That's a very discerning observation Jonathan, if I may say so, and one that isn't given as much attention as it should. You're right of course. And if Churchill was the power-hungry, calculating, cynically strategising politician that so many caricatured him to be, he would have done otherwise, and have temporised to cosy up to the establishment and to the Monarch (the latter was, of course, disappointed that Winston, and not Halifax, had become Prime Minister). Churchill was a true original: unafraid, and with a moral and intellectual fearlessness that knew no limits. My own favourite depiction of him is how William Manchester illuminates his character and his significance in the first 2 pages of his biography of Churchill - 'The Last Lion'. If any of you wish I will transcribe it her for you. It is 2 volumes of the most readable and tensely charged volumes of writing in the English language - not to mention exhaustively researched - and well worth having.
On Jun 23, 9:42 am, [email protected] wrote: > Another thing that I've been thinking about recently is Churchill's moral > courage. I think especially of his "blood, toil, tears and sweat" speech. > He'd only been Prime Minister a few days. There were many in his own party > who distrusted him and felt Halifax should have been made PM; he depended on > Labour and the Liberals for support. > > But he didn't try to sugar-coat the situation or to pretend there would be > any kind of a "soft landing"; he did not try to do anything other than put > the true face on the matter. He said it would be long and hard, and that > there was no alternative to long and hard. He did not try to blame others - > though he could have. He did not say "I told you so" - though he could have. > > It was a dangerous speech to give. He was still on shaky political ground > and could easily have been rejected as the Chamberlain government had been. > But it was the right thing to say and he had the moral courage to say it, and > the confidence in the British people that they would accept it. And of > course, with 20-20 hindsight we know now he was right. > > This is a Churchillian lesson which modern political leaders would be well > advised to heed. Unfortunately moral courage in today's political leaders is > about as rare as hens' teeth. > > Jonathan hayes > > --- On Mon, 6/20/11, Lincoln <[email protected]> wrote: > > From: Lincoln <[email protected]> > Subject: [ChurchillChat] Re: Never Treacherous > To: "ChurchillChat" <[email protected]> > Date: Monday, June 20, 2011, 1:01 AM > > I'm as sure as I can be of anything that every major historical or > biographical work that deals with Winston Churchill as its major > subject has made at least one, usually several, references to the fact > that the man was chivalrous and magnanimous to a fault. This is borne > out by his speech to the House upon the death of Neville Chamberlain > (in which Churchill's generosity about a man who had tried repeatedly > to keep him out of government and had scorned him on many an occasion > is astounding), his generosity and near-adulation of Asquith - a man > who had abandoned Churchill over the Dardanelles affair; his knight- > errant championing of Edward in the abdication crisis; his suicidal > advocacy of Admiral Fisher's recall to the Admiralty in WW2 (and > unstinted praise of him) - after that serpentine ingrate's spectacular > apostasy and personal treachery over the Dardanelles mission; his > admiring essay on Lord Balfour - a man who had personally maligned > WSC; and numberless other instances in which he delivered glowingly > generous appraisals of figures who would ordinarily have merited > nothing but words of terse censure, and whose own treatment of WSC had > been anything but generous. > > We have all knocked about in this world enough to have noticed that a > generous or magnanimous temperament is incompatible with a treacherous > one. That is a truism that needs neither explaining nor proving. > Winston Churchill was cast in heroic mould: his tastes, his > judgements, his aims, his actions, his failings and his strengths, and > above all, his motives - were all on a superlative, outsize scale. He > was a Titan - if anybody can be called that. Churchill had grandeur > and nobility in his nature. Something as base as 'treachery' is > impossible in such a man. > > On Apr 23, 6:00 am, Perpetuo991 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Beaverbrook wrote that Churchill, "was always free from rancor and > > never treacherous." Does anyone know of additional resources and > > examples that supports and augments this contention? > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "ChurchillChat" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group > athttp://groups.google.com/group/churchillchat?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ChurchillChat" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/churchillchat?hl=en.
