Subscribe now and receive weekly newsletters with educational materials, new courses, interesting posts, popular books, and much more!
Articles
Pericles and Churchill: Matching Leadership, Millennia Apart
- By JUSTIN D. LYONS
- | February 15, 2024
- Category: Explore Understanding Churchill
Attempts at peace have failed. The long-brewing war is at hand. The capital of a far-flung empire is menaced by the threat of invasion. The enemy, disciplined, battle-hardened and determined, is on the march. The navy and the sea have always safeguarded the city’s security. Would they suffice? Some counsel further negotiation, some capitulation. One leader speaks words of unyielding defiance: Never give in. His resolve and rhetoric steels his people. This characterization applies to two widely separated statesmen: Pericles, the foremost Athenian in the Peloponnesian War; and Winston Churchill. Their rhetorical challenges were remarkably similar. Both had to persuade their people to adopt a resolute course and persevere to the end.
Pericles and Churchill
Especially in times of crisis, democratic leadership becomes most challenging. People must be persuaded, not simply commanded. Pericles and Churchill, Isaiah Berlin wrote, are notable exemplars of democratic statesmen who accomplished this:
The Prime Minister was able to impose his imagination and his will upon his countrymen, and enjoy a Periclean reign, precisely because he appeared to them larger and nobler than life and lifted them to an abnormal height in moment of crisis…. [He] transformed cowards into brave men, and so fulfilled the purpose of shining armour.1
Yet, while Berlin’s comparison rightly suggests that their rhetoric achieved similar results, there are important differences between Pericles and Churchill: in the kinds of appeals they employed and their purposes in doing so; in their understanding of themselves, their people and their regimes; and in their broader views of politics and war.
Pericles’ first speech: unyielding determination
In The History of the Peloponnesian War, Thucydides describes the 5th century B.C. battles of Sparta and Athens. Pericles led Athens for the first two years of the war. But Pericles did not merely lead Athens—he shaped it. Thucydides demonstrates this shaping by presenting the reader with three Periclean speeches.2 Each speech represents a different moment in Athens’ wartime experience and the effects of Pericles’ leadership. Taken together, they form a dramatic portrait of democratic statesmanship in time of crisis.
Pericles’ first speech conveys his unyielding character. The question arises whether Athens should change its policy to avoid war with Sparta. Pericles insists that Athens must not.3 “‘If you give way,” he argues, “you will instantly have to meet some greater demand, as having been frightened into obedience in the first instance; while a firm refusal will make them [the Spartans] clearly understand that they must treat you as equals.’” Peace must not be purchased at the price of liberty. Demands “from an equal, urged upon a neighbor as commands, be they great or be they small, have only one meaning, and that is slavery.”4
Periclean strategy
Also in this first speech appears the strategy that shapes the first half of the war. The Athenians withdraw within the security of their walls, leaving the surrounding countryside of Attica to the Spartans. They sally forth from time to time to lay waste to enemy lands in the Peloponnesus. Indeed, the Athenians even destroy their own lands and houses to show the Peloponnesians that nothing will make them submit.
This is, of course, an extraordinary policy. Should Athenians abandon their ancestral homes, their farms and fields, their olive groves? Should these products of their labor be pillaged and burned by the enemy? Nevertheless, Athenians took Pericles’ advice, moving families, furniture and anything they could cart or carry within their walls.
