Chapter 5 Chapter Two

1943-1947: At Oxford University Oxford is a place that was not intended to be likable.Freshmen usually enter the school gate in the mist of October, where they spend the semester starting from Michaelmas Day.The monumental buildings of campus stars are often initially impressive by their grand scale rather than by their fine architectural features.Everything seemed cold and forbidding—or so it seemed to me. I went to Somerville in the dead of winter to take my Oxford entrance examinations.Before the life of the first semester began, I had little impression of the college I went to, let alone the whole picture of the whole university.I arrived in Somerville for my first semester, feeling homesick and inexperienced with my new surroundings.Somerville often surprises people.The best thing to say about its appearance is probably that it is plain, and many people who are not very curious pass by it may not know that it is Somerville College.But who would have thought that there was a large piece of green grass in the yard, and the surrounding houses stood opposite each other, creating an interesting scene. I lived in the school for the first two years and moved from a newer house to an older one.After a while a picture or two was hung up, a vase was placed, and an old armchair brought back from Grantham afterwards somehow made those rooms mine.During my third and fourth years, I shared a room with two friends on Walton Street.

Although Oxford and Somerville were not directly affected by the war, they were both deeply marked by the war.Despite the fact that nearby Cowley had an engine factory which later became an aircraft repair centre, Oxford was never bombed for unknown reasons, but, like elsewhere, the whole town and school were blacked out (from 1944 Blackouts were introduced), and were affected by the scarcity of wartime supplies.The tinted windows were boarded up, and there were many large water tanks for firefighting—there was one in Somerville East Yard, near Woodstock Road.Most of what is rationed to us goes directly to the Academy.I seldom get invited out to eat, but the canteen food still feels bland.Sometimes I'll take the little meal coupons I have left over and buy some jam and stuff.I stopped adding sugar to my tea, which was one of the small benefits of this simplicity to my health and shape - I even gave up my sugary coffee addiction after many years (actually when I was in Oxford. Not a lot of coffee either).In addition, there are strict restrictions on the use of hot water, such as the rule that the water in the bathtub should not exceed 5 inches-there is a marked line at 5 inches.Although in my family, being unclean means disrespecting God, and hygiene is no joke, I still abide by this rule to the letter.We didn't want to complain then, after all, we were lucky.

Furthermore, although I wasn't the first in my family to go to university - a cousin of mine went to university in London - I was the first in the Roberts family to go to Oxbridge.Although my parents didn't show it, I knew they were very proud that I was going to Oxford.I knew far less about Oxford than many of my peers before I enrolled.But I think Oxford is the best. If I really want to make a difference, then Oxford should be my consistent pursuit. There is no need to downgrade.Our local University of Nottingham is an excellent school, and it has a decent science program, but I was never impressed by it, even though Nottingham is closer to my home, my family and friends.Another attraction for me at Oxford was its collegiate system, which still holds an attraction for me today.The University of Oxford is made up of a number of colleges, but the university also has some central institutions, such as the Bodleian Library.University life at the time was primarily within the college (eating, living, and taking a lot of tutorials), followed by other institutions, such as churches and societies, which had their own worlds.Different from students in other majors, as a science student, my daily activities are naturally more shuttling among the various institutions and facilities of the college, such as the chemistry laboratory.Nevertheless, I have learned from my college experience that if people's talents are to be used to their full potential, they should be encouraged to blend into small groups of people rather than wandering among countless unfamiliar faces .

The profound impact of the war on the atmosphere of university life may be felt most by us school students, because many of us were very young at that time, only sixteen or eighteen years old. There is a big difference in all aspects.Later, from 1944 onwards, the atmosphere at Oxford changed again as servicemen returned from service wounded or ill, either to complete a shortened war degree or to start a full degree.They have so much experience that we can't live up to it.In The Scholar, Kipling described the naval officers who returned to Cambridge after the war to continue their studies:

They have gone through hardships and never want to look back, the countless rapids and rapids; Now the whole world owes them a lot, and they are beginning to enjoy a little, the sweetness of life. By the time I left Oxford I had made friends and colleagues who were far more knowledgeable than I was.At the end of the war, Oxford brought together perspectives and experiences from which I benefited greatly. At first I was self-closing.I felt shy and at a loss in this new environment.I still stuck to my Grantham habit of taking long walks alone, round Christ Church Lawn, across University Park, along the River Charwell or the Thames, enjoying my solitude and my thoughts.It wasn't long before I began to appreciate the joys of living in Oxford.My first years at Oxford coincided with the end of the war, so perhaps it is not surprising that my pleasures had a Protestant quality, which I had brought from Grantham.I am a member of a Methodist study group which often hosts or attends tea parties.My mother sent me some pastries, and on Saturday mornings I went to the "pastry factory" in North Oxford and waited an hour or so in line to buy refreshment supplies for Sunday.I joined the Bach choir, conducted by Sir Thomas Armstrong (who, quite coincidentally, was Robert Armstrong's father), performed a wider repertoire than its title.I especially remember the St. Matthew Passion, which we performed at the Sheldonian Theatre, which Wren seemed to have designed for the show.We also sang "King Igor", Constant Lambert's "Grande River" and Lester's "Jesus Hymn", sometimes I just listen to it, I don't sing it, I heard Catherine Ferina's singing in Elgar's The Dream of Gerontius.

