rights.
As long as ignorant or incompent people continue to run and advocate ME foreign policy, we will continue to see terrorists and fanatics running the region’s present and running over the people in the region.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
People who do not understand the Middle East, its complex ethnic-religious-gender-political-economic history and clevages are poorly suited to talk about how we can fight Islamic terrorism or help the region prosper and develop.
However, leftists who use this argument to rationalize why leaving the Iraqis under Saddam and the Afghanis under the Taliban was ever a good thing in the first place are even worse.
Those words are an excuse for inaction, and they are nothing more than the same pap spewed by the liberal European left who were pontificating about how “immoral” removing Saddam was, inexplicably while they were receiving billions of dollars in oil kickbacks and equipment contracts.
Imagine how many lives would have been saved had Britain and France, per Coward’s insight, acted immediately, instead of blathering about “the complex ethnic-religious-gender-political-economic history” of Germany and Central Europe as an excuse for sitting on their hands.
posted by avee on
Ah, Richard, love the way you insult the blogger rather than argue his points!
There is a valid argument that the war is against islamofacism — in Iraq we are fighting insurgents backed by Al Qaeda and by Iran, the two poles of islamofascism. And that Obama is preaching nothing short of romantic appeasment, while his supporters call McCain a “warmonger” and Obama doesn’t disagree.
But why structure an argument against Steve’s post, when you can just insult away. After all, that’s what the left has now come to in general (especially in acedeme!).
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Paging Richard, please pull that ostrich head up out of the sand… you offer: “The war in Afghanistan and Iraq have become text book examples of how not to defeat terrorists, and how not to promote democracy and human rights.”
I guess you haven’t been watching. listening or reading… even leaders on your side of the FarLeft grudgingly admit the surge is working, that violence is down, that in order for political stabilization to have a chance to prosper Iraq and Afghanistan MUST HAVE relatively peaceful environments.
Gheez, is it really the case that your head in THAT deep in the sand or are you pulling the trinity of monkeys move: see no evil, hear no evil, speak of no evil?
I think both the Carter and Clinton Administrations tried that approach and it lead to Iran as our #1 foe with the Shah’s removal and bin Laden in control of al Qaeda.
What part of islamofascism & history of appeasement in the Middle East don’t you get?
Evidently, all of it.
posted by Amicus on
I really have no idea what might be alluded to in the premise of this notice.
That Coward was recruited and trained merely shows the profound and appalling hypocrisy toward homosexuality that was pervasive at the time in Britain (late the 1950s, after the Burgess spy scandal earlier that decade).
If anything, that’s the story.
posted by Amicus on
“late the 1950s” s/b “continuing late on into the 1950s”
posted by Amicus on
[for the historically minded, more on Noel’s letters, here]
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Amicus ‘pines “I really have no idea what might be alluded to in the premise of this notice.”
Umm, rather than admit to your ignorance… maybe a slower, more careful reading of the “notice” is in order, Amicus. Maybe toss in a little thoughtful consideration informed by the history of appeasement of evil by liberals… then, maybe, you could replace that ignorance with insight?
It’s a goal, anyway.
posted by avee on
Amicus seems to suggest that because WWII Britain did not provide equal rights to homosexuals, gays should not have helped their country to defeat the Nazis. Wow. That says it all.
posted by RIchard on
You said: However, leftists who use this argument to rationalize why leaving the Iraqis under Saddam and the Afghanis under the Taliban was ever a good thing in the first place are even worse.
Fact 1: Afghanistan — which is a different then Iraq — is basically run by a series of drug warlords and corrupt politicans. Oh, and we still cannot seem to find Osama bid Laden.
Fact 2: Iraq — which is different then Afghanistan — is basically run by Shiitee ‘Islamo-fascists’, and is in the middle of a civil war.
Neither nation is a democracy and their human rights record have not really gone up.
Again, the people who planned these two wars (and their supporters) clearly lacked a basic understanding of the region/nations history and clevages.
These are simple facts, that many people do not want to deal with.
Most of what is happening in these two nations would have been easily predictable to anyone with an understanding of the region/nations history, politics and clevages.
The consequences for acting stupid are played out on a daily basis.
The ‘European Left’, a rather dubious term given that it includes a number of classical liberals, is a class I do not pretend to speak for or blindly endorse.
A large part of the reason that some European nations — governments — is because we elected a conservative cowboy to office, when they tend to elect centrists statemen.