That he so persuaded the Athenians says much about Pericles’ public standing. But this bitter pill was not delivered without rhetorical coating. He also emphasized the hope of victory, embellishing Athenian strength and the weakness of the enemy. Should these sources of confidence not be enough, he appealed to the valor of their forebears in the wars against Persia, invoking fear of the shame of falling short of their example. Similarly, Churchill urged his people “never to fall below the level of events.”5
Churchill: peace through strength
Between the two world wars, Britain was seized by a passion for disarmament. Many believed the Versailles Treaty was too harsh. Germany should be restored to its rightful place. Disarmament found a logical extension in the policy of appeasement. Both were founded on a belief that discussion and adjustment could relieve tensions. When Germany abjured disarmament, Britain’s Neville Chamberlain sought to gratify Hitler with greater material concessions. Churchill strenuously opposed both policies, but throughout the 1930s he was politically isolated. The prevailing strategy was to buy safety at the price of other lands, nations and peoples.6
Churchill’s refusal to concede through fear echoes Pericles. To yield to a threat of force was to give up honor, safety and self-respect: “Short of being conquered, there is no evil worse than submitting to wrong and violence for fear of war. Once you take the position of not being able in any circumstances to defend your rights…there is no end to the demands that will be made or to the humiliations that must be accepted.” He wrote this long before Hitler came to power.7
Churchill’s prophecies came true. Every concession made to Hitler brought a fresh demand. Attempting to satisfy the insatiate Führer, Britain threw away security, allies and pride. The ancient wisdom of peace through strength was abandoned in favor of accommodation.
Appeasement’s apogee was Chamberlain’s 1938 meeting with Hitler in Munich over Czechoslovakia. Here Hitler employed all his tools of fear and fraud. Britain offered no assurances to the Czechs and rejected a firm stand. Czechoslovakia had to transfer the German-populated Sudetenland to the Reich. Chamberlain proclaimed “peace with honour,” assuring Britons that they need not fear the future.8
Fatal delusions
Churchill again strongly disagreed. Munich, he declared, was an example of sacrifice through fear. Almost alone, he repudiated Chamberlain’s course. Far from a triumph, Britain had “sustained a total and unmitigated defeat.”9 The idea “that safety can be purchased by throwing a small state to the wolves is a fatal delusion.”10
Once such a course was embarked upon, he warned, worse was to come: “This is only the beginning of the reckoning. This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigour, we arise again and take our stand for freedom, as in the olden time.”11
Churchill knew that Chamberlain’s peace would be brief, that Hitler would break his word: “[T]he Czechoslovak State cannot be maintained as an independent entity. You will find that in a period of time which may be measured by years, but may be measured only by months, Czechoslovakia will be engulfed in the Nazi regime.”12 He was correct, and Hitler continued his path to war. In abandoning Czechoslovakia, Britain had not only sealed the fate of another country; it had nearly sealed its own.
Pericles’ second speech: visions of glory
In his first speech, Pericles exhorted the Athenians to accept sacrifice. By his second speech, known as the Funeral Oration, that sacrifice was being made. Watching the Peloponnesians ravage Attica was excruciating; hot-blooded young Athenians demanded counterattack. Pericles had sent a fleet to raid the Peloponnesus and deployed cavalry to defend lands near the city. But it was not enough to stifle discontent. He “was abused for not leading out the army which he commanded and was made responsible for the whole of the public suffering.”13
The time for a rhetorical shot in the arm came during a public funeral for the fallen. In his eulogy, Pericles mainly praises Athens. The soldiers’ deaths are glorious because of the glory of the city-state for which they died. The loss of individuals is treated as of little account. Pericles chose this approach on purpose. To dwell upon the death of individuals could diminish the common goal of victory and the courage to attain it.14
So Pericles offers the Athenians a vision which transcends private suffering: a vision of immortal glory. Even if Athens is ruined, he proclaims, its glory will survive forever: “The admiration of the present and succeeding ages will be ours…. We have forced every sea and land to be the highway of our daring, and everywhere, whether for evil or for good, have left imperishable monuments behind us.”15
Praise and guidance
Ancient funeral orations have two major sections—epainesis, praise for the fallen, and parainesis, advice for the living. Pericles overcomes these potentially conflicting dichotomies by extolling the city-state, not individuals. His advice for the living calls for more than internal reflection or amending personal habits. Athenians must be prepared to make the same sacrifice as the fallen, or at least to run the risk of doing so. He convinces them that the cause is worthy of their sacrifice.
