Role as both warrior and peacemaker colored by love of history and a broad worldview

January 29, 2006|John Lukacs

Churchill and War
By Geoffrey Best
Palgrave, 353 pp., illustrated, $29.95

There were dualities in Winston Churchill, as there are in almost every human being. He was a warrior, and a peacemaker. A warrior -- but a militarist not at all. A peacemaker -- but a pacifist never. He had a very brief early career as a soldier, but even then he knew (and made it known to others) that he wished for a political, not a military, career. He knew much, very much about war, and yet, even when a leader in war, he was an amateur. He had plenty of trouble with politicians who were opposed to him; he also had plenty of trouble with generals and admirals who were loath to follow him. He proposed and, on occasion, engaged himself in the military operations that ended badly, yet there were other times when he was right and his generals were wrong. In 1914 he looked forward to war because he was a romantic and full of excitement; in 1939 he argued for war with very different purposes in mind: He thought there was no other option to stop Hitler.

His interest in and inspiration for war were due less to his early soldiering experiences than to his reading (and understanding) of history. When a subaltern in India, not yet 22 years old, between (and sometimes instead of) parades and polo, he read and devoured Gibbon and Macaulay. He would, I think, have dismissed the famous maxim of Clausewitz (whom he may not have read) that war is but the continuation of politics with other means, as a cliché and a truism; but he disagreed with the other German tendency to regard politics as a continuation of war with other means. Toward the end of his life he turned against the prospect of a nuclear war with horror, which was more than the peaceful turn of mind of an old man.

Advertisement
Advertisement
|
|
|
|