Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Sunday, June 22, 2008
David R. Stokes :: Townhall.com Columnist
Winston's Way With Words
by David R. Stokes
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


On the day that changed everything, September 11, 2001, then New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani seized the moment and guided that most unmanageable of all municipalities through its unsurpassed dark day. 

When the mayor reached the point of exhaustion in the early hours of Wednesday, September 12, he went home and revisited a book he’d been reading the previous few nights.  It was the full-length biography of Winston Churchill written by Roy Jenkins.  He just happened to be reading the part about how the courageous British Prime Minister led his country through another horror in another time – the Battle of Britain.  Giuliani drew strength from how Churchill inspired his people as Nazi bombs fell with indiscriminate horror during his nation’s very own protracted 9/11.

Churchill didn’t get a honeymoon period when he took over the premiership in May of 1940.  He also didn’t inherit a lot of tangible resources.  All he had was what had been long-simmering in his soul, as he watched from afar the approach of storm clouds and the sobering reality of lightning war.

And the great man had a way with words.  

Legendary American broadcaster Edward R. Murrow once said of Winston Churchill that, “he mobilized the English language and sent it into battle to steady his fellow countrymen and hearten those Europeans upon whom the long dark night of tyranny had descended.”  These sentiments were echoed by President Kennedy in April of 1963 in his remarks when signing a proclamation making Winston Churchill an honorary U.S. citizen:

“In the dark days and darker nights when England stood alone – and most men, save Englishmen, despaired of England’s life – he mobilized the English language and sent it into battle.  The incandescent quality of his words illuminated the courage of his countrymen.”   

When he gave his first address as Prime Minister to the House of Commons on May 13, 1940, his remarks were brief and to the point.  He used a phrase that day – one that has come to embody his bulldog-like spirit.  But the speech was not enthusiastically received by all in that historic room, nor was it ever actually broadcast to the nation.  The words appeared in print, but it would take a little time before they would come to resonate as they are now remembered: Blood, Toil, Tears, and Sweat.

Historian John Lukacs has written the definitive account of these immortal words in his new book: “BLOOD, TOIL, TEARS, and SWEAT – The Dire Warning, Churchill’s First Speech as Prime Minister.”  Such rhetoric was initially dismissed by some of his contemporaries.  There were no ovations that day.  And it continues to be seen by a few agenda-driven revisionists as the ravings of someone guided primarily by unbridled personal ambition.  Lukacs, however, hits the nail on the head when he reminds us:

“What they did not know – and what not many people, including some historians, do not know now, nearly seventy years later – was that beneath Churchill’s bravery lay his understanding of a looming catastrophe, still unimaginable to most: that it was late, probably too late, that Adolf Hitler was winning, that he was about to win, that he was close to winning the Second World War, his war.”  

Dr. Lukacs has previously written an in-depth account of five crucial days during that very month of May 1940, a period when the future of life as it was then known hung in the balance.  He is well-versed in the tenor and nuance of those troubled times.  And he writes about history with literary flare and great attention to detail.

One of the things brought out in the book – something that doesn’t fit the common caricature promoted by those seeking to turn history upside down – is an insight into an often overlooked facet of Mr. Churchill’s personality.  Yes, he was indomitable, often rude, terribly stubborn, and clearly enamored of his own words and opinions – but he also had a great capacity for graciousness. 

Though he had been Neville Chamberlain’s persistent, and at times vociferous, intra-party critic, Churchill was overwhelmingly kind to his predecessor, who was, though no one knew it at the time, not long for this earth.  One of the first things Churchill did after coming to power was to tell the embattled Chamberlain that they could stay in their home for the immediate future.  Neville’s wife, Anne, not only enjoyed living in the Prime Minister’s residence at 10 Downing Street, but had actually done much to improve the dwelling.  Lukacs suggests that this “gesture had an effect on Chamberlain.”   

Dr. Lukacs reminds his readers that this was, in fact, “typical of Churchill,” and that the new Prime Minister’s “prime virtue was magnanimity, something even larger and deeper than generosity.”  Though Chamberlain had taken chronic offense at Winston for his personal attacks in the House of Commons and the press, considering him something of an enemy (even once having Churchill’s phone tapped), this feeling was not reciprocated.  His “loyalty to Chamberlain was more than unexceptionable: It was absolute.”  This would pay significant political dividends during fragile moments when the War Cabinet was debating whether or not to make peace overtures toward Hitler.  Chamberlain backed Churchill. 