As the war ended and service members were demobilized, the pace of Oxford entertainment picked up.The eight-paddle race resumed, and I went to the river to watch the race.at this time.I went dancing for the first time and sometimes even drank a little wine (before I only tried sherry and didn't like it, and still do).I smoked a cigarette for the first time, and I didn't like it too much, although I knew I'd taste it if I kept smoking it.I decided not to smoke and saved my money to buy The Times every day.I went to my first school dance and danced all night like the girl in the song.I watch plays by Chekov and Shakespeare in the Old Theater and the New Theater. (Some early Christopher Fry productions were being staged.) I also saw a wonderful Oxford University Drama Society production in College Gardens starring Kenneth Tynan, who was then fashionable in Oxford.As for the plot, I don't remember it right now, partly because it's hard to tell the Kenneth Tynan on stage from the Kenneth Teff in real life.

My Oxford career could have been more fruitful, but I was not rich, and had it not been for my advisor, the always helpful chemist Dorothy Hodgkins, to suggest to the school that I would get a little Scholarship, I will not pay.I also get help from some education funds.I would have received an extra income from these institutions if I would have taken on some teaching assignments at the time.But I knew I wasn't gifted to teach, and I was convinced (and still am) that a good teacher requires a genius that most people simply don't possess.In fact, in the summer of 1944 I actually taught natural science at Grantham for a holiday, and earned the money to buy a bicycle, a luxury at Grantham and a necessity at Oxford.While I was teaching at Grantham, Paris was liberated.The headmaster called a school assembly to announce that Paris was free again and told us how brave resistance fighters rose up to fight the German occupation forces and help the Allies. These were exciting times, and it was clear that we were winning the war; I no longer feel so guilty for not having done more for the war; I am as happy as all the British people that the French Resistance has restored France's honor and self-respect.Perhaps we were exaggerating a bit then about the ubiquity of the Resistance, we had stories among us of German soldiers walking into a café and customers inside tapping their cups and typing out letters in Morse code V, stands for victory, and of course every true Frenchman longs for freedom, of which we are sure.

After that, I started to study hard.Dorothy Hodgkin worked on dimming crystallography, a relatively new field.It is a blessing for the College to have such a talented scientist and gifted faculty.Mrs Hodgkin was a Fellow of the Royal Society and later made a decisive contribution to the discovery of the molecular structure of penicillin - the first antibiotic - for which she was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1964. (Penicillin was discovered at Radcliffe Hospital near Somerville two years before I went to Oxford, where early experiments were carried out.) During my fourth and final year of university life (1946-1947) , under the direction of Dorothy Hodgkin, I worked with a German émigré, Gerhard Schmidt, on the simple protein gramicidin B, a research project required to complete the second part of the chemistry course.I also met other budding young scientists at the Cosmos Club and the Science Club, and I heard lectures from many well-known scientists, including J.D. No fantasies of bringing their political views into the teacher-student relationship.

Religion played an important role in my Oxford life.There are many stories of young people entering college who lose their faith, partly through exposure to skepticism and partly for less healthy reasons.I've never felt this crisis.Methodism gave me a solid anchorage and, of course, acquaintances and friends who shared my views.On Sundays I usually go to worship at the Wesleyan Memorial.There was a Grantham-like social atmosphere there: a warm, cool, pleasant social life.How important this is to me in a new and unfamiliar environment.The church has a very active student fraternity.After Sunday evening services, there is usually a large coffee gathering at the pastor's house, where there is lively discussion of religious or other issues.Occasionally I also went to the school's Church of the Virgin Mary to listen to a unique university sermon, although the church had a certain "primitive" atmosphere that made it a cold place for religious activities.Sometimes I go to the college chapel, especially if Miss Helen Darbyshire is preaching, I will certainly go.She was Dean of the College when I first arrived and a distinguished scholar on Milton and Woodsworth.