Also Europeans tend to hold politicans directly and totally responsible for the polices they produce and dont put up with being lied to.
Regime change is not, necessairly, immoral or moral. Yet, because of numerous preventable mistakes, our polices in both nations have become immoral — to anyone who is serious about fighting terrorism and speading peace, democracy and human rights.
Again, by comparing Saddam Iraq to Nazi Germany you demonstrate that you do not get the history. That you want to act imcompetently, just so that you can say you acted.
It was clear to most people who got European history — at the time — that the German Nazi Party wanted to take over the world.
It was clear, to anyone who read “My Struggle” that the Nazis were planning to commit what became known as ‘genocide’, but then (and now) human rights abuses alone rarely motivate people in developed nations to support a regime change.
Saddam did not have a desire or the means to take over the world. He wanted to run his own little ‘crib’ as do many a dictator or gangster.
We helped put him into power, to,basically, oppose Iran and the Soviet Union.
Had the Iraq War Part II been planned by people who were not, largely, total and utter morons, many things in Iraq would be different.
As it stands now, we have pretty much ensured that Iraq will be screwed for foreseeable future.
posted by RIchard on
You said: There is a valid argument that the war is against islamofacism.”
Setting aside the wisdom in people coining their own terms. Most of the Iraqi insurgents are Iraqis.
Al-Qadea is a problem in Iraq, but not a major one. Most of the violence is done by Iraqis against Iraqis or forighners.
Yes, Iran is probably backing the two major Iraqi-Shiite militias, but that just illustrates that at least 95% percent of the violence in Iraq is Iraqi on Iraqi.
I am more then willing to have a serious debate with anyone about the Second Iraq War.
But when some one has the gall to suggest that, “People who disagree with me about Iraq most be fascists” really should not be talking about civility or a serious debate until he first aplogizes.
posted by Amicus on
…then, maybe, you could replace that ignorance with insight?
I fail to see how the making of war and peace is a gay issue, given this context.
If you want to talk about spies, spying, and being gay, that’s a gay issue. For instance, in a recent book on the CIA, the author posits this question: “If the American CIA knows that a foreign agent or target is gay or lesbian, is it ethical to use that information to try to ‘turn him/her’?”
If you want to talk about how Britain knowingly employed gays who were criminal under its own code, so long as they towed the line, hypocritically, on the “unwritten code”, that’d be really interesting. If you want to talk about how Britain treated The Guy, without whom the war might well have been lost, Alan Turing, that’d be interesting.
As it is, I can find discussions of our-man Saddam on non-gay political boards; and cannot see why it is an important issue for the gay community, as it is not clear that conditions for gays in Iraq are improving under American ‘help’.
posted by Richard on
Point 1: Never believe all that you read or hear. American mass media tends to fall into two catagories; vapid sound bytes or partisan pandering.
Point 2: Once again, anyone who disagrees with the right-wing’s hatred of liberal democracy and human rights must — in their mind — be a member of the ‘far left’ or the ‘European left’.
Point 3: The surge has had some impact, but not as much as you want to think. At any rate, it was only done because the people running the war had to admit that were inept.
Point 4: ‘Political stability’ is not the same thing as having a democracy. Their has been little political progress made in either nation because — as our leaders should have known — their is little consensus on hot button issues.
Point 5: ‘Islamofascism’ is a term invented by the hawkish (often chicken) right-wing.
It is not even a term that they apply consistency, given that we have put (or helped to put) ‘Islamofascists’ into power.
It would seem that the right-wing does not want to fight terrorism or help move the region towrades greater respect for democracy and human rights.
As far as this being a ‘gay issue’. The human rights of Iraqi gays have managed to decline and does not appear to have changed too much in Afghanistan.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
It would seem that the right-wing does not want to fight terrorism or help move the region towrades greater respect for democracy and human rights.
Both of which, Richard obviously believes, were assisted by a) leaving the Taliban in power, b) leaving Osama bin Laden free to operate as he willed in Afghanistan, and c) leaving Saddam Hussein in power in Iraq.
The interesting thing about Noel Coward was that his homosexuality did not lead him to side with the leftists and pacifists like Richard who had made a career out of painting people like Churchill, who did see the danger, as incompetents and warmongers as a means of defending and rationalizing their unwillingness to act.
