Exactly 54 years ago to the day, an estimated 350 million people turned on their televisions to watch a funeral service. Thousands more, including dignitaries from an astounding 112 countries, gathered inside St. Paul's Cathedral in London to witness it firsthand. Few men in history could draw such a crowd. But Winston Churchill was no ordinary man.
Churchill's life was unquestionably remarkable. He came to hold supreme command in his country's darkest hour, achieving victory in a war of national survival. The stakes could not be higher: Churchill did nothing less than save Western civilization from the purest form of evil ever to manifest. As Churchill became prime minister in 1940, the entire political establishment wanted to cut a deal with Hitler, fearing the Nazi juggernaut. The move seemed rational—surely Hitler would have accepted reasonable terms. Of course Hitler could not be trusted, and a peace deal would have failed. More concretely, a truce would have allowed the Nazis to focus all of their energies on defeating the Soviet Union, taking away the coming challenges of a two-front war. Even if America discarded the shackles of its self-imposed isolationism to confront Germany in such a scenario, it would have been far more difficult—and perhaps impossible—without the British.
Churchill's story is gripping and wonderful. But is it still relevant? Can we learn from him?
Each answer is a resounding yes. To start, Churchill was a principled politician, but he was also practical. Principles of honor, duty, patriotism, and freedom guided him as a supreme wartime commander. Churchill sought to "find fixed moral and intellectual bearings to give shape and character, color and direction, to the stream of events," wrote philosopher Isaiah Berlin. Yet Churchill had the wisdom to be flexible with certain short-term, tactical issues, though always in service of his longer-term, strategic objectives. He demonstrated that principled and pragmatic leadership are not mutually exclusive; leaders can adapt to reality's sobering, inescapable grip while maintaining their idealistic underpinnings.
Churchill would not yield an inch when it came to his ultimate goal: unconditional surrender of the enemy, "no matter the personal cost or occasional humiliation," as Lewis Lehrman writes in his recent book on the prime minister and Abraham Lincoln. "You ask what is our aim?" Churchill said after taking office in May 1940. "I can answer in one word: it is victory, victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival." Churchill defined his existential war as one of good against evil, freedom against oppression—a conflict in which Germany's unconditional surrender was the only option.
Churchill was a master of the English language, and used his unmatched command of language as a powerful weapon of war. CBS broadcaster Edward R. Murrow, stationed in London, observed in 1940 that the prime minister had "mobilized the English language, and sent it into battle." Indeed, Churchill's famous rhetoric arguably saved Britain from destruction early in his premiership. Shortly after Churchill took office, as his war cabinet pushed peace talks with Hitler, he urged his top ministers to continue fighting. He realized he was losing the argument, however, so before another war council meeting, he briefed the 25 second-tier ministers of the outer cabinet. Individually, these men had no influence, but their collective support for Churchill's position could be enough to stop the senior ministers' efforts. The prime minister had to summon all of his rhetorical skills and did not disappoint. "I am convinced that every man of you would rise up and tear me down from my place if I were for one moment to contemplate parley or surrender," Churchill told the ministers. "If this long island story of ours is to end at last, let it end only when each one of us lies choking in his own blood upon the ground." Britain did not pursue peace talks.
As prime minister, Churchill recognized the importance of not just waging war, but also explaining why it needed to be waged. Winning public support and staying positive—at least publicly—were central to his war efforts. He persuaded public opinion successfully to wage a war in which he had to tap every drop of political capital that he could muster. To this end, he always put on a positive, optimistic face to the public about the war effort, even when he became skeptical or deeply depressed privately—which happened often. "While Winston might at times express his doubts in the close confines of an intimate meeting," General Dwight Eisenhower observed, "he would never show pessimism or hesitancy in public." Churchill prepared his countrymen for the worst, but always showed them a path through the turmoil, to a brighter future.
Churchill had unrivaled work ethic; fierce, unstoppable ambition; supreme self-confidence; and, most importantly, boundless courage. He was willing to stand alone and face criticism from his peers. He had the foresight to recognize threats that needed to be stopped when others did not—first Nazi Germany, and later Soviet communism. Moral clarity allowed Churchill to see the great evils of his time. These qualities, combined with incredible wit and political acumen to manage ministers and generals while at war—whom he challenged but rarely overturned—made for a transcendent statesman.
The pugnacious but brilliant prime minister was the right—indeed, only—man for the job at the time in which he assumed office. No one described Churchill's contribution to mankind better than, of all people, Joseph Stalin at the Yalta Conference in 1945: "There have been few cases in history where the courage of one man has been so important to the future of the world." Perhaps readers can find a lesson or two to be applicable today.