In general, I don't go to an Anglican church.But it is very strange that my overall knowledge of religious knowledge has been influenced more by the religious writings of C. S. Lewis, the Anglican priest; No wonder.His broadcasts, sermons, and articles are an evocative combination of succinct language and deep theology.In the "Letters of Skrutap", he describes with unparalleled wit and persuasive language how the "devil" exploits human weaknesses.In The Destruction of Man and the opening paragraphs of Mere Christianity, no one has made the profound laws of nature so accessible.What I will most remember is the influence of "Christian Words and Deeds" (reprinted in Mere Christianity, but originally as a radio talk) on me.This speech touches upon the essence of the serious disconnect between the behavior of Christians at the time and their professed ideals. One of C. S. Lewis's points is that the Christian code of conduct is not only binding on those saints.He wrote:

Perfect behavior is as elusive as gear shifting in a car; but the nature of the human machine demands perfection from all, as ideally it is necessary, just as the nature of the car demands from all drivers Just like the perfect shift. Likewise, I have benefited from his discussion of how to live the noble Christian principle of benevolence, a principle that seems elusive to most of us.Instead of denouncing or belittling the sublimity of the principle of benevolence, Lewis lists what is not benevolence, which helps us a lot: … What does it mean to love your neighbor as yourself?I must love him as I love myself.So how exactly does he say I love myself?When I think about it, I find that I don't have any affection for myself, and I'm not always happy even with my personal circle of life.Well obviously "loving your neighbor" doesn't mean liking him, or finding him attractive,...some of the things I do I may feel fear and disgust with.Obviously, then, I can hate some of what my enemy does...So Christianity does not require us to reduce our hatred for cruelty and inhumanity...even when we kill and punish our enemies, we must try to Put yourself in his shoes - wish him not so bad, hope he might be saved in this life or the next, in effect wish him well. Under the specific circumstances at that time, these words undoubtedly had a particularly profound meaning. Whether in peacetime or wartime, the main contribution of students to the country is to study hard and acquire knowledge, rather than dreaming about things and looking far away.But we still want to do as many practical things as possible.In my case, one or two nights a week, I serve in the Army mess in Carfax.British soldiers and American airmen from the nearby Heyford base were our regular visitors.It was hot and humid there, and my feet suffered a lot.But it's also a lot of fun, with a packed house and smart humour. Reports of the D-Day landings in July 1944 brought fear and anxiety.We were deeply disturbed by so many of my peers fighting to the death on exposed beaches.Perhaps this was the first time I wondered if I had made a mistake in staying at Oxford. In fact, the war in Europe is coming to an end within a year.Despite the battle of Bargh and the tragedy of Ungheim, the focus was slowly shifting and preparations began for peace to come.More and more of my time is devoted to peacetime activities, politics being one of them. I joined the Oxford University Conservative Party Association when I first entered Oxford.The association was founded in the 1920s by Keith Feiling.He was a Christian scholar, Conservative historian, and later wrote The Life of Neville Chamberlain.It was then a national agreement that all parties would cease political campaigning during the war.Although this agreement did not directly affect university political activities, in fact the political activities in Oxford were much calmer than in the 1930s.Despite this, the various activities of the Conservative Party Association quickly became the core of my life.At that time the Oxford University Students' Association did not admit women members, but I sometimes went there to audit.A host of celebrity speakers debates a wide variety of issues, from the world's biggest to the unbelievably trivial.But Oxford students encourage that pompous debating style.I will probably never be that kind of debater, and I prefer the more serious court-style, down-to-earth arguments of our association.The