This is the calibre of man we need to lead us!
Photo courtesy of the BBC
The rows were explosive, the challenges enormous, but Churchill led Britain through World War Two with unique assurance - his cigar always in place. 'Winnie' changed his country's military approach from defensiveness to aggressive attack, and so altered the course of history. The historian Geoffrey Best describes how he did it.
A statesman transformed
At the beginning of the Second World War the reputation of Winston Churchill was that of a gifted politician who had twice changed parties, an impulsive man prone to impractical enthusiasms, and a Conservative backbencher who opposed the foreign policy of his leader - the prime minister, Neville Chamberlain.
Six years later, Churchill towered above all contemporaries as a statesman of international renown. He was known as the champion of freedom and civilisation, and the victorious leader of the British nation and empire at war. How did this transformation happen?
The change did not begin to happen until 1940, when the war was nine months old. Even his enemies had recognised that Churchill would have to be brought into the government in the event of war - his military expertise was universally acknowledged, and his criticisms of Chamberlain's policy of appeasement had after all proved justified - and he had been made First Lord of the Admiralty. In this capacity he was given charge only of the Royal Navy, a position that, after ten years in the political wilderness, he was content to accept. Winston Churchill: Defender of Democracy by Geoffrey Best
Mark Alexander
7 comments:
Hear, Hear!
The Churchill today will most likely be received as Winston was in 1938 ... alarmist. But when history proves him (or her if Thatcher has a clone) right, people will turn to him and ask him to lead. Now's the time for such a person to speak out loud and clear, even if it looks like no one will listen. That alone will show that the person has the right stuff.
One of my heros too.
Something distantly related...
South Park aired an episode in which, if I understood it right, they express frustration about being censored by Comedy Central for wanting to spoof Mohammed. They made it seem like high-level government officials had pressured their network to remove images.
Their next episode will be racey and show Mohammed inages unless 'Comedy Central executives bow to pressure and show themselves to be pus_ies' (paraphrasing)
I'm an outsider on this stuff, is there anything to it?
Judah:
Would you like to expand on why, as a Kiwi, you are not enamoured of Winston Churchill? I must be missing something! I don't quite follow you. I mean, could World War II have been won without him, Kiwi, Brit, or American?
In my opinion, it isn't "a dose of certain of his qualities" we need, but a clone of him! How else are we going to fight this juggernaut we face?
Judah:
Thank you for sharing this with us. I can quite understand how you feel.
You are, however, talking about his performance in the First World War; I am talking about his performance in the Second World War.
Moreover, I am not referring to any particular successes or failures; rather, I am referring to the kind of man that led us to victory against the horrors of Nazi Germany. I think that on this point, at least, you will agree with me when I say that he showed inspired leadership. Certainly far different from the leadership shown by our politicans today.
It’s a rare leader in WWII, political or military, that hasn’t had huge mistakes. WWI was far worse. The American Civil War was a painful loss with major blunders on all sides. Victor Davis Hanson has excellent essays on the painful failures that result in the needless death of many soldiers. Some battles were poorly thought out and there were people who realized it at the time.
But war is such a large-scale undertaking that it takes the interplay of many people from the leaders on down. Not everyone will make a good decision. And it’s hard to tell the mothers of those lost in battle that their lives where lost by a blatant blunder. Yet, there is no way to avoid these mistakes in a war because war by its very nature is, or should be, rare.
Let’s remember that for a year England faced Hitler alone after France fell and before Hitler attacked Russia. In that year Churchill had to rally the British people and Commonwealth allies as Hitler slaughtered nation after nation on the continent. Hitler blundered by invading Russia and declaring war on America … and the rest is history. But for that year it looked dismal … that was Churchill’s “finest hour.” Whatever his mistakes, he redeemed himself by the crucial role he played warning about Hitler before the war and then rallying the people during the war.
Jason:
Beautifully stated. Thank you for this excellent comment.
Yes, war is, by its very nature, fraught with danger, replete with death and destruction. Moreover, unfortunately, it cannot be wages without error.
I understand Judah's misgivings; but I do think that we need to remember one important thing: in the First World War, Churchill was young and relatively inexperienced; in the Second World War, he had the benefit of maturity behind him.
In my opinion, he was a truly great leader whatever mistakes he might have made early on in his life. Don't we all make mistakes in our young lives? Of course, most of us do not make mistakes which involve the loss of life. It is a tragedy it should have happened as Judah said. But for all that, in my eyes, this doesn't detract from his greatness and inspiration as a leader in World War II.
But, as you say, Jason, try telling that to the people who lost relatives as "cannon fodder". It's not so easy, is it?
JudahQ:
BTW, the Kiwis and the Turks now share a strong bond with each other as the result of that campaign.
In that case, perhaps New Zealnd ought to form an economic and political union with Turkey!
Post a Comment