In this age of Twitter I’m going to recommend something decidedly untwitterish – a three volume, three thousand (2,961) page biography of Winston Churchill. William Manchester spent the better part of two decades writing The Last Lion and it is one of the best non-fiction books ever written. After knowing my fiancée for a week I knew she was a wonderful person, so after reading the first page of Manchester’s opus I immediately knew this would be a fantastic book. Manchester’s mastery of the English language is superb, the breadth of his research astounding. Manchester wonderfully weaves context and detail to paint a full and utterly absorbing image of this mythic statesman.
In high school we all learned that early in WWII Churchill and England bravely stood alone against Hitler when Western civilization was on the brink of collapse. Manchester expands this picture to also show us the indulgent aristocratic world Churchill was born into, the boy desperate for attention from his parents, a young brash officer that irritated his superiors and above all a political life like a cat’s – being declared dead and finished time after time only to rise again.
Thinking back how I was taught history in high school I can’t help feeling that an opportunity was lost (and is being lost). Far too much emphasis is placed on specific facts and chronology without a critical examination of history’s lessons. If we can learn its lessons humanity can avoid repeating its mistakes.
Manchester’s telling of Churchill’s life, in particular of the run-up to WWII, make some lessons clear. Preceding Churchill’s return to government in 1939 he spent almost a decade exiled as a backbencher. His exile began on a point of principle over British rule in India (which he supported), but was maintained by his constant voluble criticism of his party’s policy of appeasement through the thirties. One lesson for us today – winning elections shouldn’t be the only goal. First you must be principled. The public not following you is no reason to change your stance on matters. Power at any cost may work for dictatorships, but is incompatible with democracies. There is a fine line in democracy between carrying out the will of the people and leading them. Democracies occasionally require our leaders to tell us inconvenient truths that are invariably unpopular. In our current age of rigid party discipline it is refreshing to see a single MP criticize his party (for its own good and his country’s) for years. Imagine the fortitude of character this took. I would hope our MP would aspire to such service.
In Gandhi and Churchill we have two giants of the 20th Century, but Churchill’s view of Gandhi was one of troublemaker. However, while he could not recognize Gandhi for what Gandhi was, he early on recognized Hitler for what he was. Churchill was able to ultimately defeat him because Hitler was Churchill’s mirror image – two warriors who believed in the supremacy of their race. Churchill understood Hitler. While he always tried to prevent war, once war was inevitable Churchill relished the use of force. For him war was a glorious endeavor. Little wonder this aristocratic warrior couldn’t understand the dhoti-wearing ascetic preaching non-violence as the most powerful political weapon.
The world has changed since Churchill’s time. Most romantic ideas of war have been destroyed. We understand that war is occasionally necessary, but with modern media continually showing us its tragedy, few think of war as glorious.
Medicine Hat News. April 14, 2014.