The years 1940 and 1941. It was ,in many senses , Hitler’s world. He had almost the entire of continental Europe under his boot. A couple of years earlier , Austria was annexed. Then came Czechoslovakia’s turn. Poland was next in 1939- the year we usually associate with the beginning of the second world war. Denmark and Norway fell soon afterwards to German aggression , followed by France. Hitler achieved all of these feats with surprising ease and felicity. Then there was the battle of Dunkirk in 1941. For all the courage and fortitude that the British troops displayed – they had received a drubbing and a bad one at that. It is said that had Hitler pressed his advantage at this stage-he could have achieved further gains. The reasons as to why he did not are not very clear. Germany had a pact with Soviet Union – albeit an uneasy one. The two powers and the two dictators didn’t really trust each other. The United States was determined to be neutral.

The point is , again , it was Hitler’s world. Only one European country openly stood against Germany – the United Kingdom. While boasting of great airpower and a navy , they had no army to speak of and the battle of Dunkirk had further depleted them. Compared to the German war machine – at that stage of the war – the Britishers were savages with spears.

Yet the UK chose to stand against Germany. Hitler was ready to sign a pact with the Britishers. Defending and feeding a small island nation in peace time is an achievement. The island nation had always depended on its mercantile routes to feed itself. Doing so in a hostile world is monumental. Choosing to do so , when there were easier options available was courageous (or foolhardy as was also one of the prevalent opinions in those days). The UK could have played a part in truly making it Hitler’s world. It chose not to.

And one of the key driving figures behind this was Winston Churchill. I balk at the “Great Man/Woman theory of history”. There are many complex forces that shape history for us to attribute it’s course to a few men/women. However, leaders do play a part in shaping events. And Churchill was a key player.

Imagine yourself to be the leader of a beleaguered nation. Your people are suffering privations because of the war. You don’t have the military wherewithal (yet) to face the enemy. You have no help forthcoming. Your allies have surrendered. Your friends are neutral. You could have taken the peace pact. You do have an easy way out. Yet you chose not to. And you convince your people why you should not. You convince them why you should fight this out and not capitulate. You ride it out. And as times get better and circumstances start favoring you , you play a key part in winning the war.

More than winning the war – it is the holding out that is impressive. This was truly the ‘darkest hour’ as Churchill himself says. That you chose to take a stand when you had an easy way out  is impressive. Needs conviction. And moral courage. And in many ways Churchill had that. To be sure Churchill had many faults. He was an imperialist and we today would term him racist. He was deeply flawed. We would be right in judging him harshly for them -but we will also do well to remember that they were also the flaws of his times. Leaders, even Statesmen are flawed and deeply so. We should make our peace with that. We will also be naïve to ignore the practical reasons behind this stand. But neither the flaws nor the reasons take away the sheen form his stewardship in those troubled times.

And Churchill’s stewardship stands in stark contrast to Hitler’s , despite ‘surfacy’ similarities. Hitler also had conviction. He stood alone in the initial days of the war in his pursuit of world conquering superiority. It was only the surprisingly easy initial successes that rallied his Generals around him. And he did convert an entire German people to his cause. He also appealed to their national pride. Both Churchill and Hitler were great orators. If we remember only Churchill’s perorations now, it is perhaps because of the dominance of English in the modern world order. But the similarities end here.

Hitler appealed to the ‘basest’ instincts of his people. He reminded them of previous humiliations. He told them they were ‘superior’ to every race. In doing so he appealed to their inferiority complex. He inspired a fear of the other and told them they needed to hate in order to win. That everybody was out to get them. He did rally the German people but may be the average German citizen’s psyche at that time was not particularly healthy. They were motivated and fully behind Hitler (with a few honorable exceptions) , but their base instincts ruled.

In contrast , Churchill perhaps appealed to the better nature of the Britishers. He did appeal to national pride. He did tell them how they stood alone in a world that was increasingly turning bleaker and darker. Yet he also appealed to their love of freedom and of liberty. He did tell them they had to save the world , but for better reasons. He didn’t tell his people , unlike Hitler , that they were a long suffering race. He didn’t tell them they were superior to everyone else , appeals to national pride notwithstanding. He didn’t tell them they need to conquer the world to feel better.

It is an interesting contrast. Particularly if we remember that Germans were almost victorious and for all practical purposes looking at a bright future. and the Britishers were beleaguered and looking to a rather uncertain future.

And Churchill achieved this in a democracy. Hitler was a dictator (despite the show of democracy).

Events could have very well turned out differently. Hitler could have achieved his ambitions. And I would have been writing this in German glorifying Hitler’s leadership. Historical progress is far too complex to be pinned down to a few people and few events.

Yet there is merit in taking a note of this.

It is a very interesting contrast of what leaders chose to appeal to in their people. Appealing to base instincts is easier and gives quick dividends.

Appealing to their better nature is definitely more difficult.

But there is something definitely worthwhile about it.