Blood, toil, tears, and sweat, are famous and familiar words to us today.  They evoke thoughts of courage, fearlessness, and an unwavering determination to succeed.  Other Churchillian phrases echo down to us through the corridors of time – words like: “finest hour,” “we shall never surrender,” “we shall fight on the beaches,” and so forth.  They are timeless and meaningful.  

Dr. Lukacs told me during a recent interview that in his opinion Winston Churchill’s best oration from those days was the eulogy he shared about Neville Chamberlain, who succumbed to complications due to stomach cancer on November 10, 1940, just six months after leaving office:

“It fell to Neville Chamberlain in one of the supreme crises of the world to be contradicted by events, to be disappointed in his hopes, and to be deceived and cheated by a wicked man. But what were these hopes in which he was disappointed? What were these wishes in which he was frustrated? What was that faith that was abused? They were surely among the most noble and benevolent instincts of the human heart--the love of peace, the toil for peace, the strife for peace, the pursuit of peace, even at great peril, and certainly to the utter disdain of popularity or clamour. Whatever else history may or may not say about these terrible, tremendous years, we can be sure that Neville Chamberlain acted with perfect sincerity according to his lights and strove to the utmost of his capacity and authority, which were powerful, to save the world from the awful, devastating struggle in which we are now engaged. This alone will stand him in good stead as far as what is called the verdict of history is concerned.”

Frankly, Winston Churchill was not the one-dimensional warmonger some in his day thought him to be, and that some even today persist in insisting he was.  He was an inspiring leader at the right time and in the right place.

It’s vital that he not be forgotten, nor demonized through the writing of specious history.  A new generation, one easily influenced by fleeting images and drawn to the simplistic rhetoric of political gurus, needs to get a sense of this great man and glean from his courage and character. 

John Lukacs concludes his narrative with an excerpt from a speech made by Mr. Churchill in 1955, when his active political life was drawing to a close at the age of eighty:

“Which way shall we turn to save our lives and the future of the world?  It does not matter so much for old people; they are going soon anyway; but I find it poignant to look at youth and wonder what would lie before them if God wearied of mankind.”

Something to think about before a torch is passed to yet another new generation of Americans.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
David R. Stokes is a minister, writer, and broadcaster. His weekly talks at Fair Oaks Church in Fairfax, Virginia and host of Loud on Purpose, heard Monday to Friday in Washington, D.C. on WAVA 105.1 fm.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
England's Greatest Hero
When I learned about Churchill in school,I always pictured the England's people with the same belief. They persevered through the Impossible. My admiration for Churchill and the English began then. The seeds of freedom came from them. He was there for us all when all free country s were in peril. Who is there for us now :(

Mr. Stokes,

What a fine tribute to one of History's greatest leaders.

Thank you,

Rats
(and mice)

And another thing,

Please tell Pat Buck-a-non to just go stuff it with his revisionism.

Thank you.

Rats
(and mice)





Contemporary Politicians Pale
in comparison to so many greats from the past. Churchill was not only a great politician, but also a genuine war hero, and a superb writer.

It was primarily sons of the British Isles who founded this great republic. And a superb job they did, even though our present batch of socialist bureaucrat "leaders" apparently have zero real appreciation for the legacy of liberty and freedom bequeathed by those wise, brave men.

For a good belly laugh, compare Obama's resume to any of the old school greats like Churchill. And then remember that Obama has had the unmitigated audacity to actually compare himself to perhaps our greatest president, Abraham Lincoln.

Let's see. Parents were both college professors. Attended posh private schools all his life. Never hit a lick of hard physical labor his entire life.

Yeah - just like Lincoln, all right.

What a jackass.

That last quotation:
How applicable today. More than ever.

