 Welcome and Aloha. I'm Mark Schlauft, the host of Think Tech Hawaii's Law Across the Sea program. You know, we all encounter rough days in life and in our professions. Lawyers must deal with both failure and success in their personal lives and law practices. Sometimes we go through hell. I've often been encouraged by the words of Winston Churchill when sailing through rough and unpredictable seas in my life and law practice. Churchill was not perfect. He made many mistakes and held prejudices. He was human. But he had a way of persisting and using words that is encouraging to everyone facing adversity, especially maybe in today, today's times. Churchill is quoted as saying, history is written by the victors. And Churchill wrote that history. I've asked Professor of History, Peter Haufenberg, to discuss Churchill's history and legacy. Welcome, Peter. Thank you. Welcome. Thanks for inviting me. Good to see you. Peter, I grew up learning about Winston Churchill from my parents. But the younger generations may not have been as familiar as I am with him. How would you describe Winston Churchill? So I would say Winston Churchill is probably the most well-known British politician of the 20th century. And well-known not just in the United States, but really throughout the English-speaking world. And if I were teaching a force with students who are interested, I would say we want to think of him primarily in a political sense, but a political sense with a very strong understanding of history. So rather than what is new is good, what is new is suspicious and should always be applied thinking about the past. I would say also he was of an era which I don't think we can appreciate, which is an era of not sound bites. That's how we know him, like the famous quote you gave him, gave up him. But he was a brilliant orator. So in a way, I would say if you want to understand Churchill, understand Lincoln. He was also brought to his orations a very strong understanding of language. So a Lincoln-contrater rumor rewrote Gettysburg Address three or four times. It wasn't spontaneous. And the recent film that some of your viewers might have seen about Churchill shows you how painfully he edited the speeches. So I would think the most famous political leader in the English-speaking world, a great orator, and somebody who understood while oration was important, the very careful use of the English language. It didn't always be the most honest use. You could see how Shakespeare's blood flowed through Churchill. I hope that helps us. Just an introduction. There's a lot more to him. Right. Well, you know, and you talked about him being so famous and well known and I guess successful, but he had a lot of quotes about failure also. And some of his most inspirational quotes I want to share. First one, success is not final. Failure is not fatal. It is the courage to continue that counts. That one, especially as a lawyer, I like. And then the second one that he talks about success and failure is success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm. So here we have Churchill talking about failure a lot. And I've often referred to these as I practice law. But what did Churchill mean? What was he talking about failure? What were his failures and how does it link with success? Okay, I think there probably at least three ways to think about failure. And I think that the audience will also understand. I mean, one is did he live up to his families and his father's expectations? His father was a bright shining star and as Shakespeare reminds us, right, the brighter you are, the faster you'll be extinguished. And his father ended up being a failure. But there were great expectations. After all, blood and palace is home is named after those famous English general of the 18th century. So failure was in light of what the family expected of him. Secondly, I think failure was in light of his own mental stability. He had deep periodic depression, which he calls black dog. And so there's sense of personal failure, right? Am I achieving as an individual what I know I should or am I being held back by something that I think I should control? And one of the ways to control that we know is through his drinking. That's not unique. Okay. And thirdly, when historians like Lincoln, again, Churchill is a figure that's so famous and so influential. Most historians and most people bring a certain prejudice to the discussion. So I want to throw the prejudice aside, and simply saying that failure and success to him was also in a macro way. Did the Empire survive? Did the party survive? Would England survive? And so among his failures, he referred to one, the Lipoli. There was an equivalent of the Second World War, actually two really, the F and the Norway fiasco. Those were a significant strategic failures. So I think in a way what he's arguing is life is a column of successes and a column of failures. It's up to other people to judge. So we can look back and some people say that Churchill's failures outweigh his successes. And other people say, you know, his successes outweigh his failures. But nobody who's a decent historian doesn't say that they're they're both two columns. And to his credit, like to Lincoln's credit, he was conscious. These were figures with such a refined ego that they could understand where they failed. You know, other people have an ego which it's always somebody else's