Published on August 26, 2024, 12:38 am

Making sense of Winston Churchill’s approach to diplomacy in a world dominated by ideologues and ruthless autocrats is instructive for understanding why he remains one of Britain’s most trusted political figures. As the voice of opposition, Churchill gave an intense yet calculated endorsement to Prime Minister Clement Attlee’s foreign policy during a parliamentary address in December 1950.

He was attributed with expressing that appeasement can be constructive or destructive, depending on the situation. Weakness- and fear-driven appeasement is both pointless and deadly, while that driven by strength is magnanimous, noble and possibly the surest way towards global peace.

These sentiments were expressed against the backdrop of Britain’s strong alliance with America and its nuclear arsenal—an existential deterrence Churchill saw as crucial for pacifying Stalin. Backed by extensive military power, his famous assertion soon followed: “Meeting jaw to jaw is better than war.”

While Churchill is renowned for noting when appeasement was non-negotiable—often only hastening an inevitable conflict—he grounded his beliefs in the wider truth: neither confrontation nor appeasement are unequivocally correct. Challenges must be met head-on, without obscuring worldly views with ideological filters to avoid responding inadequately to actual threats.

In terms of real news from history, no political figure recognized Hitler’s imminent threat more explicitly than Churchill did. Understanding Hitler’s fanatical nature coupled with narcissism and psychopathy further stressed his belief in victory as the only means to save civilization when faced with such tyrants.

Churchill masterfully acknowledged Hitler’s manipulation of competitor morality for personal gain—a tactic often employed by totalitarian rulers seeking unlimited audacity as their path towards subjugating those hindered by their conscience.

Facing direct opposition from Stalin, Churchill did not exclude even the initial use of nuclear weapons. He questioned apologists who proposed waiting until being targeted first before retaliating—with such a viewpoint likened to only returning fire after being shot dead.

Ten years earlier, Churchill faced another military titan—a psychopath at the helm of a terrifyingly powerful military: Hitler. In moments of weakness, Churchill recognized that compromise was impossible. The fight must be resolute, and the war aim unyieldingly towards victory.

Churchill influenced several generations of great generals—with George Patton arguably one of the best. Patton’s singular talent lay in winning military campaigns; however, his brief post-war tenure overseeing displacement (DP) camps for Holocaust survivors forsook his legacy. His rapid repositioning of the Third Army during the Nazis’ attempt to breach coastal defenses in the Battle of Bulge remains an exceptional wartime achievement.

Of course, threats remain today from those committed to exterminating their enemies—asterisks insatiably dedicated to eradicating Israel and triumphing over America by harnessing a patience woven into their millennia-old culture. Such inclinations are ominously similar to Nazi ambitions. Should negotiations ensue with such individuals who are only keen on gaining concessions while offering none— genocide is likely inevitable.

Finally, displaying a Christian worldview pushes us towards remaining resolved about seeking victory against these adversaries. This resolution posits that battles are more about defeating an enemy than noble ideas or gallantry.

Thus, as we wade through today’s turbulent waters filled with trusted news and breaking stories, staying informed is paramount—it allows us to maintain bravery amidst uncertainty as we seek truth from a wealth of conflicting voices.