Learning from Winston Churchill

[charlie cho]

I've been interested in Churchill lately. A military nut. An imperialist. Autodidactic. Adventurer. Maybe a racist? A great politician? (He was most likely)

I heard he was strongly opposed to Indian Independence. He hated Gandhi and said of him that he should die in jail. That was all I knew of him.

But if we look at the grand scope of things relating to the Nazi invasion on the Western Front, when Europe was totally dominated by them and Russia was simply on-looking from afar letting Hitler cause havoc, the only country to resist them was England. Russia wasn't the only by-stander but America and Canada, too, passed the neutral act and in the beginning of the Second World War Roosevelt and they wouldn't even give warships or any financial aid to England. 

Halifax and Chamberlain who were then the prime minister and leader of England wanted to make peace with Germany but the only person to shout out war not peace was Churchill from the conservative party. 

We might think Halifax and Chamberlain were cowards, betrayers of their country, looking at them from this era, but if we think more deeply, they were simply rational about the state of things. France surrendered immediately. Russia and America was neutral, not attending the war. It was hard to resist Germany's tactics in war, Blitzkrieg, and whatever they did... 

Churchill made huge political  blunders when he was in his late 30s, causing a many thousands of English soldiers dead in sea, which was his tactical mistake in the war England was fighting at that time. People didn't like Churchill and he exiled himself from the parliament after the incident. But he was the one to realize the dangers of the Nazis 7 years before their first invasion. For those 7 years, Churchill would write as a journalist the dangers of the Nazis. He himself fought with Islamic Fundamentalists when he was in his 20s, so he wasn't thinking from an inexperienced place. He liked to tell everybody he was uneducated and when he did go to school, he was a troubled student, but I don't find anyone more articulate and well-read and at the same time experienced in war and politics than Churchill has. Many believed his speeches, his writing were just play of words without substance. It did sound like that, but looking closely into his life, his words weren't coming from an inexperienced, uneducated space. 

Anyway, when the second world war came about, most people were against him not making peace with Germany. Yes, he was inspirational and boosted morale tremendously, but the state of things WERE grim. Not only was America, Russia, and France weren't going to help Churchill win the war, the English politicians were mostly  vying for peace. The state of England's military power wasn't helping Churchill in the slightest. Against all of them, Churchill said no to Hitler. He convinced Stalin and Roosevelt to go against Germany.

Think if England were to perish from Germany, would Russia have the power to go against Hitler? Would Russia convince America to ally with them? And after Russia fails, would America have the morale to go against Germany and Japan by itself? England had nothing, not even its country's confidence to win, but only Churchill's confidence and emotional irrational will to win. And that gave leverage to America and Russia to help against Germany. 

I'm not convinced if the allies would have won the war against the Fascists if it wasn't for Churchill. Would democracy have won against the fascist if it weren't for Churchill's politics? How would the state of things be today if Germany won that war? I'm not sure myself. One thing I'm sure of though is Churchill's immense irrational confidence led the Fascists to flee and succeeded democracy after it. 

Edited April 21, 2022 by charlie cho

[Danioover9000]

@charlie cho

On 21/04/2022 at 10:03 AM, charlie cho said:

I've been interested in Churchill lately. A military nut. An imperialist. Autodidactic. Adventurer. Maybe a racist? A great politician? (He was most likely)

I heard he was strongly opposed to Indian Independence. He hated Gandhi and said of him that he should die in jail. That was all I knew of him.

But if we look at the grand scope of things relating to the Nazi invasion on the Western Front, when Europe was totally dominated by them and Russia was simply on-looking from afar letting Hitler cause havoc, the only country to resist them was England. Russia wasn't the only by-stander but America and Canada, too, passed the neutral act and in the beginning of the Second World War Roosevelt and they wouldn't even give warships or any financial aid to England. 

Halifax and Chamberlain who were then the prime minister and leader of England wanted to make peace with Germany but the only person to shout out war not peace was Churchill from the conservative party. 

We might think Halifax and Chamberlain were cowards, betrayers of their country, looking at them from this era, but if we think more deeply, they were simply rational about the state of things. France surrendered immediately. Russia and America was neutral, not attending the war. It was hard to resist Germany's tactics in war, Blitzkrieg, and whatever they did... 

Churchill made huge political  blunders when he was in his late 30s, causing a many thousands of English soldiers dead in sea, which was his tactical mistake in the war England was fighting at that time. People didn't like Churchill and he exiled himself from the parliament after the incident. But he was the one to realize the dangers of the Nazis 7 years before their first invasion. For those 7 years, Churchill would write as a journalist the dangers of the Nazis. He himself fought with Islamic Fundamentalists when he was in his 20s, so he wasn't thinking from an inexperienced place. He liked to tell everybody he was uneducated and when he did go to school, he was a troubled student, but I don't find anyone more articulate and well-read and at the same time experienced in war and politics than Churchill has. Many believed his speeches, his writing were just play of words without substance. It did sound like that, but looking closely into his life, his words weren't coming from an inexperienced, uneducated space. 

Anyway, when the second world war came about, most people were against him not making peace with Germany. Yes, he was inspirational and boosted morale tremendously, but the state of things WERE grim. Not only was America, Russia, and France weren't going to help Churchill win the war, the English politicians were mostly  vying for peace. The state of England's military power wasn't helping Churchill in the slightest. Against all of them, Churchill said no to Hitler. He convinced Stalin and Roosevelt to go against Germany.

Think if England were to perish from Germany, would Russia have the power to go against Hitler? Would Russia convince America to ally with them? And after Russia fails, would America have the morale to go against Germany and Japan by itself? England had nothing, not even its country's confidence to win, but only Churchill's confidence and emotional irrational will to win. And that gave leverage to America and Russia to help against Germany. 

I'm not convinced if the allies would have won the war against the Fascists if it wasn't for Churchill. Would democracy have won against the fascist if it weren't for Churchill's politics? How would the state of things be today if Germany won that war? I'm not sure myself. One thing I'm sure of though is Churchill's immense irrational confidence led the Fascists to flee and succeeded democracy after it. 

   Some grwat lessons to learn from Winston Churchill, especially about perseverance and vision.