fault or, you know, I didn't make a mistake. But with Churchill and Lincoln both, they're very self-conscious about the decisions, about their mistakes. They both launched their grades. You know, we're regretting. Churchill regretted deliberately. He didn't throw it under the carpet. You know, he regretted it both personally and strategically. And there were others of Churchill's as well, which we can talk about in other successes and other failures, which are not quite as well known. Yeah. And he recognized that he had failures. I mean, he acknowledged that. And still, he had these words of encouragement that I like. I mean, you know, basically, you know, it's the courage to continue accounts. And, you know, don't lose your enthusiasm. I mean, he was trying to tell us something. And I want to go back a little bit in his life when he, as a child, we have some photos of him as a child. You know, what was that like? And what did he have some setbacks then also? Well, I think he had some setbacks in ways. Again, I don't know, you know, enough of his personal life, but I know enough as a British historian. He had a family setback and that his relationship with his father was difficult. His mother was American, which people know, and she was part Native American. So I think he did not have the family life that he quote unquote, normal child his class would have had. So that's, that's a struggle. Let's be honest, he was no AP student. He never really he read. And I think he absorbed what he read. But that doesn't mean he necessarily analyzed it. I think he had an academic setback. So I would say those, in a sense, and I don't want to be careful my words here. Late 19th century Victorian Britain was to a sense a caste society. And I don't want people to think about India. But I just want them to think about a class society in which you're born into the class and expected to act a certain way. The First World War really does away with that. And he was born into a class. And, you know, he went into the army. That was, that was what the not so bright sun did. I mean, the bright sun was supposed to go into politics, which he eventually did. Right. But but the bright side of the sun of Sir Randolph Churchill should have been become when he was 20 to 25, a member of parliament for the toy board. That would have been his cast role. Well, I want to I want to reflect a little bit more on his childhood. I know he had a speech impairment. Yes. I know that. I mean, it's been called a list for a stutter or a stammer. Not quite sure which one it was. I've always heard it was a little more like a stutter or a list for both. And I also like you say I know he was not the best pupil in his class. And there's a quote, I want to put up about that that he I would say it's somewhat humorous that he that he liked to talk about. And let's put that next quote up. By being so long in the lowest form, which is the lowest grade, I guess, in school, giving a rankings, like in high school, you take an accelerated versus, and to be a low form was not a point of pride. That was pretty embarrassing. Okay, let's go back to the quote. So by being so long in the lowest form, I gained an immense advantage over the clever boys. They all went on to learn Latin and Greek and splendid things like that. But I was taught English. We were considered such dunces that we could learn only English. And I'm sure the Churchill seems to me must have been smiling when he said that because how did English happen? Well, I think what he's saying, let me read a little bit into that quote is that a couple things. One is, sure, you know, you read Seneca, you read Caesar, but I know my Shakespeare. I know how to use and manipulate and call upon English language. And the first English dictionary in 1751 over 25,000 entries were directly from Shakespeare. So I think that's one thing which is, you know, I know the language of people I know the language of politics. But I think also we need to recognize that as a political plane, that for the Tory and conservatives to be a vibrant political party, they can't rely upon this latest heritage of Oxford, Cambridge, knowing Greek and Latin, knowing what Caesar did. So I think also there's a built in political admission. And that's part of the Tory Party's since the mid 19th century to be the party of the people. Thirdly, I think running through Churchill is a slight jealousy. He's really not an intellectual. He writes, he paints, I know he does all those things, but he's not intellectual. And people like Waugh and Keynes, those of who were his colleagues, his contemporaries, never thought of it. And he had a little chip on the shoulder about that. I see. You also mentioned the Boer War. What happened to Churchill in the Boer War? So that's a very good example of that you brought it up. Something he shouldn't be doing. He's the son of a prominent but failed politician. And he goes out, we think as a journalist from what we can tell, as a journalist, but he had already been in Africa, covering the Anglo-Supanese War. So he's what we would call a war correspondent. He's not out there studying politics. He's leading the life that was the most common genre of the time, which were boys adventure stories. And that's what he's leading. It's really not for conservative aristocratic politician son. So he goes out there. And here again, it depends who you ask. He was