This is the reason why Pericles concentrates on the polity: “Such is the Athens for which these men, in the assertion of their resolve not to lose her, nobly fought and died; and well may every one of their survivors be ready to suffer in her cause.” He praises those who chose “to die resisting rather than live submitting… as became Athenians.” Death is not the end: their deeds will not be forgotten because they will live on in history.
Pericles presents Athens as a magnificent spectacle, the living and their ancestors, that will survive the ages. The living have the opportunity to add their own monuments to its splendor. He lifts his people’s gaze to the heights he has illuminated—“till love of her fills your hearts.” Only “by courage, sense of duty, and a keen feeling of honor in action” were Athenians “enabled to win all this….”16
Churchill’s vision of victory
By the end of June 1940, the Low Countries and France had fallen. Britain stood alone, its navy and the remnants of the salvaged army its only shields against the ferocious power. The vials of wrath were about to be poured out upon them. Germany launched a fierce aerial offensive, and soon the bombs would begin falling on open cities. The only choice was to die resisting or to live submitting. Britain resisted—and survived.
There was a vast change in public attitude. In a 1932 poll, an overwhelming number of Britons favored disarmament–only about eight percent were opposed.17 In 1933, the Oxford Union resolved that “this House will in no circumstances fight for King and Country.”18 Eight years later the people were emboldened and hardened by the assault rather than broken or cowed by it. That was largely attributable to Churchill’s unyielding determination and rhetorical power.
Unlike Pericles, Churchill gave no formal eulogy for the fallen during the war, but he employed remarkably similar techniques. On 18 June 1940 he presented a vision of glory, connecting a threatened people to a larger purpose. In times of trial an assertion of permanence, of lasting importance, is the first essential element. When people are asked to stand when they might run, fight when they might bargain, die when they might live, they need assurance that their sacrifices, or at least their cause, will never be forgotten.
“Their finest hour”
Churchill’s understanding of the fragility of human endeavor did not allow for a promise of undying remembrance. But in his immortal June 18th speech he came close: “Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties and so bear ourselves that, if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, ‘This was their finest hour.’”19
The vision of glory—so prominent in Pericles—also appears in Churchill’s oratory. The resemblance is indeed remarkable: “This is a struggle for life, a struggle in which every man and woman, old and young, can play a hero’s part,” he said in 1941. “The chance of glory and honour comes now here, now there, to each and every one. However hard the task may be, I know you will all be ready for that high moment. God bless you all.”20
When survival is at stake, the primary duty and challenge of the democratic statesman is to make the case that the cause is worth fighting for. Like Pericles, Churchill connected the efforts and sacrifices of individuals to the larger purpose. But how the case is made reveals much about the nature of the regime, its people, and its leader.
“Glory” was not a word Churchill used often in those years. He was much more likely to speak of determination, grit, stamina. What rewards would come from those qualities? Churchill spoke rather of freedom, justice, and peace. “Glory” was ascribed to mankind as a whole rather than the British in particular: “We shall never turn from our purpose, however sombre the road, however grievous the cost, because we know that out of this time of trial and tribulation will be born a new freedom and glory for all mankind.”21
Through Britain to a higher cause
Churchill also spoke of permanence, of lasting importance. Victory would bring the admiration of the ages, but that admiration would come because Britain struggled for something beyond itself. He struck that note in the first line of his first broadcast as Prime Minister, “in a solemn hour for the life of our country, of our Empire, of our Allies, and, above all, of the cause of Freedom.”22 He struck it again when the victory over Germany was won:
When shall the reputation and faith of this generation of English men and women fail? I say that in the long years to come not only will the people of this island but of the world, wherever the bird of freedom chirps in human hearts, look back at what we’ve done, and they will say: “Do not despair, do not yield to violence and tyranny, march straight forward and die if need be—unconquered.”23
Herein lies the crucial difference between Pericles and Churchill in the use of these linked appeals. The glory and remembrance spoken of by Pericles are inextricably linked with Athens itself. The glory and remembrance spoken of by Churchill are linked through Britain to the higher cause all mankind:
This is no war of domination or imperial aggrandisement or material gain: no war to shut any country out of its sunlight and means of progress. It is a war, viewed in its inherent quality, to establish on impregnable rocks, the rights of the individual, and it is a war to establish and revive the stature of man.”24
Pericles’ third speech: the hard road
By the second year of the Peloponnesian War, no Athenian was untouched by personal loss. In addition to loss of lives and property, Attica was struck with plague. Many were carried to their graves shrouded in the miasma of disease. These hardships aroused anger: “They began to find fault with Pericles, as the author of the war and the cause of all their misfortunes….”25 His defense is his third speech, designed to restore the confidence of his people.