association also provides a network for everyone to meet each other and make friends.The experiences of some of my colleagues there have shown that the forum has indeed served as an effective medium. Oxford's political activities have cultivated a large number of talents.In these activities, I made some friends.As the days and months went by, these friends recurred in my life as often as they would in an Anthony Powell novel.Of these, Edward Boyle was one of my closest relations.He mediates with ease in that intricate social and political circle that I only know a thing or two about.But I am as interested in politics as he is, and I am serious.He was the son of a Liberal MP at the time, wealthy and well educated.As a quintessential liberal, his views dovetail with my rustic, middle-class conservatism.We later parted ways politically, but remained good friends until his tragic early death from cancer. I met William Lees-Mogg in my final year.He has become a well-known editor of "The Times" in his early years.My relationship with William has never been as close as that of Edward. This man makes people feel that his restrained appearance reveals a certain kind of perseverance, as if he was born to belong to a high level. Like Edward, Robin Day, a well-known Liberal, was a leading figure in the Oxford Student Union.We later worked at the same law firm.What, one sometimes wonders, is good for the brilliant minds of the Oxford Students' Union?Robin Day blazed a trail, throwing himself into TV interviews.Since then, we have met each other on a narrow road at work and fought hand to hand. Another star is Tony Benn.At that time he still used his full title: the Honorable Anthony Wedgwood Ben.The two of us always disagreed, but he was always polite and forceful in his arguments.He was a patriot, and as socialism became more and more outdated, he actually became very traditional.But our common religious roots give us a certain mutual understanding.When Tony was elected President of the Student Union, I was invited to the celebration, which was also attended by his father, Viscount Stansgate.Tony strictly abides by the Protestant rules, and no wine is prepared for the celebration. There is also an eloquent named Kenneth Harris.Along with Edward Boyle and Tony Benn, he held demonstration debate tours in the United States for several months.He later held high positions in political journalism.We met many times, especially when he was writing my biography. As a secretary of the Oxford University Conservative Party Association, I was naturally involved in the 1945 general election campaign.In Oxford, I was busy with the campaign for Oxford MP Quentin Hogg.Afterwards, I returned to Grantham to help Air Force Major Worth campaign against and replace the then incumbent independent, Dennis Kendall. Looking back now, what will happen in the future should be completely within our expectations.By some mysterious and irresistible factor of law, war always strengthens the control of the state and the position of those who advocate it.My husband, Dennis, believes that the unprecedented combination of people from diverse backgrounds in the military can only lead to such a pang of conscience that the state is called upon to step in and improve social conditions.He made this point to me after we got married.But in any case, the Conservatives generally performed very poorly in the wartime general elections and, on balance, our votes were on a downward trend.At the time no one paid attention to the polls, which actually reflected the same.As I pointed out, after Dunkirk, the Left was very successful in blaming the Conservatives for appeasement, and in a clever way of alienating Churchill from his party.It is forgotten that the Labor Party even opposed the limited armaments build-up undertaken by Baldwin and Chamberlain. In addition, other factors also played a role. The centralized control of the economy imposed by the needs of wartime situations caused many people to develop a thinking and mentality that was essentially socialist in nature.It is well known that left-wing intellectuals in the military wield enormous influence through the military education groups.Nigel once commented on this: "This is the only regiment that participated in the general election under the banner of victory." At home, radio announcers such as J.B. , is actually an idealistic interpretation along the direction of