Lizard
You like so many other "IDIOTS",place Churchill on a mountain he does not deserve.War hero crap;He and his cousin rescued a prisoner, that had already escaped.Churchill had always been physically challenged and most of his military service was as an "Embedded" journalist.Churchill was as much a "Hero" in war,as his "Back Row" father was as a politician.I don't guess anyone wants to know about his "Racist" side.England's greatest mistake in India was that they never treated the people properly.Much of this can be attached to Churchill's efforts to create a "Anglo-Empire",a dream of his since age 19.Romanticize all you want,but Churchill was nothing like you IMAGINE...

folks
No amount of spinning will ever convince anyone that 9/11, an attack by a group of criminal terrorists using Islam as a recruiting and justification tool, posed the same threat as the Axis - not even close. In reality the Bush Regime panicked and incompetently overreacted. Sadly they should have taken NYC's lead - recover, and press on. Bush and Carter will fight endlessly over which was the worst president. Bush, Conservatism = failure

HalD
The only difference is that 8 years of Bush was much harder to take than 4 years of Carter!
Churchill was a born at the height of the English Empire and died when it was past it's prime.
He lost the election, I think, because it was apparent he had dreams of restoring the empire.

wrightsrong52
"The only difference is that 8 years of Bush was much harder to take than 4 years of Carter!"

True but the damage was so much worse. Look at the military which Carter damaged badly but Bush has damaged so badly it may well be only a shadow of itself. Before you kool aid drinkers start screaming look at the stateside C ratings

"...He lost the election, I think, because it was apparent he had dreams of restoring the empire. "

I think he lost because people wanted a clean break from the horrors of WWII

Churchhill Providential Leadership
There is a great scene in Braveheart where Scottish hero William Wallace meets some Scottish rebels who deny he is Wallace. Wallace tells them you are right because if I were William Wallace I would consume the approaching English Army with flaming balls of fire from my arse. The unsaid message to the Scots was the upcoming battle would be fought with blood, sweat, toil and tears.

Churchill was a great providential leader who saved Brittan in their darkest hour. Did he make mistakes, absolutely. All leaders make mistakes. We need to study these leaders in the prism of the times they lived and learn from them. Criticism out of context to prove some modern political point is foolish.

wrightswrongs52
You have lied to yourself so long that you actually believe it, then you ratchet it up a notch, lie some more, and believe that too.

So tell me how 8 years of Bush was worse than Carter because I lived through the Carter years. I have as yet to see a gas line, double digit inflation, double digit interest rates, or sky rocketing unemployment in any administration since Carter.

Exaggerating and lying will not get anyone to vote Democrat.

Bravo
Yes, the West good old Winie a huge debt. Screw Buchanan and his distortions.

The Last Lion is another great read.

Lolo1
You probably never leave California,with that great weather and all.But,for those of "US" who do travel,we see the difference between Carter and Bush.I don't recall my father and mother having any difficulties in the late 70's as they traveled internationally.But,today there are places where an American Passport can get you killed.Many people have to have "Secret Passports",especially when you go to India.There are other places, that I have traveled which give me "Pause" but I won't indict them here.No lies just the FACTS.I could make a larger argument.But, we all know, that you are married to your own ignorance.I meant married to California.Damn,I messed up,again.

Killer
The U.S. was far more racist in our Deep South, than the U.K. ever was in India. Remember how well educated Ghandi was?

Killer
I remember the long gas lines in California, as well as the spiraling inflation during this time? I also remember how rude the French we while we traveled to Europe.

You must have been on another planet.

Aspacia
No sir,I was 9 years old and living in England.I thought maybe the reference to my parents would indicate my "Frame of Reference".My grandparents do the same as you, when I speak with them.SORRY...

Killer...Enchentee
Hello, Killer. I'm not sure what the quotation marks mean, but referring to me as an idiot wasn't very nice. But coming from you, I actually consider it a compliment.

If I ever read a statement from you that I agreed with, I'd have to reconsider my position on the matter.

Churchill was a legitimate war hero. Witness his capture, and subsequent daring escape from prison during the Boer War in 1899.

You must be mighty ignorant to be so convinced of your own superiority.

And by the way, when it comes to rudeness, the French have nothing on you.

Lizard
Those American history books, that your Brother-in Law sold to your school were "Defective".Winston Churchill,a scorpio,was born in 1874.At age 15 Mr.Churchill was at the Harrow school for boys,first year.I rather doubt, that he could be at two places at one time.The second Boer War would end in 1902,Churchill was just now 18.

New Math, Killer?
Let's add 15 to 74, and we get...99?