Pericles is now more confrontational. His leadership is being aggressively questioned, and he gives a tough response. The inclusive “we” of his earlier speeches largely gives way to the forceful “I.” Indeed, a salient feature of this speech is the clear line Pericles draws between himself and his audience.
He admits he knew the war weighed heavily, that Athenians would be angry, that he must rebuild their shattered resolve. He is not surprised, but he has lost patience. He rebukes them for elevating private concerns above the good of the city-state. What is at fault is not his leadership but their resolution: “I am the same man and do not alter, it is you who change…and the apparent error of my policy lies in the infirmity of your resolution.” Fear clouds their minds. The wisdom of perseverance they at first accepted, but their judgment has faltered in their suffering. Victory “is still remote and obscure to all, and…your mind is too much depressed to persevere in your resolves.”26 His purpose is not simply to rebuke; he also means to encourage renewed determination—to accompany reproach with exhortation.
Pericles: glory or shame
As he reminds them again of Athens’ greatness, Pericles asserts the duties and burdens that come with it. As “citizens of a great state,” they must stand up to “the greatest disasters” and preserve “the luster of your name.”27 The judgment of mankind is relentless, he continues. The other side of glory is shame.
While failure is always a possibility, Pericles adds, the price of failure will be high. The chances of success are firmly grounded. Mastery of the sea makes Athens superior. The plague was unforeseen, but such misfortunes are the way of the world, and no reason for despair: “Besides, the hand of Heaven must be borne with resignation, that of the enemy with fortitude; this was the old way at Athens, and do not you prevent it being so still.”28
The speech ends in exhortation, both to mental toughness and to specific policy recommendations. Pericles again insists upon the paramountcy of the public realm, counseling the Athenians to forget their private loss: “Make your decision, therefore, for glory then and honor now, and attain both objects by instant and zealous effort. Do not send heralds to Sparta, and do not betray any sign of being oppressed by your present sufferings, since they whose minds are least sensitive to calamity, and whose hands are most quick to meet it, are the greatest men and the greatest communities.”29
Ultimately the Athenians followed Pericles’ advice, though with greater resistance. They gave up thoughts of negotiating with Sparta and “applied themselves with increased energy to the war.”
Churchill: blood, toil, mistakes and disappointments
Ill-equipped for war, Britain could do little but endure 1940. Success came in the form of fortunate escapes rather than decisive victories. Instead of being annihilated, the army left the continent (with the loss of much of their equipment). The murderous Blitz was endured, the Battle of Britain won. Hitler’s invasion (Operation Sea Lion) never happened. But it is difficult to measure victory in terms of what did not happen.
When Hitler turned his deadly gaze to the East, Britons were ready to lay down the shield and take up the sword. Naturally they looked to Churchill, symbol and herald of national defiance, to lead the way. He had longed for the day when they could return to the continent and engage the enemy. But the period between the Battle of Britain and El Alamein in November 1942 was one of prolonged frustration. Churchill was plagued by a litany of failures: the debacle in Greece and Crete; the loss of Hong Kong and Singapore; the sinking of the Hood, Prince of Wales, and Repulse; the fall of Tobruk.