captured by the Boers, the military and political opponents. But nobody's quite sure if he not also put himself in a position to be captured. Okay. And I don't want people to quote me in any way as a source other than there's a question about it. He ends up, of course, being imprisoned, which is a great adventure, right? And it's not a time before the war turned war did turn really ugly where people would have been tortured and wars were executed. So he escapes and becomes a boys adventure. And that allows him to have a little niche back home. Because the war war corresponded in a great time period for journalists, an explosion of popular press. Americans talk about the Hearst and the Spanish American War, right? The explosion of the main, they talk about how Hearst helped promote the war. But the Daily Mail and other newspapers back in England helped promote the war war. So it was a real nice synergy, right? Popular interest. Articular journalist, boys adventure, a name that was recognized. And he escapes and comes back home. Not as a military hero, but, you know, as an adventurer. And probably some of your audience would know that the founder of the Boy Scouts was there with them, Aidan Powell. So that fits into it. Aidan Powell was an athlete, a British city that that was besieged by the wars for months and months and months. So the idea of adventure is, is out there. You know, it's King Solomon's minds by writer Haggard and she and the British, the literate British, which ran up and down the class system, just swallowed and consumed adventure stories. And Churchill was like the Indian Jones. He was a living invention. So he kind of gained a good reputation, or maybe he had helped him. He gained reputation, but there were some who said, you know, this is not what you should be doing. Getting captured is not necessarily a good thing. But you're right. He hasn't yet a name. So you can read about him in a newspaper. So he, he transcended when you read Churchill now, rather than reading about his decaying father who was dead, but still kind of a ghost on the shoulder of the Tories, you read a more positive version certainly of the Churchill family. And I want to put up another quote that he is attributed to Churchill. And the one I really like, it's a good one for lawyers, especially. And I mean, if Churchill, Churchill could have been a senior lawyer in a law firm, advice to young lawyers, it seems to me, he says, if you're going through hell, keep going. And I don't know if this was a result of his experiences up to this date in the Boer War. But it seems like a great, great advice. I mean, just again, like his success and failure quotes, just persevere, keep on going. What happened to him after he came back to England from the Boer War? And there's a photo of him shortly after. Right. So he, he is on the edge of what's they would call the conservative oratory party. He's on the edge. He said he's a recognized name. This is a family, though, where he does not have to work nine to five. You don't have to worry about Churchill putting food on the plate. He is, I would say, a figure but not a significant political figure. And part of that is there are as usual, hurricanes and storms and tsunamis within the British political system. He plays a role, but Ireland is something that divides them from others. He's in charge of the home department during the only general strike in British history in 1926. He puts that down through coercion and force. He puts down his home secretary rebellion in Ireland through coercion and force. So he has a role. The role is a bit and again, if people are listening and know more about Churchill, I'm gladly welcome any criticism and correction. He's a little bit of an enforcer. The home secretary is a bit like FBI and justice combined in Britain. So workers are shot at the streets under his command 1926. And Ireland explodes in 2021. So I would say he has a role. He's not on the path towards being the prime minister by any means at all. And he continues a long tradition in the Tory conservative party of having very famous influential people were never really accepted by the party. Edmund Burke, the famous philosopher of the 18th century was like that. We know Edmund Burke, but we have to remember that he was never able to put together a coalition. He never would have been elected prime minister. So when we get to your questions about prime minister, his being the prime minister, Churchill's, that's a surprise. Well, let's talk about I mean, he had some success in politics, but then the First World War happened, and there's success and failures. I think we have to be honest. Evaluating Churchill during the First World War is a conflict, you would have to say the failure, the the overwhelming significance and scope of the failure pretty much outlines anybody's successes. Failure, as you mentioned, your failures, you mentioned was an attempt to open up and defeat the Ottomans and thereby easing pressure, maybe keeping Russia in the war, opening up the Mediterranean. And the idea was to have an amphibious landing. And what we all know is Gallipoli. Gallipoli involved British, Turkish, French, Australian, New Zealand troops. And like Dieppe and Norway, it was an absolute failure, militarily, but a failure which costs considerable number of lives, and which fomented a fair amount of anger, especially among Australians, who