Quite a contrast to today’s gay and lesbian establishment.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
NDXXX, good of you to point that out… I think that’s largely what Stephen was trying to point toward in his comments here.
What is funny to me is the whine from Richard about how the rightwing hates liberal democracy and human rights advancement… as if the elections in Iraq and Afghanistan of their leaders isn’t democratic… as if the approval of their newly crafted and historic constitutions isn’t democratic enough for the folks like Richard… or the series of local popular elections of leaders, mayors, parliment members, etc isn’t really democratic action to people like Richard.
I think Richard is, unfortunately, one of those keyboard servants in the GayLeft army and he wrongly thinks that qualifies him for a battle ribbon in the culture war.
The truth is that people like NoelCoward in the 1930s are working in today’s world to make the Western World more safe from islamofascism… and keyboardists like Richard only want appeasement through talking… how very Neville of them.
And how little the Left changes.
posted by Richard on
Again, we see here how most people want to make bad, incompentent policy, rather then face up to the reality.
I do not recall stating that we should leave the Taliban in power. I do not recall stating that we should leave Saddam in power.
The fact that you understanding of Middle Eastern foreign policy leaves you to only believe in the existence of two, equally imcompetent policies, illustrate my point.
Noel Coward was a product of an era where the political left and right, and most parties, had little or nothing good to say about gay rights.
It is debateable how many people knew about the gay rights movement that had been unfolding in Germany or even the Nazis response to it.
The situation on Iraq is much closer to Vietnam then WWII, although even that comparison is a stretch.
It has little moral or historical truth to it, but some members of the political right want to silence dissent, by asserting that if you question or disagree with the foreign policy, you must be a fascist.
Thus speaking the truth, becomes fascist.
Defending liberal democracy and human rights becomes fascist. Being criticial of incompetence becomes fascist.
I am not a fascist or a pacifist. I have never painted Churchhill as “warmongers”, nor would I dare to argue that people running the war are even half as competent as Churchhill was.
If you want to win wars, or promote peace, prosperity, liberal democracy, human rights then competency is a requirement.
posted by Richard on
Fact 1: Having elections does not mean that a nation is a liberal democracy.
Some elections are freeer and fairer then others.
Fact 2: Having a constitution does not mean that a nation is a liberal democracy.
Israel, among others, does not have a formal, written constitution but it more democratic then its neighbors.
Yet, even if having elections and writing a constitution made turned a nation into a liberal democracy, it still would not prove your point.
The right-wing can only claim political power — during this era — in the United States. Our allies have come from much more liberal, even socialist, nations.
Noel Coward was fighting fascists, as did many other people. I doubt very much that people reading this (on the left, right or center), from the comfort of their homes, can claim to be as involved.
The WWII was also a very different war then the one we are fighting in Iraq and, to some extent Afghanistan.
Most of the violence in Iraq is Iraqi vs. Iraqi. Most of the political gains have been to the “Islamofascists” who you claim to oppose.
The political right seems to view Iraq as a child formally held hostage to a group of molesters. Unless we change the coarse, then we will be handing that child over to a new pedophile gang.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Richard, the whole “Fact #” thing is a wee bit tedious. And it’s a fiction. Use real facts and don’t just substitute your opinion, ok? Because we all can do the little parlor game… like
Fact #1: All liberals are rooting for alQaeda to win.
Fact #2: All liberals want Iraq and Afghanistan to fall into chaos so that liberals can claim “victory” over GeoBush and retreat ala VietNam won’t be the lasting lesson of the effort to bring democracy to Afghanistan and Iraq.
Fact #3: Liberals are so adamant about Fact #1 and Fact #2 that they’ll eat one of their own -Joe Liberman- in order to ensure their dogmatic purity.
Fact #4: All liberals want more US troops to be killed in hoorific fashion in the MiddleEast so that Americans lose confidence in the surge and the liberals can reassign the troops to Dafur, Tibet and doing the lawns for BradPitt, SusanSaradon and BabsStreisand.
See how that works. Like with your examples above, these facts aren’t anything like the facts most people recognize.
The elections in Iraq and Afghanistan were both free and fair. The UN and hundreds of intern’l press personnel and voter integrity officials made it so.
Either country has made more progress in a shorter time than our own Country did when we finally got the ball going 200+ years ago… or France… or Britain
Finally, it’s laughable if not ignorant, for you to claim “The right-wing can only claim political power — during this era — in the United States.”