Like Pericles, Churchill was criticized, and not for the first time. His two tenures as First Lord of the Admiralty saw failures in the Dardanelles and Norway. But now he was Prime Minister and Minister of Defence. The dual role was necessary, but frustrating for professional soldiers like Alan Brooke, who grumbled over what they saw as interference in military planning and unrealistic strategic recommendations. In 1942 there was a vote of confidence and a motion of censure. Churchill was not one to wilt under criticism. “I stand by my original programme,” he told Parliament: blood, toil, tears and sweat [along with] shortcomings, mistakes and disappointments.”30
Rhetorical contrasts
This period could be said to mark Churchill’s new rhetorical phase, very similar to the experience of Pericles. But the change is less pronounced, in part because we have Churchill’s recorded speeches. Their number and variety softens transitional edges, but the difference primarily arises from Churchill’s understanding of himself, his position, and the people he led. We see this best in his speeches responding to the criticism of the war effort.
Aware of dissatisfaction over the lack of progress in North Africa and the Far East, Churchill called for a Vote of Confidence on 27 January 1942. He now became blunt: “It is because things have gone badly and worse is to come that I demand a Vote of Confidence.” He urged the Members of Parliament not to be “mealy-mouthed in debate or chicken-hearted in voting.” Let all criticism be out in the open, where it could be scrutinized.
Yet that is as confrontational as his tone becomes. There is no anger. There is no sharp I/Thou moment as in the speech of Pericles. He does not claim his wisdom is superior, nor does he shift responsibility. He does defend the policies pursued under his leadership, examining how “events, which so often mock and falsify human effort and design, have shaped themselves.”31
Mastery of detail and defense
Churchill’s lengthy speech reveals his thorough mastery of the war effort. It also invites the listener to share in the thought-process behind the decisions that have been made. That is the key to its success. He acknowledges that military disasters did occur. Yet few could listen to his meticulous, comprehensive account without admitting that everything possible for human judgment to do had been done. Churchill won the vote, 464 to 1.
His response to the motion of censure brought against him in July 1942 is similar in tone and approach. His careful review of events as well as the risks, hopes, fears, and plans that surrounded them was so revealing of the irreducible complexities of war that criticism fell flat. He won that vote 475 to 25.32
Both speeches are marked by an openness to debate quite unlike the attitude of Pericles. While Pericles sought to prevent critical discussion, Churchill participated with good will. The difference arises from the nature of Churchill’s leadership. He always saw himself as a servant of the House of Commons—never its master. Representatives of the people, he believed, had every right to question him as they saw fit. Yet that right was not limitless; there were boundaries of good sense and safety that must be observed.
After the Vote of Confidence, Churchill remarked that “In no country in the world at the present time could a Government conducting a war be exposed to such a stress. No dictator country fighting for its life would dare to allow such a discussion.”33
“End of the beginning”
Churchill was proud of British constitutionalism and its ability to retain freedom of debate in the midst of war. But debate was not an end in itself: “We are still fighting for our lives, and for causes dearer than life itself,” he reminded his critics. “Sober and constructive criticism, or criticism in Secret Session, has its high virtue. But the duty of the House of Commons is to sustain the Government or to change the Government. If it cannot change it, it should sustain it. There is no working middle course in wartime.”