still believe that the Australians were sacrificed to save the British. So nobody, nobody won that battle, except interesting enough, the first president of modern Turkey. We know as Kamal Ataturk, who the Muslims know as Mustafa Kamal, he was one of the top commanders at Columbia. So he's one of the sign, you know, synergies, Churchill and Ataturk meet. That was one of the examples that then led to Churchill being in the political frontier. He was Home Secretary during the general strike. But again, as I say, not really within a hair's breadth of the Prime Minister's seat. And during the 30s, he's really on the political out. Well, you know, going back to World War II, I know that he lost his position, I think it was First Lord of the Admiralty. Yes. And then he went, but he went on to serve. And here's a photo of him as a commanding officer of the Sixth Battalion Royal Scots, fuschial ears. But, you know, he, he kept on, kept on going, kept going. He certainly kept going. And that's an interesting way to put it. Why? Well, first of all, he knew that he knew Philippine was a failure. There was no attempt to again, sweep it under the carpet. Ever since he was a kid and played with soldiers. And when you read his histories, there is much military histories as political histories. He's an old fashion, and I don't mean that in derogatory or pejorative way. He's, he's out of Herodotus and Lucidides. History is the story of war and politics. And to his credit or discredit, he wanted to participate in those. But unlike Washington, perhaps he was able to be successful in both, even though Washington and lots of failures, too. But there was a drive to prove himself. There was a drive to become part of history. So not just observing, like a professor like myself, we just observed. He wanted to, he wanted to become part of history. Some people in this class thought of part of history as doing social legislation, being the poor, going out to the empire. These are all parts of history. For him, it was, at this point in his life, war, serving. And let's, we also need to remember, I think that even though the First World War was very controversial. Many people still thought of it as a war for the empire, and a war for patriotism. Decenters and pacifists were jailed, sometimes shot. So we also, we have to understand in light of the First World War, what he did, not post First World War, not World War II. Well, okay, so it looks like he followed his own advice. He, he had, he continued, he had the courage to continue. And he didn't lose his enthusiasm, it appears. Now, how did he become Prime Minister in World War II? How did that come about? And what did it look like? I think some of your audience probably remembers and might even seen the film. So let me just do it very briefly. From about 35 onward, 1935 onward, the most fundamental political debate really in the West was, do you appease the Germans, Italians and Japanese, that is, let them have what they want with the hope of not getting anything more? Or do you arm and confront them? And Churchill was on the political outs in Britain at the time period, because most of the people in the 1930s, and I want to be very clear about this, remember vividly the First World War. By far more soldiers were killed in the West in the First World War than in World War II. 10 to 12 million soldiers died. The Australian army had a 90% casualty rate in the First World War. So the fascists were up and going to their rate of fight. But Britain, France, et cetera, wanted to avoid fighting. And I think we have to appreciate that. Secondly, to Churchill's credit, and to discredit everybody else, Churchill understood that fascism was a monster that had to continue to eat. And you couldn't appease it. So as we move towards the later 30s, in Japan, Italy and Germany are grabbing land, they're expanding. We have what all of your, all the folks of our age will remember in one way or another, the Munich crisis, where Czechoslovakia is divided up, given to the Germans, through Dayton Land and the rest of Czechoslovakia, without the Czechs being present. And the Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain comes home, waves a piece of white paper, and says we have peace in our time. And of course, he did not. And they did not. And Chamberlain was forced to call a vote and resign as Prime Minister. The next person in line was Lord Halifax. And Halifax, as you might remember, was part of a surprising, I don't as British story, I don't find it surprising, large group of not only appeasers, but Nazi sympathizers. And he could have become Prime Minister. I cannot tell you what happened in the back room. I can't tell you precisely what happened. But the next in line was not really inclined. And Churchill was there. Everybody thought this was a joke. He didn't like Churchill. Nobody really liked Churchill. But Chamberlain could not continue. He was humiliated. Hitler continued to expand. He was humiliated. Halifax did not have enough backing of the party. And so Churchill walks in, the King admits, you have to, the monarch has to agree, the person becoming Prime Minister. So which should grin and doubt, which is later replaced by a budding friendship, probably in part because they both start coming probably that was part of it. He becomes Prime Minister. And everybody expects that when Halifax wanted will happen, that