Today is a little sad, because I finished reading William Manchester’s “The Last Lion: Alone, 1932-1940” yesterday.
Thumbnail sketches of character and leadership are everywhere in this heroic book – Manchester’s treatment of Churchill’s character during his exile from public life is the centerpiece, but many others come in for swift explanation as well.
Baldwin: Relying on “a kind of sociological radar – signals from the voters – to determine his course,” politically expedient, passive, unsure of himself.
Chamberlain: Decisive, self-confident, domineering, grim, graceless, ruled by public opinion, wanting a quiet life for business, resentful of criticism, searching desperately for a way out, overreaching, vain, rude, vindictive, possessed with a gift for command, convinced that if he could just put the right deal together Hitler would buy it.
Churchill: Contemptuous of opinion polls, charming, Victorian, able to concentrate fiercely for long periods, driven, possessed of “a built-in gyroscope which would carry him toward his objective through tumult,” often plunged into gloom, proud of Empire and a firm believer in the strength of the British public, a prodigious writer, prose “vibrant with the terrific energy that can hold and sway vast audiences,” courageous, boundlessly fond of his family, anachronistic in dress and speech, delighting in combat, risk-loving, a grand visionary, a thespian on the radio.
Edward VIII: Pursuing pleasure, his abdication for Wallis Simpson “the greatest story since the resurrection” (Mencken), narrow, shallow, dandyish.
Generalissime Gamelin (commander in chief of the French Army): indecisive, given to issuing impulsive orders that he then countermanded, timid, unpredictable, rejecting radio contact with field commanders: “There he was, in a setting as quiet as a convent, attended by a few officers, working and meditating without mixing in day-to-day duties. In his retreat at Vincennes, General Gamelin gave the impression of a savant testing the chemical reactions of his strategy in a laboratory.” (de Gaulle). A “nice old man not remotely equal to his enormous job.”
Don’t send a low-ranking representative to lead Anglo-Polish-Russian talks – they’ll fail: “[A]n obscure and undistinguished British party was led by Admiral Sir Reginald A. R. Plunkett-Ernle-Erle-Drax, of whom Dirksen wrote that he was ‘practically on the retired list and was never on the Naval Staff.’”
There were deep doubts about Churchill for many years. “The mass distrusts controversy. Reluctant to reconsider its convictions, superstitions, and prejudices, it rarely withdraws support from those who are guiding its destinies. Thus inertia becomes an incumbent’s accomplice.” Only after multiple crises did it become apparent that Churchill had been right all along. He had solid principles and unshakable convictions. He did not tailor his views to fit the moment.
Thank you for the reminder how well William Manchester writes.
A descendent of Plunkett-Ernle-Erle-Drax is running for Cameron’s team at next UK elections.
I say this as an Englishman, but Churchill’s legendary leadership at a time of crisis has tended to gloss over some very significant flaws.
As Chancellor of the Exchequer he was behind a disastrous return to the gold standard in the 1920s; he was behind a massive blunder of an assault in Gallipoli; he was an appalling censor and propagandist – something that is just about accepted in times in war, but loathsome in peaceful times.
He fabricated information and misled the public and Parliament. He was almost demented in his belief that anyone that didn’t fit in with his world view was a danger to society.
It was this long and pretty appalling track record that caused many – from politicians to street-sweepers – to dismiss Churchill’s warnings about Hitler as little more than warmongering. Churchill was always railing on about someone being an enemy that had to be destroyed.
And it was this personality that also saw the British people kick Churchill out of power almost as soon as the war was over.
It is a strange fluke of history that Churchill became one of the great leaders rather than a right-wing, out-of-date politician of a certain class. If Chamberlain had been less of a stiff, it’s unlikely Churchill would ever have returned.
All that said, thank god he did. An extraordinary man for extraordinary times.
Kieren
Don’t forget also that as First Lord of the Admiralty in WWI, Churchill managed to engineer a disaster in the Dardanelles and get a huge number of people killed at Gallipoli. Far from being unsure of himself, he seems to have been unfazed by it. His blockade of Germany during WWI caused about 750K deaths from malnutrition and radicalized the German right wing with well-known results.
Still, an extraordinary man, a sponge for information with a fine sense of timing. Roy Jenkins’ biography is really very good as well.
Antony
Manchester’s books on Churchill are magnificent examples of writing, bringing history alive and telling the tale in a manner which makes it as suspenseful as the best action-fiction.
Despite his overt admiration of Churchill, Manchester unflinchingly documents his personal and political failures, his childish egocentricity, for example. The “distaster in the Dardanelles” is covered. It is hardly conclusive that Churchill “engineered” the disaster. There is compelling evidence that his admirals failure to execute their orders led to the failure of what would have otherwise likely brought the war to an earlier end.
Finally, I was struck by parallels between that age and the current. Pacifist ideologues who ignore warnings of the intent and ability of a growing and evil enemy. Who cling to their hopes that concessions will tame the tiger to a kitten.
Our President’s banishment of Churchill’s bust early in his term, may someday symbolize another great tragedy.