According to many of your loonLiberals, the rightwing is also operating in Iran, NorthKorea, Russia, Pakistan, etc. Truth be told, the leaders of Britain, France, Germany and now Mexico have more in common with GeoBush than they do Clinton, Obama or Carter.
Face it, you want the US and US troops to fail in the WOT because that will cement in your mind the incompetency and lack of utility in keeping and preserving a strong nat’l defense and military. Less money for guns means more money to dump down the sewers of New Orleans, Philley, LA and Detroit.
It’s all about guns and butter; resources.
Noel Coward was fighting an ignorant, feeble Liberal Left banging for appeasement and talking. You don’t get the lesson even on the first try.
posted by Brian Miller on
All the efforts by the left and the right to try and put ownership of Nazism/Stalinism on their rivals and claim heroes for themselves are laughable.
Had Coward been in the United States, he would have been imprisoned and tortured with electroshock therapy for homosexuality by the progenitors of the contemporary conservative people who want to claim him as a right wing hero. Claiming him as a hero is revisionist history, as absurd as the notion that the left monolithically opposed US involvement in the war and were pro-USSR/Nazi Germany to a man.
All these arguments come dangerously close to violating Godwin’s Law from the outset.
posted by Richard on
Unlike you, I base my facts on, gasp, actual facts. Unlike you, I care more about winning the war on terrorism, then kissing up to any American political party. Unlike you, I believe in democracy and human rights. Unlike you, I do not hate America.
Senator Joe Lieberman was never a ‘liberal’. That would not be an accurate depiction of his political career. You can agree or disagree with what he believes in, but calling him a liberal is just dishonest.
You said: The elections in Iraq and Afghanistan were both free and fair.
No, they were not. Even if they were, having an election does not mean that you have a liberal democracy.
You said: Either country has made more progress in a shorter time than our own Country did when we finally got the ball going 200+ years ago… or France… or Britain.
Apples and Oranges. In the American revolution, we changing the political system. The society, culture and economy was not a part of the revolution.
The French had a more comprehensive revolution, but won where they could avoid most internal ethnic and sectarian conflict.
I really do not think that you want to be hoping that Iraq goes the way of the French or that we should stay in Iraq for 200 years.
You are the one who seems to want the troops to fail, given your support for a military policy organized by half wits and morons.
You are the one who seems to want the thugs, terrorists and ‘Islamofascists’ to win, given your support for a military policy that has put them in power.
Noel Coward was fighting fascism. The
modern political right is eager for other people to fight a war so that they can stay at home and hate America.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Richard, Richard, Richard. You’re employ of these so-called “facts” of yours is absolutely, solidly without merit. The elections -at the national level, the regional level and the local level- in both Iraq and Afghanistan, for both candidates and approval of their respective constitutions were both free and fair. The elections involved patriated, repatriated and ex-patriates living abroad. I don’t know how you can continue, with a str8 face no less, to claim otherwise.
Oh I get it now… you can’t admit even a little tiny bit of political progress in either country because YOU think that will open the door for invalidating your anti-progress, anti-American perspective which is shared by none other than MoveOn.org and BillMaherTheLiarExtraOrdinaire.
Your use of the word “facts” prefacing those opinions of yours is a gross form of intellectual dishonesty and something better left for BlogActive or JoeMyGod threads, not here.
To your silly point that the “thugs, terrorists and islamofascists” were put into power by the initial abdication and vacillation of PrezCarter of our international dominance on the world stage and the incompetent administration of foreign affairs by SlickWilly and MaddieAlbright and stuff-ur-pants Sandy Berger. The entire argument of yours is like the silly nonsense we’ve all had to endure about this WOT-Iraq being all about BigOil. Right, it’s why the US economy is partially crippled now by all that oil flowing from Iraq. Stupid, vapid and ridiculous.
Your hectoring lines about our military leadership underscores the common contempt often found in radical farLeft loons. I get; you hate the military. You’ve made your point as clear as possible. You hate the military even more because the surge is working. You have a great vested interest in seeing more American soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan because, like NancyP and HarrygReid, losing the WOT is to your/their political advantage.
Shame on you for that unAmerican sentiment and for your continued mis-construction of history.