the left.It is true that the Conservative Party headed by Churchill was preoccupied with the urgent task of war, and many domestic policies, especially the formulation of the peace agenda, largely fell into the hands of the socialists in the coalition government.Churchill himself hoped that the Nationalist government would last at least until after Japan was defeated, and perhaps longer given the growing threat of the Soviet Union.But Labor has other plans.It is understandable that it wants to follow its collectivist mantle. Thus, by 1945, we Conservatives were faced with two serious problems which, as it turned out, were insurmountable.First, Labor fought us on issues in their favour, and always beat us.For about two years, Churchill was talking about "reconstruction" after the war.As part of this plan, Rab Butler's Education Act was enacted.In addition, we pledged in our election manifesto a policy of so-called "full employment" in the Employment White Paper of 1944; a massive housing program; and national insurance benefits from Lord Beveridge, a prominent Liberal social reformer. Most of the recommendations and a comprehensive national health care plan.In addition, we cannot take for granted the credit for war victories (so far as is appropriate for the Conservative Party), let alone denounce the irresponsible and extremist practices of the Labor Party, because Attlee and his colleagues He has worked side by side with the Conservatives in government since 1940.After all, no matter what, the whole country has made efforts for the war. I still vividly remember sitting in the common room at Somerville College listening to Churchill's famous (or notorious) campaign broadcast in which he actually said that socialism needed "some kind of Gestapo" "to enforce.At the time I thought, "He's gone a long way".Although there was a logical connection between socialism and coercion, the argument was unconvincing in the circumstances of the time.I have heard political debates of a similar tone at campaign meetings in Oxford.I know what kind of refutation it will meet, such as people, who is running the country when Churchill is not around?It's Mr. Attlee. "I found that to be the reaction to the rhetoric at the time. Back in Grantham, I was one of the 'Garwin' speakers at the Tory candidate's village meeting.Back then, public meetings were attended by far more people than they are now, and they hoped their money had been spent.I often speak at several conferences in one night.Now looking back at the reports of my speech in the local newspapers at that time, I still agree with most of the content.For example, Germany must implement demilitarization and be judged.Britain was to cooperate with the US and also (less realistically) with the Soviet Union.The British Empire, the most important group of peoples in the history of the world, can never be disintegrated. (This may not be realistic either - but my vision of the future of the British Empire is not uncommon after the Great War.) My main argument for urging people to support the Conservatives is that by choosing the Conservatives we can keep Churchill in charge of foreign policy .Indeed, the post-war world might have looked at least differently if Churchill had been in office until after the Potsdam Conference in July 1945. Like many members of the Conservative Students' Union at Oxford, I attended a class on public speaking given by Mrs Stella Gatehouse at the Conservative Central Headquarters.She emphasized the need to be concise and use as little jargon as possible.A little bit of chatter is actually useful in election meetings when you never know how long you'll have to speak before a candidate arrives.However, for me personally, the most rewarding experience is when a humorous but critical audience asks a question. At this time, I have to think about the answer independently. Once, an old man gave me in one such meeting. Raised a question that has shaped my view of welfare for a long time, I remember him asking "just because I saved a little of my own money, don't give me assistance".If I run out of money, they will help me. "It was an early warning of the hard choices that the new welfare state would soon face politicians. Three weeks after polling day, I arrived at the counting station in Sleaford, after overseas ballots and serviceman ballots had been sent back to the UK.As we await the results of the Grantham