there will be peace with Germany. And that's a very unusual route to somebody on the political outside. But it happens again, maybe because your audience knows that British politics are multi party politics. So it's not Democrats versus Republicans, right? It's conservatives and liberals. And the liberal party split between liberal unionists who wanted to keep Ireland and did not. So you had to put together a coalition, as you still do today, as it's happening in Germany right now. The STP did not win the election outright. And Churchill in part becomes Prime Minister, because he can get enough votes from the different parties. And that's a short story. The only final addition I would add is until, until the Hong Kong protesters of two years ago waved their umbrellas. I don't remember the umbrella protests. The umbrella in Britain was a no no. Because Chamberlain, while waving his white piece of paper, carried his umbrella. And no British politician would be seen with an umbrella in Britain, because it was connected with Chamberlain until the Hong Kong rebellion, just a little tidbit for anybody who goes to a cocktail party. Let's take a look at Churchill with his V for victory. That's what he would right now. He had to switch that though. He had to switch it. It's the first time he used it. It was not exactly that on the part of Italian allies. It had the exit. It was Pungulian and polite. So Churchill had to reverse the being. That was part of his that was part of his nonworldly. I mean, again, I mean, somebody well educated, who appreciated like, European differences would have known that he was he was kind of parochial in his own way. And I want but and then he had a great another great quote that I want to put up here that he gave to a talk of his at his high school, I guess, Harold, and never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never in nothing great or small, larger petty, never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense, never yield to force, never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy. And he gave this after he'd been Prime Minister and was giving a talk at his at his school that he graduated from. And this is another good advice for lawyers. You know, what what prompted this, do you think? I think again, a couple of things, but most urgently, and you know, sometimes it's best just to focus on the obvious, like not try to be too clever. This was a dark hour. Americans felt that way, you know, after Pearl Harbor, that that wasn't the main land. There really was not going to be a serious invasion. There were real worries and legitimate worries that Britain was not prepared, was not prepared militarily, that the Nazis were an unstoppable force. And what the Britain was facing was in fact, overwhelming force, overwhelming force which most sensible Brits recognized was evil on Iran's and other philosophers, you know, understood the fascism had a moral and ethical component. It was an evil moral ethical component. But if you were like Churchill or the kids at Harrow, and you were playing with toy soldiers, your side had no chance, no chance. And the way what he's doing, which is what kind of FTR had to do, right? America wasn't prepared for World War II, but America had time. Britain had no time. America had a good year, year and a half before U.S. could counter attack. And during that year and year and a half, other than living on the edge of the Pacific, you were secure. The Germans are in the Channel Islands. Once they conquer Belgium, you know, you are a relatively brief bomber run from Britain. So I don't think actually we need to get the PhD in psychology or post-modernist to see that, like Wellenson said, you know, the fields of Harrow and Exeter are where Britain's going to win its battles. There's no large standing army. He's talking to kids whose fathers, older brothers, and probably them are all going to have to put on uniforms. They're all going to have to fight. Now there are other, I mean, I think psychologists can find other reasons, you know, fighting through fears, also fighting through depression, right? It's fighting through is a black dog. But I think quite clearly, and the recent films do this very well, it's not subtle. I mean, how are you going to get, you can think of some of Lincoln's early speeches. You know, the Union's not ready for a war. You can see that battle first full run. So, he's trying to encourage the younger generation. And I think also their parents, you know, I think, I mean, smart enough to know, and this is very Shakespearean. This is really right out of Shakespeare, right? If you talk to kids about a war, you're not just talking to kids about themselves. You're talking about their older brothers. You're talking about their parents and their uncles, and Britain needed women. Women were not on the front line, but needed women. Women played very important roles. So, you know, you are, you're not talking about a military caste. It is by itself. We're talking about a nation, a nation you want. Let's take a look at the final quote and ask you, you know, what is Churchill talking about? And what is his legacy? We have a couple minutes left. Sure. A nation that forgets its past has no future. What's he talking about? What's his legacy? I'll let you conclude. Okay, let me know if I answer it the way you'd like. I think his idea there is, and it's a conservative