I have just finished reading this massive 980+ page (before footnotes) biography of Winston Churchill. I have read more than one biography of Churchill and read countless books referring to him, but never one which pulled his life together in such a comprehensive, judiciously balanced way as Roberts’ biography does.
It is striking to have read two very long biographies—the other being David Blight’s “Frederick Douglass: Prophet of Freedom” in one year that are among the handful of best biographies I have read in my life.
They both tell the story of unique, indomitable, brilliantly fluent (in speaking and writing) men. Individuals of irrepressible energy, indomitable will. They had their flaws, in decisions they made and in how they treated others, but they made a unique contribution to his history.
Churchill’s unique contribution in World War II was not being willing to even consider reaching out to Germany to hear what they would offer by way of peace terms in 1940. If Lord Halifax had assumed the premiership, which he might well have done following the fall of France, the world could have been different. He would have been open to hearing Germany’s terms. At that time, they might have been pretty attractive given Hitler’s desire to concentrate on fighting the Soviet Union.
Among Churchill’s unique strengths, none surpasses his ability to express himself eloquently in a way that fueled the spirit of the British people. Much like my own (though it sounds presumptuous to write it), his guiding force was his ultimate belief in the British people and, yes, the British Empire. So, for me, I have been unyielding in my belief in Procter & Gamble and Procter & Gamble people and my conviction that, while we have faced and will face continued challenges, we will overcome them.
Like all great men, Churchill’s imperfections ring sharply, particularly with the benefit of hindsight. His belief in “white superiority,” his opposition to women’s suffrage, his conviction that the peoples of India and other British possessions could not rule themselves all bore the mark of narrowly-viewed superiority.
The many diaries which Roberts has tapped into reveal extraordinarily negative comments and attitudes which the different leaders, including Churchill, had about each other. They attacked each other’s judgment, their integrity, and their civility. Yet, they could be generous to one another. In particular, Churchill’s eulogies to people he had opposed were eloquent and filled with deep feeling.
Giving tribute to Chamberlain at his funeral on November 14, 1940, Churchill uttered some of the words which I have often drawn upon. “In paying a tribute of respect and regard to an eminent man who has been taken from us, no one is obliged to alter the opinions which he has expressed upon issues which have become a part of history; but at the lynch-gate we may all pass our own conduct and our own judgments under a searching review. It is not given to human beings, happily for them, for otherwise life would be intolerable, to foresee or to predict to any large extent the unfolding course of events.
History, with its flickering lamp, stumbles along the trail of the past, trying to reconstruct its scenes, to revive its echoes, and candle with pale gleams the passion of former days. What is the worth of all this? The only guide to a man is his conscious; the only shield to his memory is the rectitude and sincerity of his actions. It is very imprudent to walk through life without this shield, because we are so often mocked by the failure of our hopes and the upsetting of our calculations: but with this shield, however the fates may play, we march always in the ranks of honor.”
Churchill offered timeless stirring calls for action and to never give up.
At the beginning of the battle of Britain in 1940, he spoke to the British people: “let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that, if the British Empire and its Commonwealth lasts for 1,000 years, men will still say ‘this was their finest hour.’”
Churchill’s indomitable spirit was well expressed as he recalled that even in the “darkest times I never had any trouble sleeping. I could always flop into bed and go to sleep after the day’s work as done. I slept sound and awoke refreshed, and had no feeling except appetite to grapple with whatever the next morning’s boxes might bring.” What a statement of confidence and commitment.
After the war, there were many who lauded Churchill for his eloquency but faulted him for his strategic sense on how to win the war. They were wrong on that judgment. Yes, he made mistakes: the foray to Narvik, working to hold Crete and Greece, among others; but he clearly wrote the basic outline of what proved to be the winning strategy for World War II in 1941. He saw that the entry of the United States was critical; that Hitler had made a fatal mistake in attacking the Soviet Union; that in order to land in Belgium and France, it would be first necessary to soften Nazi resistance by attacking the under-belly in North Africa and Italy. His mistake was calling it a “soft under-belly.” It didn’t prove that.
One of Churchill’s great strengths was he always went to the front lines. He wanted to be where the action was, whether that was at the battlefront or the streets of London during the Blitz. He raised people’s morale. They knew he was with them.
As the war ensued, in its most difficult moments, Churchill acknowledged his own role in constantly prodding and pestering his ministers. He recognized that, far from being a “mutual admiration society,” he was more critical of them even than the government’s opponents. “In fact, I wonder” he said “that a great many of my colleagues are on speaking terms with me.” Nonetheless, “it is the duty of the Prime Minister to use the power which parliament and the nation have given me to drive others, and in a war like this that power has to be used irrespective of anyone’s feelings. If we win, nobody will care. If we lose, there will be nobody to care.”
One of the most amazing things, for me, about Churchill was how in the midst of the greatest crises he was able to pull away and read a classic Jane Austen novel or see a classic movie like “Citizen Kane.” His supreme self-confidence and unbounded capacity made this possible.
Edmond Burke, whom Churchill read and quoted, wrote of prejudicethat it “does not leave the man hesitating in a moment of decision, skeptical, puzzled, and unresolved. Through such prejudice, his duty becomes a part of his nature.” Churchill’s belief that the British were superior to every other nation in the world, including the Germans, was undoubtedly one of unquestioning prejudice, but it did not leave him hesitating in 1940 in the way that the crisis left others “skeptical, puzzled and unresolved.”
The Russian Ambassador to England, Ivan Maisky, whose diaries play such an important role in this book, noted in his diary in May 1941 that “I have no grounds not to believe him, that the British Empire is his alpha and omega.”
As I wrote earlier, in its own infinitely less world-changing way, my own belief in the ability of Procter & Gamble and Procter & Gamble people to prevail, has helped me avoid being “skeptical and unresolved” when it has come to my conviction that P&G will prevail against great challenges.
“Man is spirit,” Churchill told the ministers of his government in April 1955. What he meant was that, given spirit—by which he met the dash, intelligence, hard work, persistence, and men’s physical and moral courage and, above all, willpower--it is possible to succeed despite material and other restraints. He had succeeded despite a lot of restraints: parental neglect, disapproval of contemporaries, a dozen close brushes with death, financial insecurity, military disasters, backstabbing colleagues and much more.
With enough spirit, he believed that we can rise above anything in creating something significant of our lives.
I would only add we need some luckalong the way. In fact, quite a bit of luck. I am not sure where Churchill would have said he found his luck. Perhaps he would have said he didn’t need any. And probably he didn’t need much. But he did need some. Everybody does. I don’t know what importance he would have attached to having convinced Clementine to marry him or how much he would attribute to his father, Randolph. Perhaps quite a bit. I don’t think he was given too much self-reflection on this. That’s okay. Maybe it was good. It did not get in the way of his enormous achievements.
I have no trouble identifying my many sources of luck. I have written about them and I won’t belabor them again here. Other than to say that most important were my mother and, above all, Francie.