election, some news is trickling in about election results elsewhere.Things were bad, and getting worse, with Labor overwhelming and Conservative cabinet ministers being defeated one by one.Soon our own candidate also failed.I was shocked and saddened.I went back to Grantham to see more results displayed on the screen in the "Movie House" theater.Things didn't get any better.I just can't understand how voters could treat Churchill like this.On the way home, I met a friend whom I always thought was a die-hard Conservative supporter, and I told him how I was shocked by the bad news.But he wasn't shocked at all.Instead, he said he thought it was good news.This puzzled me even more.I felt then that it was a disgrace that the English should do so to a man who, more than any other, had secured their liberty.But didn't Edmund Burke say: "A perfect democracy is the most shameless thing in the world".Looking back, Labour's government from 1945 to 1951 seems to have been a logical outpouring of the collectivist ethos that dominated wartime Britain.This collectivism would prevail in Britain for another 35 years - shaping and distorting British society before its collapse in the "winter of discontent" of 1979.It was clear at the time that a fundamental reassessment of Conservative Party principles and policies was needed.We feel this in Oxford as elsewhere.We alluded to this in a report to the Oxford University Conservative Party Association Policy Committee written by me with Michael Kenchin Smith and Stanley Moss in the third term of 1945.The report contained no more esoteric views than any other Conservative undergraduate paper.It touches on two themes we've heard many times -- more research on policy and better articulation of it. There may be some merit to this suggestion.Perhaps one of the main things about the Conservative Party's "image" is that we seem to have lost our way, and despite the continuity of our policies, they all seem to be geared towards the wealthy rather than the common man.As our report put it: "Conservative policy is seen in the public eye as nothing more than a series of administrative measures to solve individual problems, in some areas associated with unjustified prejudice and the self-interest of the wealthy classes. "That accusation is, of course, unjust.Had the Conservatives won the general election in 1945, we would still have had a welfare state - less direct public spending, of course, and a greater role for the private sector and voluntary contributions.But the idea that conservatism was about standing up for vested interests and opposing change and reform was influential at the time. In March 1946 I became Treasurer of the Oxford University Conservative Party Association and later that same month was one of the Oxford representatives to a meeting of the Conservative University Students' Union at the Waldorf Hotel in London.This is the first time I have attended such a conference, I am very happy, I speak in support of more working-class people involved in Conservative political activities in universities, I feel that we need to discard those dull, cautious conservatives party concept.It's not that I want a classless society, as socialists (not quite frankly) claim, but because I really don't see how important class is.Everyone has something unique to bring to life, and it is their responsibility to develop those talents—and all backgrounds breed heroes.As I said at that conference: "We've all heard the rhetoric that this is the time for the average man -- but please don't forget that extraordinary people are needed, too." I thought maybe it could have been added" Women" word. In October 1946 I was elected Chairman of the Conservative Party Association at the University of Oxford, the third woman to hold that office.I passed my final exams that summer and started my fourth-year research for a BS in Chemistry, so I had more time to be politically active.For example, for the first time in my life, I attended the Conservative Party's annual conference in Blackpool that year.I was immediately absorbed into the party.In Grantham and Oxford, it was unusual to be a Conservative.And now I'm suddenly among hundreds of people who share my beliefs and an insatiable passion for talking politics. The General Assembly has a very unique atmosphere.As a humble delegate, I realized that the leading members of the party, with the exception of the party leader, had