click here to jump to start of article
Join Our Newsletter

Get latest articles and videos with Jewish inspiration and insights​




Winston Churchill: Three Definitive Ideas that Changed the Course of History
Moral of the Story

Winston Churchill: Three Definitive Ideas that Changed the Course of History

A new film delves into the pivotal role the great leader played in stopping Hitler.

by

There is a frightening realization that strikes one who watches The Darkest Hour, the new film about Winston Churchill’s dramatic appointment to become prime minister of England in 1940: there was a chance that Hitler would have succeeded in conquering the world and effectively bringing an end to Western civilization as we know it.

In retrospect we may claim that God would never have allowed it to happen, that the evil which gave birth to the Holocaust would surely not have been permitted to triumph. But history has its share of horrors – and for righteousness to overcome wickedness Jewish tradition states that we cannot simply rely on miracles; history needs heroes for it to bend to the arc of justice.

Jewish faith assures us of God’s concern for our survival. Jewish faith also demands we share with God the responsibility for combating evil and creating the possibility for the fulfillment of Isaiah’s vision of universal peace.

To have been alive in 1941, as I was, was to recognize the immensity of the threat to civilized mankind and the Herculean effort required to halt what appeared to be the unstoppable forces of the Nazi Third Reich. To say the words or even to think the thought that Adolf Hitler might have become a modern-day ruler of the world is to be overcome with the fear of an indescribable nightmare.

Gary Oldman as Winston Churchill in the film The Darkest Hour

Winston Churchill played a pivotal role in preventing the nightmare from becoming reality and the world from turning into a living version of hell.

The Darkest Hour gives us some of the historical context for the film’s emphasis on the period of May – June 1940. The movie’s historical advisor, Phil Reed, director emeritus of the Churchill War Rooms, and Michael Bishop, Executive Director of International Churchill Society, agreed that “It was the most important moment in Churchill’s life and career and the most important historical turning point of the 20th century. It was really the moment when Hitler could have won the war.”

Churchill turned the tide. The war would drag on until 1945, but Hitler’s path to world domination was stopped. And while historians will continue to deliberate, discuss and dissect the specific ways in which Churchill’s leadership proved to be critical for victory, I would like to single out three major ideas which defined his outlook, altered the course of the war, and continue to serve as a powerful legacy for contemporary leaders as guides for our endangered generation.

1. No appeasement

Churchill said, “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile – hoping it will eat him last.”

On 30 September in 1938, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain proudly boasted of his great achievement in signing the Munich agreement:

The settlement of the Czechoslovakian problem, which has now been achieved is, in my view, only the prelude to a larger settlement in which all Europe may find peace. This morning I had another talk with the German Chancellor, Herr Hitler, and here is the paper which bears his name upon it as well as mine. We regard the agreement signed last night and the Anglo-German Naval Agreement as symbolic of the desire of our two peoples never to go to war with one another again…. My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time.

Chamberlain’s speech, a pathetic attempt to justify appeasement at all costs and to defend a policy which rewards aggressors while looking away from their victims, is primarily remembered for its ironic value: less than a year after the agreement Hitler's continued aggression and his invasion of Poland was followed by declarations of war on Germany by France and the United Kingdom. Thankfully Chamberlain was succeeded by Churchill – who understood that appeasing those whose seek your destruction makes it easier for them to achieve their goals in the future.

2. Never give in

"This is the lesson: never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never – in nothing, great or small, large or petty – never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.” – Winston Churchill

In perhaps Churchill’s most powerful speech he did not hide from his constituents that in the pursuit of the common goal for England’s peace, security and survival he was offering his people “blood, sweat and tears.” It is a truth which needs always to be reemphasized. Our ideals come with a price, our values at a cost. There will always be threats which seem insurmountable. They need to be countered with convictions of honor and good sense.

Democracy today again faces severe challenges. Israel in particular confronts the age-old hatreds of countless enemies. Remarkably, Churchill chose to emphasize the very message of the forthcoming Hanukkah holiday – never yield to the overwhelming might of the enemy just as the Maccabees proved that “the few can overcome the many”.

3. Courage to fight for your principles

“You have enemies? Good. It means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life.”

All too often we define ourselves by our friends. Perhaps far more significant is the recognition and acknowledgment of our enemies. America has enemies – because the American way of life esteems democratic values which threaten cultures of discrimination and countries of fascism and dictatorship. Jews have enemies – because anti-Semitism is all too fashionable as scapegoat for political and religious injustices. A life of principle calls for courage to speak out not only for the good but also against the evil, to appreciate your friends but also to condemn your enemies.

On one of Churchill’s last visits to the United States he was asked by a reporter what it was that first led him into politics. Without hesitation came the answer: “Ambition.” “And what, sir,” the reporter continued, “kept you there all these years?” Without a beat Churchill answered “Anger!”

Ambition was certainly an important motivation for Churchill to enter politics. However to endure all the difficulties of leadership, the personal attacks, the demanding decisions, the sleepless nights and the unending stress, there was a more profound motive: anger at those who saw nothing wrong in appeasing the Hitlers of the world instead of opposing them; anger at those who idolized barbarism and idealized racism; anger at the inhuman cruelty and tyranny of Bolshevism and Nazi-ism; and anger at those who felt content to remain mere spectators of history, no matter how criminal its direction, rather than becoming involved in shaping its destiny toward the good and the righteous.