He repeatedly warned against bickering and partisan fault finding. A side-effect of Britain’s remarkable freedom of discussion was that it was observable: “Only the hostile speeches are reported abroad, and much play is made with them by our enemy.”34
Despite these examples, any impression that Churchill was essentially on the rhetorical defensive should be abandoned. His speeches were full of confidence in ultimate victory—without predicting when it would come. He asked the nation “to face with courage whatever may unfold.”35 Whatever the horrors of the future there would be nothing “which justifies lassitude, despondency, or despair.”36
November 1942 finally bought triumph at El Alamein. “I have never promised anything but blood, tears, toil, and sweat,” Churchill said. “Now, however, we have a new experience. We have victory—a remarkable and definite victory. The bright gleam has caught the helmets of our soldiers, and warmed and cheered all our hearts.” Lesser figures might have given way to relief, but Churchill retained his characteristic of hopeful determination: “Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.”37
Conclusion: Pericles and Churchill
Thucydides gives what may be called a eulogy for Pericles after he makes his third speech. He dwells on the statesman’s relationship with the people he led through trial:
Pericles, indeed, by his rank, ability, and known integrity, was enabled to exercise an independent control over the multitude—in short, to lead them instead of being led by them; for as he never sought power by improper means, he was never compelled to flatter them, but, on the contrary, enjoyed so high an estimation that he could afford to anger them by contradiction. Whenever he saw them unseasonably and insolently elated, he would with a word reduce them to alarm; on the other hand, if they fell victims to a panic, he could at once restore them to confidence.38
One can scarcely imagine greater praise in terms of statesmanship, including as it does the esteem of his people, stoutness of character, evenness of temper, breadth of vision, political wisdom, and rhetorical ability. All of those characteristics are also to be found in Churchill, who guided Britain through the hopes, fears, and disappointments of war. He, too, understood the character and moods of his people. He curbed their enthusiasm for false victories such as Munich and Dunkirk. He infused them with resolution in the face of setbacks.
***
Churchill never flattered or dissembled. A remarkable characteristic of his leadership was that he had no fear to tell unpleasant truths. His purpose was always to reinforce and reinvigorate peoples’ fighting spirit. He never concealed the burdens they would bear, but he never ceased urge the rightness of their cause:
Long, dark months of trials and tribulation lie before us. Not only great dangers, but many more misfortunes, many shortcomings, many mistakes, many disappointments will surely be our lot. Death and sorrow will be the companions of our journey; hardship our garment; constancy and valor our only shield. We must be united, we must be undaunted, we must be inflexible. Our qualities and deeds must burn and glow through the gloom of Europe until they become the veritable beacon of its salvation.39
Like Pericles, Churchill led people in times of trial and sacrifice, encouraging them to hold their heads high. He employed many of the same themes: courage in danger, endurance in struggle, glory in sacrifice, the hope of victory, the consequences of defeat. Truly he enjoyed a “Periclean reign,” rousing his nation to valor and resolution, to raise his people above their normal selves.
***
There is however an important difference between the two statesmen. Under Pericles, Thucydides adds, “what was nominally a democracy was becoming in his hands government by the first citizen.40 Here the two statesmen part ways. “I am a child of the House of Commons,” Churchill proclaimed before the American Congress in 1941—and he meant it. “In my country, as in yours, public men are proud to be the servants of the State and would be ashamed to be its masters.”41
Churchill at times decried democratic anomalies or foolishness, but he never criticized democratic institutions or circumvented their operation. This, in turn, is connected to his understanding of the cause for which they fought. Pericles sought to preserve Athens, its glory, power and reputation. Churchill demanded struggle not only for the nation, but for the very meaning of Britain—something larger than its borders, more powerful than its military strength and, ultimately more important than its survival: liberty. Churchill’s war was a battle for the freedom of man, to be defended first at home and then upon whatever far-flung fields the conflict would rage.
Endnotes
1 Isaiah Berlin, “Winston Churchill in 1940,” in Henry Hardy and Roger Hausheer, eds., The Proper Study of Mankind: An Anthology of Essays (New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 1998), 620.
2 Thucydides does not present the speeches verbatim. Instead, he explains what in his opinion the speakers should have said—what the occasion demanded. He preserves the essence of the message, but composes the speeches of his characters himself. See Robert Strassler, ed., The Landmark Thucydides (Chicago: Free Press, 1996), Introduction, 15. Note: later references to Strassler are to Book 1 or 2 and paragraph number, so that readers may find them in any edition of that work.
3 At issue is the Megara Decree, “excluding the Megarians from the use of Athenian harbors and of the market of Athens,” This was seen as a hostile to the Peloponnesian League, of which Sparta was the leading city. Strassler, Thucydides, book 1, 139.