arrived in Blackpool, ready to reconcile British conservatism with the perpetuation of socialism in Britain.An astute observer at the 1946 annual meeting, Bertrand de Juvenal, described our frontbenchers this way: "These brilliant, wise, good statesmen, who have been brought up to be cautious executives Manage and debate in a civilized and polite manner.Deep down, they accepted the outcome of the 1945 election defeat. "This is clearly not what the rank and file party wants to hear. In fact, people sitting in the audience openly disagree. On the first day the chairman rejected a request for a general debate on philosophical and policy issues. Take the stage Most of the people expressed a consensus-seeking attitude, and the response to this attitude was not enthusiastic. The shadow cabinet ministers found out our dissatisfaction, and as a result, the tone of the consensus became stronger as the meeting went on. My intuition and The rank-and-file party members were unanimous, although I have not yet developed a rationally critical view of collectivism as I have in subsequent years. When I got back to Oxford, I arranged for a lot of people to speak.Lord Douglas (Alec Douglas - Home) is a strong advocate for Ernest Bevin's foreign policy.We are also happy to support you.Bob Boothby, a fine orator with a touch of grace, attacked Moscow-style authoritarianism.David Maxwell Fife, whose daughter Pamela was also at Oxford at the time, attacked the nationalization movement and advocated a democracy in the form of private property.Peter Thornycroft made what appeared to be a progressive "Tory reformist" point of view in a debate between the University Students' Club and the Oxford Laborers' Club.Ms Davison tells us what it's like to be the only Conservative woman in the House of Commons.Anthony Eden was charismatic and he won all of us over the sherry tasting.Every term we hold lively debates at Oxford with other political clubs, especially the Labor People's Club.Back then, the Labor club was very left, including some big names like Anthony Crossland and Tony Benn.In general, however, the Oxford University Conservative Party meets at Taylor Ryan College on a Friday evening and hosts the speakers beforehand at the Randolph Hotel.It was there that I first had contact with big names in the Conservative Party.In fact, I have kept in touch with many of them for years. But in terms of the overall position held by the Conservative Party on a national scale, the significance of such activities is negligible.借助我们的体制，努力延缓左倾的脚步，尽可能减轻其影响，为个人选择及自由企业的发展保留一些空间；要么向集体主义全面开战，设法说服公共舆论，使之相信１９４５年是国家既定道路上的一个错误的转折点。事实上，保守党试图两种做法同时并举。虽然能听到支持向集体主义开战的呼声，但与这一观点相对立的观点占主导地位，认为实用主义是保守党重新执政的最佳途径。 最能体现实用主义观点的党的文件是１９４７年５月发表的《产业宪章》。从某种意义上来说，这不是什么新政策，实际上连续性和共识性是其基本主题，正如战时１９４４年的《就业白皮书》是与凯恩斯主义（即强调用逆周期性的公共开支保持需求和就业，同时更注重正统意义上的效率、竞争和灵活性，把二者结合起来）妥协的产物一样，《产业宪章》是总体主义与自由企业相妥协的产物。《产业宪章》维护经济计划、产业"伙伴关系"和工人"协商"制度，但它继续强调有必要减少控制、减少公务人员和合理降低税收。两派的争议在５０年代和６０年代的保守党内继续存在。《产业宪章》给我们某些启示，它使我们党得以保持团结。但这类文件无法使人热血沸腾，对党重新执政也无关紧要。事实上，正是工党政府经济政策的失败，尤其是１９４７年２月的燃料危机和１９４９年的英镑贬值，而不是保守党的主观能动作用，才使得政治形势朝着有利于我们的方向发展。 《产业宪章》这类文件谨慎地避开了最终击败社会主义的真正战场。最终丘吉尔是对的。社会主义是否像东欧和苏联那样需要一个"盖世太保"还是只需要西方所采用的那些平庸、官僚的专制工具、没收式税收、国有化和压制性规章制度，这个问题最终取决于所向往的社会主义的程度。在减少经济自由的过程中，如果社会主义者们沿着这条路一直走到底，这将意味着消灭一切自由。我本人对这一观点包含的真理毫不怀疑。但是一些保守党人很难接受这一论点。传统的经济自由主义是我政治思想的一个重要构成部分，埃德蒙·伯克本人也信奉这个主义，但对来自社会上层的保守党成员们来说，则对此常常是格格不入，不能投合的。哈罗德·麦克米伦于１９３８年在他的影响很大的《中间道路》一书中所反映的岂不就是这种思想？他主张在大范围的生产和服务行业中扩大国家调控和计划职能。其他的保守党人则对任何理论都漠不关心，他们竟把米尔所称的"愚蠢的政党"看作是一种赞美，因此，他们把Ｆ·Ａ·海克所写的那本强烈批判社会主义计划经济和社会主义国家的著作《通往农奴制的道路》奉献给"所有政党的社会主义者"，就不足为奇了。我当时读了这本书，后来又反复阅读。 我不能说当时已完全理解海克的小小的代表作的涵义，只是到了７０年代中期，当基思·约瑟夫给我开列的阅读书目的最上方赫然出现了海克的著作时，我才逐渐明白他提出的观点。也只是到那时，我才真正开始思考他的论点。我的这种思考是从保守党人认同的那种国家（一个法治下的规模有限的政府）的观点，而不是从我们应该避免的那种因家（由官僚们随意统治的社会主义国家）的观点出发的。在这个阶段，在我看来，《通往农奴制的道路》对社会主义所作的无可辩驳的批判是产生了影响的，海克认为纳粹主义即国家社会主义起源于１９世纪的德国社会计划。他认为国家对"经济或社会某一领域的干预会导致难以抗拒的压力，要求将计划进一步扩大到其他领域。在西方文明几个世纪的发展过程中，国家计划对其产生了深层次的甚至是革命性的影响——他提醒我们要注意这一点。 海克直言不讳地指出了计划社会的垄断倾向，这种垄断是各专业集团和工会必然要利用的。他们对社会保障的每项要求，无论是就业、收入或社会地位，都意味着特权集团之外的人不能享受这些利益，这就导致被排除者要求得到补偿的特权。在这种情况下，每个人最终都是输家。也许由于海克没有英国保守党的背景，事实上他也根本不认为自己是一名保守主义者，所以在谈论这些事情时他毫无顾忌，不像英国上层社会谈论这些事情时顾虑重重，使他们的社会良知受到折磨。海克很独特，而又不被众人青睐，但在彻底批判社会主义方面他并非是独行者。在这个时期，我还看过喜好辩论的记者克姆·布朗根的作品。海克用哲理表达的内容，布朗根则用令人却步的反语和尖刻的讥讽来表达。在１９４３年的《"人民"是谁？》一书中，布朗根的写作方法是难以想象的。在１９４７年出版的《我们的新主人》一书中，他不认为１９４５年的选举结果只不过是因为大家都失去了常识。 （人民）被欺骗了，这是确定无疑的，但他们愿意受欺骗……他们投票否定了生活中的适度期望，而这正是一位清醒的公民一生为之奋斗的目标。他们为吃上蛋糕并拥有它而投了票，为了存些蛋糕以备雨天之用，然后再把它扔掉而投了票。他们为多拿钱少干活，为了一个物质极大丰富的世界而投了票。