Articles

On the surface, a non-smoking, teetotaling vegetarian who disliked publicity might seem an odd companion for the voluble Churchill, prominent consumer of cigars, alcohol, meat and attention. But the statesman was won over.

The Churchillian way of high command rests on an uneven dialogue between civilian leader and military chiefs. It is neither comfortable for the military nor easy for the civilians but in the end, it is difficult to quarrel with the results.

In Thoughts Upon Hunting, Sir Peter Beckford wrote: “A gentleman seeing a girl skinning eels alive asked her, ‘if it was not very cruel?’—‘O not at all, sir,’ replied the girl, ‘they be used to it.’”

For Churchill, Gandhi’s death was just one more unnecessary killing in the slaughter that had been going on in India since 1946.

Of all the responsibilities that come the way of statesmen at war, the most important may be the selection of those who direct the armies and fleets. Few cares rest heavier on a war leader, and few present greater difficulties. In the case of deciding on a major operation, a war statesmen can consult his own right reason and reams of planning and intelligence material; he has the benefit of advice prepared by large staffs, and he can turn to a variety of experts for their views.

Churchill had an affinity for a good phrase, and stored them in his capacious memory for deployment when the time was right. He occasionally used them without credit to the author, innocently assuming that anyone with an ounce of education would recognize them on sight.

"Churchill’s profound sense of the uncertainties inherent in war suggests that he would have found the notion that one could have a blueprint for victory at any time before say 1943 an absurdity, bred of unfamiliarity with the very nature of war."

The Wikipedia Chanak entry says Churchill was “pro-Greek and wanted war,” but this is oversimplified. What he wanted was not to award the defeated Ottomans a victory they had not won in World War I.

Despite the unpopularity of his moderate advice that Germany not be required to pay for war damages, Churchill continued to attempt to convince his constituents and friends of its wisdom. Not only would Germany be physically unable to pay, trying to make her would harm all of Europe, including Britain.

Winston Churchill loved a good card game. Later in life, he even traveled with a green, velvet table cover to facilitate the pastime. Donald Rumsfeld, former U.S. Secretary of Defense and friend of Hillsdale College, also enjoys playing cards, especially when the game requires strategic decision making. While serving as U.S. Ambassador to NATO in 1973, he learned a version of solitaire from Belgian Ambassador André de Staercke, who claimed that none other than Prime Minister Churchill taught him the game during World War II.

Churchill’s faith in personal diplomacy—solving intractable problems by meetings at the highest level—was famously expressed during his World War II meetings with Stalin and Roosevelt. It surfaced again in 1953-55, when he strove unsuccessfully to promote what he called “a meeting at the summit” with Eisenhower and Stalin’s successors. Less widely known, however, is Churchill’s 1914 proposal for a “conference of sovereigns” or heads of state (including, it seems, French President Raymond Poincaré) in an effort to head-off World War I. The scheme failed, but certainly not for Churchill’s lack of trying.

Judgments on history are all too easy in hindsight. Manfred Weidhorn has suggested that if Hitler had been assassinated in 1938 he would have gone down as the restorer of German greatness. If in 1941, the inevitable result of his policies in 1942-45 would have left loyal Nazis pining, "Ach, if only der Fuehrer were still alive." I suppose that if Churchill had been killed on the Western Front, where he went to fight in 1916, we would still have these inaccurate views of his attitude toward war, spread about by everyone from pot-stirrers to serious and admirable historians. I am sorry about that.