Biographies of people that left a mark on history are often the eye catching position for me. Often they read as good as a novel. One should also be a bit picky as some authors might be tempted to just choose a famous person and write a book without proper research and preparation.
Walking with destiny is a biography of Winston Churchill by Andrew Roberts. Andrew wrote a very decent Napoleon’s biography before. Therefore, I had high expectations for his newest book.
Most people are familiar with Churchill’s contributions during the second world war. I was expecting a story where a politician takes over the steer of the country in the breaking moment of history, executes well, maybe makes a few blunders, but still writes the name in the pages of history. Churchills eventful life was far more than that. He was usually an outlier and only his firm and lonely stand against policy of appeasement led him to premiership.
In the book pages devoted to Churchill’s early life are simply fascinating. His adventures, seeking of military glory, developing skills as a writer, can and should impress anyone. In my life, life of my friends or acquaintances, it is hard to find anyone that would even remotely resemble him.
Just to give you an example: Churchill being short of money, was nonetheless travelling to every place where something interesting was happening. Insurrection against Spain in Cuba? Colonial conflicts in India? Mahdi’s insurrection in Sudan? Boars wars in South Africa? He was there and all this before he turned 25. At that age he decided to retire from the military, and move to politics. Churchill himself was a great writer. He devoted a book to his youth titled “My Early Life”.
One of the features that the author noticed is Churchill’s tendency of being an outsider:
He despised school, never attended university or worked in trade …, served in six regiments (so never became slavishly attached to any of them), was blackballed from one club and forced to resign from another, left both the Conservative and Liberal parties and was not in any meaningful sense a Christian.
If it was not for the second world war, Churchill would have been known as someone who prepared the British navy for the first world war. Although, there was not much navy combat given the german relative weakness compared to the royal navy. The weakness due to very good preparation of the British navy to war.
Given his early life and achievements in the admiralty, no wonder his appetite was huge. He assumed to reach for premiership before 40. It turned out he must have waited much, much longer.
The time between the wars must have been tough for him. It would be tough for every ambitious person. The book describes Churchill’s struggles well, but it is hard to get a clear picture of his mind and emotions during that time. To be fair, it was hard to do full research, given that probably there are no good facts from the first hand nowadays.
Still, even being an outcast Churchill took a great stand against the policy of appeasement represented by the government of Chamberlain. Churchill had a great understanding of what Germany was becoming. One cannot disagree with what he says:
Appeasement from weakness and fear is alike futile and fatal. Appeasement from strength is magnanimous and noble and might be the surest and perhaps the only path to world peace.
After the Boure wars won by Britain, Churchill was an advocate of not punishing already defeated Africannise. He believed that by helping them rebuild the country and giving more freedom would preserve peace. The policy of appeasement towards South Africa was the right call — they supported Britain during the second world war. Churchill understood that this would not work with Germany that was defeated in the first world war, but for sure was not conquered — the allies did not even enter German territory. Applying harsh conditions of the Versailles treaty pushed Germany into the hands of nationalists. Right after the first world war was the right time to help and appese germans. Once, Hitler was in power, policy of appeasement was a grevieve mistake. Churchill understood that well.
Nevertheless, he became an outcast and had very little influence on the policy. Still his great oratory skills attracted a lot of attention. Churchill defined these five elements of great oratory:
The employment of the best possible word. He believed in using ‘short, homely words of common usage’. Although the words should be short, sentences did not need to be, provided they had an internal rhythm.
The influence of sound. The sentences of the orator when he appeals to his art become long, rolling and sonorous. The peculiar balance of the phrases produces a cadence which resembles blank verse rather than prose.
The third element in oratory was the steady accumulation of argument.
‘‘A series of facts is brought forward all pointing in a common direction,’ he wrote. ‘The crowd anticipate the conclusion and the last words fall amid a thunder of assent.’
Fourth was the use of analogy, which can ‘translate an established truth into simple language. In the example below he uses analogy to stress the positive effect of British rule over India:
Our rule in India is, as it were, a sheet of oil spread over and keeping free from storms a vast and profound ocean of humanity.
Getting into the emotions of the speaker by employing a wild extravagance of language.
The emotions of the speaker and the listeners are alike aroused and some expression must be found that will represent all they are feeling.
This is the recording of one of his greatest speeches: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkTw3_PmKtc
And this is Churchill’s advice to the Prince of Wales on public speaking in 1919.
If you have an important point to make, don’t try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time.
For sure Churchill put a lot of attention not only on what to say but also how. His speeches during the second world war were of huge importance and impact. Robertson summarizes well the key difference between Churchill and Chamberlain in these lines:
Churchill was indispensable during the Second World War because he exuded a confidence in victory that no other senior figure did, and was able to provide something that Neville Chamberlain could not — hope.
The book is remarkable and I really liked it up until the beginning of the second world war where the things got a bit more questionable. I was particularly interested in the part about the Yalta Agreement given its historical significance. In the book the analysis and important historical events are mixed with day-to-day commonalities. Just to give an example:
The next day he was received with cheers in the Commons. A small group of Tories, including Lord Dunglass, opposed the Yalta Agreement for failing to guarantee Polish independence and integrity, though they did not explain how that could actually have been achieved. Churchill later let Lady Diana Cooper and Venetia Montagu try on the splendid robes Ibn Saud had given him, with ‘Lady Diana in purple and striking a dramatic pose’.
This is just an illustration on how the narrative of this part of the book is led. Would it make more sense for the author to stop, take a breath, and give a reader a chance to better understand what was the issue with Poland? Is it right that the Yalta agreement just happened and Churchill couldn’t do anything? Is the meeting with the ladies more relevant than this discussion? Why mix it together? I really missed a good chapter devoted to the influence of Churchill on the international state of affairs during the second world war. It is often in the background, tangled with other less relevant events.
Andrew Roberts did a great job analysing and gathering materials immediately around Churchill, but some details of the historical context are missing and should have been included. Here is one more example:
The Americans were not willing to join Churchill in this tough stance over the fourteen Poles, eleven of whom were sentenced to imprisonment for terms ranging between four months and ten years.
One of the fourteen Poles was general Leopold Okulicki commander of the Polish Underground Army fighting against Germans. In the book it is mentioned that he was sentenced to several years in prison, but in fact he was murdered by the Soviets 1946. Just to quote him:
“In comparison with the NKVD, the Gestapo methods are child’s play.
The point I am trying to make here is that again Andrew Roberts doesn’t go far beyond the immediate events affecting Churchill. Whether someone was imprisoned for short time or murder makes a difference and lack of this context doesn’t help in building view on whether Chruchill could have prevented the cold war. Why Churchill kept supporting Russia for so long, why Roosvelt took such a weak stand against soviets, why Stalin so easily manipulated them both. I would like to find some information in the book that helps to answer these questions.
To sum up I really like this book. It is long, it is well written, it stands out. However, there is still some room for improvement: sometimes there are too many insignificant details, but it also happens that relevant information is omitted.
You can get this book from Amazon. If you use this link to buy it, I will receive some small amount for money.