他们象凯纽特国王的朝臣们一样投了票，这位国王坐在逐渐逼近的海浪面前，凭借王室的权威和毋庸置疑的意志命令海浪退去。人民可以让他们自己选择的最高统治者掌权。没有人剥夺他们的权利。但海浪在逼近。 因此，布朗根看到民众对工党的幻想破灭了，在他写书时这种情绪已经表露出来。这是社会主义分子应得的报应，因为他们激起了人们那么高的期望，而这种期望是无人能够实现的，更别说那些制定错误政策的人了。布朗根极巧妙地攻击道："凡是斯达夫·克瑞普斯爵士试图增加福利和幸福的地方，那里连草都不会生长。" 布朗根还认为社会主义是导致无序与分裂的力量，是可能腐蚀整个政治机构的毒药。他认为工党是一个"虚弱、爱抱怨的家伙，由于它心灵放纵，对生活的看法幼稚而不现实，所以它不适合执政"。这些感受我们许多人都感觉到了，但这么强烈地表达这种感情总的说来显得不够谨慎。 抵制集体主义的两种可能的方式——渐进的和激进的——之间的对立，在我整个保守党的政治活动中都时有表现。但在战争刚结束的那几年，对我最具有影响的是有关国际方面而不是内政方面的一些问题。 我从广播新闻中得知在命运攸关的１９４５年８月６日，在广岛投了一颗原子弹。这时我正在布莱克普尔市看望我姐姐（她已从伯明翰的矫形医院转来这里）。在此之前，人们知道我们正处在获得大规模杀伤性武器技术突破的前夕。我自己的学习专业以及与科学研究成果的实际应用有关的问题对我产生的吸引力，也许意味着我比大多数人更知道原子弹制造可能导致的事态发展。第二年，在美国出版的《用于军事目的的原子能》一书中，我看到（大体懂得）非常充分的阐述。然而，尽管它可能是些老生常谈，可我一听到关于广岛的最初报告，就立刻意识到随着原子弹的出现"这个世界就变样了"。或者正如丘吉尔自己在其宏伟的回忆录《第二次世界大战》中所说："它影响到二战迅速结束，也许还影响到其他很多东西。" 核武器所蕴涵的全部科学、战略和政治意义要在若干年后才能作出估计，而且像它所涉及的科学一样，它们还在不断发展变化。但是使用核武器对人类和环境所产生的直接后果很快就知道了。１９４６年冬天，我看了美国记者约翰·赫西关于广岛的报导，这篇报导最先刊登在《纽约人》杂志上，后来作为企鹅出版社丛书出版。说来奇怪，与有关骇人听闻的人体伤害、烈火、放射性尘埃和辐射引起的疾病的报导相比，更震撼人的是那些野花和小草从死灰中破上而出的苦涩而又甘甜的形象，它们的生长受到核弹辐射的畸形刺激。 我当天晚上在由布莱克普尔乘火车回家的路上对此事进行了反思，后来又看到有关的大规模毁灭的报导和照片。然而这些都未使我对使用原子弹的决策的正确性产生怀疑。我认为使用原子弹的决策基本上是正当合理的。这主要是因为如果由盟军袭击攻占日本本土，就不可避免地要带来人员的伤亡损失。当时日本尚有２５０万武装人员。在冲绳之战中我们已经看到他们的疯狂抵抗。只有盟军的军事技术优势，才能今日本领导人相信抵抗是毫无希望的。这种优势先在广岛后在长崎被证实了。在广岛投下第一颗原子弹一周后又在长崎投下第二颗原子弹，日本投降了。当然，英国在制造原子弹的过程中进行了密切的配合，尽管战后由于英-美停止核合作，直到１９５２年我们才爆炸了一颗原子弹。正如我们现在所知，丘吉尔和杜鲁门在波茨坦被斯大林欺骗了。当美国总统将原子弹的消息"告知"这位苏联领导人时，得知此事的斯大林立刻返回莫斯科，命令他的科学家们加快他们的核计划。 如果说原子弹引发了人们对英国在战后世界中应扮演什么角色的置疑，那么印度的形势引发了另一个问题。这个问题引起了我的兴趣。这时我对丘吉尔怀有无限崇敬，我知道他强烈反对迁就印度民族主义主张的做法，这种主张体现在１９３５年印度管辖法中。印度的局势在战时急剧恶化，看起来，即使早期预想的给予自治领地位的前景也不太可能缓解要求独立的压力。而且，当时的背景是战后英国在世界的地位已大为削弱，虽然那时我们对这一点尚未充分认识到。我们独自与希特勒战斗的两个物质条件——在海外积累的巨额投资和世界上空前成功的庞大帝国——已经作为取得那场伟大战斗胜利的代价而失去或被极大地削弱了。 尽管如此，我的同龄人，甚至那些与帝国演变成联邦关系密切的人，对印度所发生的事情的看法也要比我的许多长辈们积极得多。大约就在这个时候我读了两本强调英国作用的书。这两本书认为，英国不仅应是英帝国属地内建立涟全的行政管理和人类公平的保证人，而且应是负责它们作为国际社会的可靠成员的出生、成长和成熟的助产士。 利奥·艾默里的《关于宪法的思考》（在牛津发表的演讲）强调通过自由合作确保帝国"思想和目的的统一"是极为必要的。至少有一段时期，这种主张使我对以"帝国优先权"作为维护我们社会利益的一种方式的想法产生了兴趣。 我还读了艾尔顿勋爵的《帝国联邦》，这本书把不断发展的英帝国看成是统一与合作的典范： 向全世界传播有组织的政治自由；三次从暴政专制下拯救了欧洲，两次拯救了世界；结束了农奴制，并教其他国家也结束了它；不愿得到土地，却常常为了他人利益而拥有它；在逆境中学到智慧，拥有巨人的权力却不象巨人那样使用它……所有这一切使英帝国富甲天下，存在至今，并使它对全人类的感谢拥有充分的权利……也许世界从这个岛国身上学到了自由的艺术，而它还没有把统一的艺术教给世界。也许英国目前的苦难最终会使它适应那种角色。 回头来看，其中很多说法是自欺欺人。我们不可能既赋予殖民地自由，同时又决定它们以后的前途。然而，在当时这些主张看上去似乎英国既有可能继续扮演世界角色，同时又不背负帝国的负担和罪恶。 １９４６年春天至１９４７年夏天，斯塔夫德·克立普斯调查团到印度试图与印度人就他们国家的前途达成共识，政府在分治的基础上签署了一项解决方案，在这段时期内我密切注视着事态的发展。我认为就这种解决方式而言，有很多方面可以给予批评，但是这项政策的目的是正确的，对英国、印度以及更广泛的英联邦来说其方向是进步的。毫无疑问，工党政府和蒙巴顿总督试图走得更快。从悲剧的意义上讲，这时爆发的内战表明了英国的统治对保证印度的统一与和平的重要程度，在这场战争中一百万人丧失了生命。 然而，这些想法与战后的世界看起来有些格格不入，在这个世界中，新的全球机构是联合国、国际货币基金组织和世界银行，而欧洲殖民地帝国的前途极为有限。事实上，我们至今还没有完全成功地实现从一个稳定的殖民地世界到一个稳定的后殖民地世界的转变。像索马里危机一样，在亚洲和非洲，许多地方自己无法建立秩序，对此国际机构也无良策，肯定没有像一个世纪以前的殖民统治那样有效的良策。 但是，此时对英国影响最为巨大并对我的政治生活产生重大影响的转变，是苏联由战友变成了不共戴天的仇敌。重要的是需要强调指出，此时西方大多数人对苏联的情况知之甚少。事实上，如果注意对其进行调查和报导，还是能够了解到事实真相的。但是，一般说来，由于各种原因，人们没有这样做。一般而言，报纸也是如此。例如，《每日电讯报》对斯大林３０年代的清洗就没有给以突出的报导，甚至在１９３９年８月的《莫罗托夫－里宾特洛甫条约》之后，该报也只是奇怪地把苏联对波兰东部的入侵说成是它与希特勒关系紧张的表现。 人们可以进行有力的辩护以减轻丘吉尔和英国在放弃中东欧问题上的责任。１９４４年１０月，丘吉尔同斯大林在莫斯科会晤，他在著名的半张纸片上写下了共享巴尔干半岛势力范围的建议。丘吉尔本人也承认，这的确有一丝玩世不恭的"现实政治"的意味。他称这是一纸"恶作剧的文件"。纸片上的内容显然公开背离了１９４１年北大西洋宪章的原则精神。但承认了红军已占领大部分东欧的现实，而且有可能有助于维护希腊独立。丘吉尔至少意识到，在和红军对峙的形势下，我方部队的仓促撤退将会置德国的中部地带于苏联控制之下，从而势必使我们彻底失去对东欧命运施加影响的机会。而此时美国人还惜然无觉。 话虽这么说，但承认现实与将现实合法化两者之间是有区别的，因为合法化经常是把不合理的现象具体化。由此看来，在关于１９４５年２月签订的《雅尔塔协定》问题上，弃权或投了政府反对票的保守党人的做法是正确的，亚历克·道格拉斯一霍姆也是其中一员。在听完德莱尔伯爵和达德利分别在泰勒瑞安学院对牛津大学保守党协会所做的一次震憾人心的演讲后，我由忐忑不安转而开始反对该协议的签订了。当然，强迫苏联人尊重民主、尊重苏占区的民族自决权是困难的，甚至也许根本就不可能实现。而且也不难理解，当时的美军和英军都疲惫不堪，伤亡较重，他们想告别战争带来的恐惧，不愿冒险去同旧时的盟友展开新的冲突。尽管如此，在我们内心深处都不准备遵守的协议上盖上表示赞成的印章，而且还试图迫使流亡国外的波兰非共产主义政府去接受它，却是错误的。 《雅尔塔协定》的签订引起了我对于共产主义军事威胁的深思。共产主义现实上的其他一些特点也在我的脑海里一点一点地联系起来。比如说，我读过阿瑟·凯斯特勒的《正午夤夜》一书，该书对共产党人主持的一次装模作样的审讯作了生动透彻的描述。 几年以后，我任反对党领袖时见到了凯斯特勒。我对他说，我感到他的作品很有震撼力，并询问他是如何想象出拉巴斯夫以及对其施加折磨的那帮人的形象的。他告诉我：并不需要什么想象力，那些都是真实的。 由于我读过这些书，不难想象我对丘吉尔１９４６年３月５日在密苏里州的富尔顿城发表的演说会作出什么反应。当然，此次演说由于提出了一个有力的警告而闻名于世，即："从波罗的海沿岸的什切青到亚得里亚海的特里尔这一横跨欧洲大陆的地区上，已经落下了一道铁幕，在俄国人支配下的这些国家中盛行警察政府的统治。"但在我看来，具有同样意义的是，丘吉尔借此唤起人们去缔造英美两国之间的特殊关系，以及它所蕴涵的"英美两国人民传递给整个人类的理想主义的信息"。关于自由的思想，在我们两个国家中的政治传统和社会制度中得到最充分的发展。现在看来，丘吉尔的那次演说具有惊人的先见之明。但在当时，它却受到了北大西洋两岸评论家们的严厉批判，认为它大肆叫嚣战争论。不过没过多久，苏联在希腊和东欧地区的意图照然若揭，这些人的笔锋也随之而改变。 在获得了一个二类化学学位、从牛津毕业之际，我对大千世界、尤其是政治方面的情况已知之较多。我的性格依然如故，信仰也一如既往。但我更明了如何处理与他人的关系及他人的雄心和意见。简言之，我长大了。这个神秘的过程把人们带向种种显赫的或者平庸的职业。我找到了自己此生真正想要去做的事情。 在大学生活即将结束之前，我回距格兰瑟姆约１０英里的小村考比格伦参加了一场舞会。散场后，我同一些朋友在我住处的厨房里喝咖啡，品尝三明治，像通常一样，我谈起了政治。我所谈的某些内容，或者说是我谈论时的方式，引起一位男士发问道："你真正希望做的是成为一名议员，不是吗？""对，那正是我想要做的。"我几乎不加思索就作出了回答。我以前还从未这样说过——甚至对自己也没有，那天晚上，我思绪万千，难以入眠。