Kemper Lectures
That in 1940 the British Empire was united was, I have no doubt, in part the legacy
of the Anglo-French Surrender at Munich. In 1938 the British people were split
asunder in sentiment. If the British Government had decided to go to war for
Czechoslovakia, there would have been a large peace-party; and New Zealand, alone
of the Dominions, was unequivocal in its support. A year later, all doubts
vanished: Hitler had proved his naked ambitions and there was no peace-party: Canada,
Australia, South Africa and New Zealand declared war within hours of the mother
country. For unity, therefore, Churchill, the outspoken opponent of Munich,
cannot claim the credit, but for unfaltering determination and leadership, he most
certainly can.
We live in days of instant coffee – instant almost everything, including quite a lot of instant politicians. Churchill stood for the reverse of all that. He insisted on quality and he set store by experience. By 1940 he had been 40 years in parliament and had held every major portfolio in the Government except the Foreign Office. He had suffered in the hard school of failure and disappointment, his greatest, and perhaps most undeserved failure being Gallipoli in 1915. So, he had learned how to face disaster and, in due course, he faced triumph also. Of the two, though triumph be the pleasanter, it can also be the greater test of character. I think Churchill came well out of both tests, and though he was incontestably self-assured, and by no means disciplined to applaud his own efforts, he was not vain. That is something that can seldom be said of politicians, or indeed of successful men in any walk of life. Women are different: the Almighty intends them to be vain of their appearance, though they often underestimate their achievements in other spheres.
Churchill did, of course, have his failings. However great a man may be, it does his memory no service to pretend he was faultless. The finest emeralds have a flaw, and nobody wants 24-carat gold. So before speaking to you of Churchill’s qualities, the solid foundation on which his career was built, I will say something of his defects. I would emphasize that those defects were not vices. There was never a less vicious man.
He was notably self-centered. That did not prevent his being generous, kindhearted and affectionate. I am sure, too, that he would have sacrificed his life to save another; but the generosity, the compassion and the affection were the surplus available, often a large surplus, after his own requirements had been satisfied. There have been, and are, many people like that. In Churchill, this characteristic just seemed to loom larger than in others. But then everything about him was writ large.
We live in days of instant coffee – instant almost everything, including quite a lot of instant politicians. Churchill stood for the reverse of all that. He insisted on quality and he set store by experience. By 1940 he had been 40 years in parliament and had held every major portfolio in the Government except the Foreign Office. He had suffered in the hard school of failure and disappointment, his greatest, and perhaps most undeserved failure being Gallipoli in 1915. So, he had learned how to face disaster and, in due course, he faced triumph also. Of the two, though triumph be the pleasanter, it can also be the greater test of character. I think Churchill came well out of both tests, and though he was incontestably self-assured, and by no means disciplined to applaud his own efforts, he was not vain. That is something that can seldom be said of politicians, or indeed of successful men in any walk of life. Women are different: the Almighty intends them to be vain of their appearance, though they often underestimate their achievements in other spheres.
Churchill did, of course, have his failings. However great a man may be, it does his memory no service to pretend he was faultless. The finest emeralds have a flaw, and nobody wants 24-carat gold. So before speaking to you of Churchill’s qualities, the solid foundation on which his career was built, I will say something of his defects. I would emphasize that those defects were not vices. There was never a less vicious man.
He was notably self-centered. That did not prevent his being generous, kindhearted and affectionate. I am sure, too, that he would have sacrificed his life to save another; but the generosity, the compassion and the affection were the surplus available, often a large surplus, after his own requirements had been satisfied. There have been, and are, many people like that. In Churchill, this characteristic just seemed to loom larger than in others. But then everything about him was writ large.