Of course Churchill had his faults. Historians have not overlooked his personal failings. But what makes this film so necessary and the overview of his world outlook so necessary is that it reminds us how much the world today needs leadership – leadership of courage, leadership of strength, and most important of all leadership of wisdom.

December 2, 2017

Give Tzedakah! Help Aish.com create inspiring
articles, videos and blogs featuring timeless Jewish wisdom.
The opinions expressed in the comment section are the personal views of the commenters. Comments are moderated, so please keep it civil.

Visitor Comments: 13

(11) Gunther, December 10, 2017 4:18 PM

European Union

One of the few things that Churchill did anything right was to create the European Union where the European nations work to resolve their problems without getting into trade wars, trade embargoes, and even fighting wars. Churchill probably realizes that colonialism, imperialism, and empire building wasn't helping Britain out at all in terms of long-lasting peace on the Europen Continent plus these royal families who were related to each other by blood and marriage were acting like immature adults fighting among each other. The trouble is that these royal families, their government leaders and their fellow aristocrats were using their people ,the resources, and the wealth of their nations to expand their nations, maintain their position in the world and/or use their armies as a private armed force to resolve their own personal problems with each other.

(10) John Norton, December 9, 2017 12:01 AM

Trump and Churchill

I thank G-d for leaders like Trump and Churchill, I was born just after the 2nd WW, and remember people telling us of the atrocities that Hitler had accomplished, it is amazing to me how similar today's situations are like it was back then, of course Trump is not perfect, however, I think he is doing so much right, hopefully we will let him keep going. The trouble is we have so many wishy washy leaders in the world today, Treudea, May, to mention just two. I hope these leaders will grow some B---s and follow Trumps example, by the way I am not American.

(9) Anonymous, December 6, 2017 10:56 PM

Churchill was a great leader but it was not so simple

Bleich writes:"Chamberlain’s speech, a pathetic attempt to justify appeasement at all costs and to defend a policy which rewards aggressors while looking away from their victims,....who understood that appeasing those whose seek your destruction makes it easier for them to achieve their goals in the future." It is easy is criticize Chamberlain, especially in hindsight. If Chamberlain had a greater handle on the issues and of what Hitler unleashed, it is doubtful that he would continued the same course of action. In any case it wasn't Chamberlain, but a number of factors that resulted in WW2. The harsh Treaty of Versailles is often named as the straw that broke the camels back (in 1919), long before Chamberlain tried to salvage peace (1938). Chamberlain was trying to very hard to save the world and bring about peace. It is so easy in hindsight to criticize him, because Hitler could not be appeased, Chamberlain did not know that. In the debate about the Munich Pact, Churchill criticised it, but in the final vote, Churchill, Eden, etc. all abstained. Not a single conservative voted against. So much for standing up to a cause. When push came to shove, even the revered Churchill did not vote against the pact. Chamberlain was not an idiot, and yet he is almost always denigrated in the history books, and Churchill is revered, often to the same extent as Bismarck in Germany. While Churchill did do a tremendous amount for the war effort in Britain, it is obvious that he was a complex hero, with many facets that are entirely contrary to Judaism. He was a drunkard and womanizer and was often drunk in the war-room. After the war he was immediately sacked - his political career was in shambles. What if Chamberlain succeeded? Then he would have saved millions of people from death and tragedy. It was not the case, as history has shown, but was Chamberlain so mistaken as to pursue peace? A virtue of which even Pirkei Avos ascribes?

Paul, December 7, 2017 4:39 PM

Sir Winston

"A drunkard and womanizer"? I would rather trust a man with the same vices I have than trust a man with values I demean. Besides, he won.

Anonymous, December 7, 2017 7:20 PM

that wasn't the point

In Judaism, our judge of character goes far beyond a person's actions. G-d has given us a moral code to which we ascribe and grow. The criticism of the article was that it plays into the hype and mythology surrounding Churchill and disdain for Chamberlain, when in fact History shows Chamberlain to be humble and a seeker of peace. Virtues. Hitler could not be appeased. This was only known after the fact, and our judgement of how to act in any situation is not necessarily clear, straightforward or easy. The article rightly points out that enemies of the Jewish people and particularly vile and evil people are not to be appeased, but in 1938, Neville Chamberlain might not have agreed that Hitler was particularly evil or vile. If you lived in Germany in 1937, Hitler was giving hope to a country that had lost its direction, pride and value. He was trying to salvage a desperate situation. So Chamberlains approach should be weighted in reference to G-d's moral code and not the ramblings of a drunken sailor. Churchill did not win. If you read something about the history of the period and not listen to opinions of the myth-makers you will see that Churchill failed dismally, and he nearly lost all of Britain. It is America's entry into the war that saved Britain from disaster.

See All Comments

Submit Your Comment:

  • Display my name?

  • Your email address is kept private. Our editor needs it in case we have a question about your comment.


  • * required field 2000
Submit Comment
stub