Finally, I can’t understand why a simple lesson -made abundantly clear in the original piece as well as in the thread comments- is so far beyond your grasp. You write: “Noel Coward was fighting fascists, as did many other people.” No, the point of the piece was that NoelCoward was working against his country’s liberal Leftwing appeasing loon leader, Neville Chamberlain, and trying to aid Britain by uncovering true sentiment and opinions in America.
Is it really that far outside your grasp to gather that simple lesson? It’s why Stephen ends his piece by asking when the Left will finally learn a REAL lesson from history… maybe they’re just being like HillaryClinton -they think they can make it up as they go and no one will be the wiser?
posted by RIchard on
MM, I really do pity you. Either you have some sort of learning disability, or are woefully ignorent about the Middle East.
The Elections in Iraq and Afghanistan were not free nor fair. Again, even if your false assumption were true, having an election does not make a nation into liberal democracy.
Have you spent the time reading each nation’s respective election laws and procedures? Heck, do you even speak, read and write Arabic?
When I speak the truth, you hide behind lies, innuendos and personal insults. When I speak up for freedom and democracy, you speak up for terrorists, thugs and Islamofasicsts.
Time and time again, you demomstrate your comtempt, hate and loathing of our military. You hate liberal democracy and human rights.
When will the political right stop hating liberal democracy and human rights? When will they stop supporting thugs, terrorists and fascists?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
In the American revolution, we changing the political system. The society, culture and economy was not a part of the revolution.
Complete poppycock. The American Revolution represented a massive societal, cultural, and economic shift, with a group of small colonies that were monarchical and oligarchic in structure, classist in social hierarchy, and colonial in economics moving to a more socially-level, participatory, representative, and economically independent republic.
The French had a more comprehensive revolution, but won where they could avoid most internal ethnic and sectarian conflict.
In two hundred and nineteen years, France has had five republics, two empires, one royal restoration, and one collaboration government, governed by no less that thirteen constitutions, two charters, and one Additional Act.
And if one studies the history of the French Revolution, especially the Vendean revolt, the Chouannerie, and the rise of Napoleon, it makes the Iraq situation look quite orderly and democratic in comparison.
The Elections in Iraq and Afghanistan were not free nor fair.
I love how the same liberals who said nothing when elections were carried out under Saddam Hussein and the Taliban, and who supported both as “legitimate”, are suddenly whining about “free and fair”.
The only possible explanation is pure spite on their part.
Matt nailed it, Richard; for you to admit any progress in Iraq or Afghanistan whatsoever is to invalidate your do-nothing, anti-Bush agenda.
You were more than happy to let millions of people die at both the Taliban’s and Saddam’s hands, rather than lose face with your “moderate statesmen” who were being paid off by Saddam.
You do not recall stating that we should leave Saddam or the Taliban in power. Yet, through every one of your actions and arguments, you and your fellow liberal gays did everything possible to stop them from being removed — and even after that, you have continued to wage spiteful, hypocritical war rather than admit that it was WRONG to leave millions of people to suffer and die under both brutal regimes for your own personal convenience and the wealth of European and UN diplomats.
Five hundred thousand children alone died as a direct result of sanctions against Iraq at a cost of untold billions of dollars…..and you have the gall to whine that the sacrifice of one soldier for every hundred of those children is “too much”.
Had Great Britain and France acted immediately as Coward suggested, rather than dithering and doing nothing, hundreds of millions of lives could have been saved. But that lesson is totally lost on liberals, whose immediate solidarity with anyone opposed to their own country blinds and guides their entire thinking process.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Richard, I think you’re just trying to out-do ChasWilson on the banality and sophomoric reductions… you may have accomplished at least that dubious honor this day.
Riachrd offers: “Time and time again, you demomstrate your comtempt, hate and loathing of our military.”
Richard, name a single time… just once.. that your silly bold-faced lying assertion is true. Just once windbag.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
NDXXX, you nailed it too! Not only has the Left allowed all those children to die at the hands of a despot and his family thugs, they also turned over to the world a stable, functioning ally in Iran to the radical islamofascists… they willingly embrace the MiddleEast’s worst terrorists in Hamas and alQadea in order to, as Neville taught them, appease rather than judge, talk rather than hold accountable.
It’s why when Obama or Carter say we should just be talking with all these evil leaders, they commit yet another Neville Chamberlain mistake.
Appeasement isn’t action. Talking isn’t progress unless the opportunity to talk carries with it preconditions of progress and accountability.
They’ll never get that lesson. Coward knew it and he acted for the benefit of the Free World.