4 Strassler, Thucydides, book 1, 140.
5 Richard M. Langworth, ed., Churchill by Himself (New York: Rosetta Books, 2015), 134, 149, 551.
6 Winston S. Churchill (hereinafter WSC), House of Commons, 14 December 1950, in Robert Rhodes James, ed., Winston S. Churchill: His Complete Speeches 1897-1963 (hereinafter CS), 8 vols. (New York: Bowker, 1974), VIII: 8143. Churchill said he was pursuing an ancient concept: “I have always been astonished, having seen the end of these two world wars, how difficult it is to make people understand Roman wisdom, ‘Spare the conquered and war down the proud’…. The modern practise has too often been, punish the defeated and grovel to the strong.”
***
7 WSC to Stanley Baldwin, 22 January 1927, in Martin Gilbert, Churchill’s Political Philosophy (Oxford University Press, 1981), 90.
8 Neville Chamberlain, “Light after Darkness,” in In Search of Peace (New York: Putnam 1939), 200.
9 WSC, 5 October 1938, CS VI: 6004. Unless otherwise specified, all following “WSC” references are to speeches in the House of Commons.
10 WSC, 21 September 1938, CS VI: 6003.
11 WSC, 5 October 1938, CS VI: 6013.
12 Ibid., 6009.
13 Strassler, Thucydides, book 2, 21.
14 Ibid, 45. Thus his apparently cold remarks to the widows, that greatest glory will fall upon those who are never heard from again. Their continued notoriety could only serve to call to mind private loss and instill fear of the same fate in others.
15 Ibid., book 2, 41.
16 Ibid., 41-43.
17 William Manchester, The Last Lion: Winston Spencer Churchill, vol. 2, (Boston: Little, Brown, 1988), 95.
18 Martin Gilbert, Churchill: A Life (New York: Henry Holt, 1992), 513.
19 WSC, 18 June 1940, CS, VI: 6238.
20 WSC, Sheffield, 8 November 1941, ibid., 6502.
***
21 WSC, County Hall, London, 14 July 1941, CS VI: 6452.
22 WSC, broadcast, London, 19 May 1940, CS VI: 6221-22.
23 WSC to V-E Day crowds, 8 May 1945, CS VII: 7155.
24 WSC, 3 September 1939, CS, VI: 6153.
25 Strassler, Thucydides, book 2, 59.
26 Ibid., 61.
27 Ibid.
28 Ibid., 64.
29 Ibid.
30 WSC, 27 January 1942, CS VI: 6571.
31 Ibid., 6554-55.
32 Carlo D’Este, Warlord: A life of Winston Churchill at War, 1874-1945 (New York; HarperCollins, 2008), 566, 577.
33 WSC, 29 January 1942, CS VI: 6571.
34 WSC, 2 July 1942, ibid., 6659.
35 Ibid., 6657.
36 WSC, 22 January 1941, ibid., 6338.
37 WSC, 10 November 1942, ibid., 6693.
38 Strassler, Thucydides, book 2, 65.
39 WSC, 8 October 1940, CS VI: 6293-94.
40 Strassler, Thucydides, book 2, 65.
41 WSC, United States Congress, Washington, 26 December 1941, CS VI: 6536.
The author
Justin D. Lyons, Associate Professor of Political Science at Cedarville University in Ohio, is author of “Churchill on Statesmanship: Pope Innocent XI”; “Churchill, Shakespeare and Agincourt”; “On War: Churchill, Thucydides, and the Teachable Moment”; and “Winston Churchill and Julius Caesar: Parallels and Inspirations.”
Essays by Justin D. Lyons
“How Churchill Saw the Second World War as a Moral Conflict,” 2022.
“Winston Churchill’s Moral and Philosophical Guides,” 2021.
“Winston Churchill’s Moral and Philosophic Guides,” 2021.
“Churchill and Caesar as Writers of History,” 2020.
“Winston Churchill and Julius Caesar: Parallels and Inspirations,” 2020.
“On War: Churchill, Thucydides and the Teachable Moment,” 2019.