tradition. And again, I don't mean conservative in a pejorative way. I'm just saying the capital C, back to Edmund Burke, back to Shakespeare, that societies that radically change with no connection to their past are going to fall apart. And so whether or not you bring all the past to bear, you have to understand the past to be able to make the change as necessary for the future. Right? So it's not a radical view where you just cut yourself off from the past. I think also when he's writing that very intelligently, one of the things he did recognize, was that the future was not going to be a future where Britain and the British Empire were at the center. He promised not to oversee the liquidation of an empire, but he recognized that the British Empire, the 19th and early 20th century, was gone. Britain's role in the world was gone. So how do you adjust to that? And one of the ways I think he said adjusting to that is to know your own history, be confident with knowing that, but seeing the future is not a mirror image or a Polaroid reproduction of that. Now having said that, let's be clear. Churchill was not anti-imperial. Churchill and most of his colleagues spoke that many British interests would be represented by the US. But on the other side, there's a lot of suspicion. FDR, very different views of the world than Churchill did, very different views. FDR did all of this agreeing about the future of the world. And the American Treasury and Keynes did not agree. So history is important for Britons to be able to accept a new role and also in general it's important as models. So the way in which you're using the quotes to try to understand Churchill, he would say that's proper. Use my quotes from the past to help guide the future. So don't, you know, don't just separate yourself from the past. And in the one minute we have left, let's, we'll put up some photos of Churchill in his later years. In the one minute we have left, Professor, what can we learn today from this? From the later years. What can we learn today? Today from Churchill. From Churchill. Yeah, okay. I think problems were going through the failures, going through hell today. What can we learn? Okay, very, very quickly. One is to recognize that there is no absolute victory. There are probably many defeats and many stumbles, but one needs a sense of purpose and a sense of an ethical or moral goal. Now, people may not agree with that, but your role is to try to with oration and some kind of decency convince people of that. I think also Churchill speaks to us today that the world does go through changes. I'm glad you put the last picture up. The world had passed Churchill by. And I think sometimes folks need to admit that it is time for a younger generation or the changed world to be put in other people's hands. And even though Churchill returned to power, it was pretty clear the world had passed him by. Finally, it is to have the moral and ethical clarity to be able to see the true nature of an enemy. And he saw that very much in fascism. He saw that in Stalinism, and let's be clear, Stalinism, he saw that. And to be able to put that on the table is part of the discussion. So not to ignore it, not to whitewash it. And if you accept it, be conscious that that's what you're accepting. And that was particularly to the Peasers, like Halifax. Okay, you want to make peace for the Nazis? You must truly know who they are. Okay, and then if you want to make peace, you have to take the consequences. But you cannot plead ignorance. And early on, early on Churchill knew what Churchill, excuse me, what Hitler and the Nazis were up to. They didn't really do anything that surprised him. It's just also at some point you realized strategy wasn't his best. Let Montgomery and others do the strategy. He can sit back and do the politics. But in the end, keep going. And I think, yeah, keep going. And actually, in a very personal level, he suffered deeply from depression, deeply. And it's a challenge, though, that's difficult. And some people do give into that. And we shouldn't judge them because they give into that. But Churchill is an example of what one could do, could do. With the aid of a loving wife, I mean totally devoted wife, and let's be honest, the aid of alcohol. This is a gentleman who drank a lot. Okay, so we want to be very careful. He had allies in getting through. But he is an example of somebody who recognized his black dog and was able to, with the assistance of others, wrestle and manage it. But it struck very often. He was debilitated by depression many times. Professor Hoffenberg, I want to thank you for sharing your knowledge and enthusiasm about... Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Can I just show folks, is this, I just want to point out that this is the most current, generally accessible book. Eric Larson is a wonderful writer, really wonderfully, could be a novelist. He takes historical moments and this discusses Churchill and his family life, primarily during the Blitz, but includes the whole war. So if you're interested in Churchill inaction during the war, it's a very accessible book. I cannot tell you legally where it's available, but it's available for a very recent price, the place which has very large wholesale items for sale. That's all I'll say. Okay, I won't say anything else. Thank you very much. It was a pleasure. Thank you and cheers. Cheers.