Brilliant.

Thanks for not being on my side.

What makes a hero:
As I recall, King David was an adulterer and a murderer. And perhaps the greatest king in history. And the Bible calls him a man after God's own heart. Winston Churchill had warts bigger than he was, inconsistencies, alcohol, irascibility, and generally an anti-social attitude, which was more that he did not suffer fools lightly. With all of his large failures, he was also the greatest leader of the 20th century, and stood alone, for a time, against the greatest individual monster of the 20th century and inspired his people who had comparatively little strength against Hitler, to do so. All you critics can so easily find his faults because they were all out there to see. All you critics, find the courage in yourselves to face and recognize the truth that despite these failings he brought the grit England needed to face Hitler.

And I will add
England drafted him for the job because, despite his unpopularity in a number of ways, they knew that he was the one for the job. They knew exactly what they were getting, it was exactly what they wanted and needed, and he did not fail them.

Chequers, not Blenheim Palace.
Ex-Wyomingnite,

You have missed the point entirely. It is not the point that Winston sacrificed luxury or pleasure.

To allow Chamberlain to remain was a magnanimous gesture, especially when one considers how horribly Chamberlain treated him.

BTW, I have been to Blenheim, and have made a homage to Winston’s grave. It is in a simple country church cemetery just a short walk from the palace. Like most of his family, he has a simple flat gravestone that lies horizontally over his and Clementine's resting place.

It is stunningly modest for such a great man.

Also, while Churchill was born at Blenheim, he lived and spent the vast majority of his time at Chequers, his own country home. Blenheim Palace was not his estate. Winston’s father was born after his uncle.

Winston's Home
Churchill's own home was CHARTWELL....and he loved it very much...Checquers was the residence made available to the PM -- similar to Camp David for our Presidents...etc. -- DRS

DRS
Thank-you for the correction.

Churchill got to the point

Rev. Stokes, thanks for this great article. I was unaware of Churchill’s graciousness.

In his book “The Gathering Storm,” Winston Churchill wrote of the years 1919 - 1940, from the end of World War I through the beginning stages of WW II. His preface to the book included this thought expressed on a single page:

"Theme of the Volume: How the English-speaking peoples through their unwisdom, carelessness, and good nature allowed the wicked to rearm."

I’ve often thought about Churchill’s words since 9/11. Who would have believed on 9/12/01 that American political candidates now want to apologize globally for America, and who feel it's appropriate to chat up leaders of terrorism-promoting nations?!



A good article.
Reminded me of Reinhold Niebuhr's "The Children of Light & The Children of Darkness." Churchill, in his eulogy, recognized that Chamberlain was a 'child of light.' And Niebuhr, with his book, signaled to future generations that such children must recognize the 'wisdom' of the world when dealing with men like Hitler.
God helps those who help themselves.

John Kennedy copied Churchill...
...in his speeches.

When I was an officer in the military and attending college, I took a course in public speaking. For my final exam. I based my speech on the similarities of Kennedy's speeches and those of Churchill, such as: (JFK) "Pay any price, bear any burden", to (WSC) "we shall fight on the beaches,...we shall never surrender!" The words may be different, but the objective of each speech is the same. As I worked on this subject I noticed that many of JFK's speeches and speech mannerisms, absent the Boston accent, could nearly be considered a form of plagiarism, if it was not well know that Kennedy idolized Churchill.

The fact remains that Kennedy was, unfortunately, no Churchill. Churchill, I think, would have preferred to be likened to Ronald Reagan, who is actually more like Churchill than Kennedy could ever hope to be.

Buck writes
"Subject: Hey Serpant-tongue !
Was Churchill a greater 20th Century leader than Roosevelt? Reagan? Even Stalin?
Was King David greater than Alexander The Great ? Peter the Great? Was he even greaater than Queen Victoria or Catherine The Great? Hmmm"

Buck: Since they are rhetorical questions, I won't answer them. Your opinion is your opinion.

As to the unnecessarily nasty ad hominum attack in the use of "Serpant-tongue", I would advise, if you feel the need to attack those with whom you disagree, at least use spell check. It is "serpent" not "serpant".

As the article makes clear, Churchill would have shown more grace and better spelling even had he disagreed.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.