Reading History Instead of Self-Help

Yesterday I finished listening to "Churchill: Walking With Destiny" by Andrew Roberts.

I reserved it on the Libby app a couple of months ago after seeing a post by Mark America Smith, PdH about how rarely he reads leadership books.

Instead, he reads history and biographies (and he recommended this book in the comments).

I realized I needed to add more history to my diet, and started with this one.

Mr. America Smith, I'm on board. This was a good call.

A few takeaways from the life, personality, accomplishments, and imperfections of Winston Churchill that made a difference for me:

1. He seems to have pretty darn consistently done what he thought was right - whether it was popular or not at the time, and regardless of the cost. He went through years "in the wilderness" politically because of this, with almost nobody supporting him (particularly when most were in favor of appeasing Hitler rather than opposing him); but in the end he ensured that WW2 didn't end in a swift Nazi victory in Europe, and he was beloved by much of the world for his willingness to tell them what he really thought and stick to his guns no matter what when he believed it was right, instead of playing politics
2. He didn't hold many grudges, or at least didn't allow them to cloud his judgment. He accepted multiple talented people back into his circle of influence, and even his government, after they made earlier attempts to destroy him and/or his career
3. He was a student of history (now this is getting meta, Mark America Smith, PdH ...), and his knowledge of past conflicts and leaders deeply influenced his decisions and his understanding of current issues. This knowledge led to a few mistakes when he held too firmly to insights from situations in history that actually had critical differences from his day, but for the most part it is a big piece of what made him the powerful and insightful leader needed for that time
4. He was a man of action, constantly on the front lines of whatever important events were taking place (and when he wasn't, it was only because the people around him were holding the leash tight so he wouldn't do something dumb and get himself killed...). The public loved him for it when he was leading through the war, but he was doing it long before that - getting boots on the ground experience and taking risks to live a full life and learn all he could
5. He believed strongly in his own potential and greatness, and from an extremely young age. There's of course a touch of egotism in it (perhaps more than a touch), and he was absolutely an extremely...we'll say "confident" man. I'm not at all saying I want to BE him in that regard. But it was due to this vision of greatness that he did remarkable things. He believed he could get there, but he knew that meant he had to live differently, experience much, and take big, important shots rather than playing small. I know I often veer too far in the other direction
6. He was often the definition of "the unreasonable man" that George Bernard Shaw said all progress depends upon. He did great things and prevented plenty of awful things from happening because of his unreasonableness. But he also stuck to his own bad ideas and opinions longer and harder than many others do. There's definitely plenty of good and bad involved in being "great"
7. He worked his TAIL off to do what he did. The man was an insanely prolific writer and speaker; but he almost never got up on the spur of the moment and made a historic, epic speech. He spent hours, days, months, and years writing, editing, and rehearsing this stuff. A good reminder that many of the people who seem like "naturals" in our world actually owe a lot to simple preparation and practice - which any of us can replicate

I could go on.

Reading this book broadened my understanding and perspective on WW1 and 2; America, the UK, Russia, India, Greece, Italy, Australia, and many other countries' place in them; and how those events shaped the rest of the 20th century.

And it gave me plenty of vivid examples, good and bad, of leadership in action - Churchill's, his parents', FDR's, Hitler's, Stalin's, and more.

It's pretty clear that Churchill was a complex person - not driven by only one goal or vision, and not only good or bad. There are bad things he did and opinions he had that he regretted, and there are some that he didn't.

But reading the book helped flesh out my previously very limited perspective on him. He's not just a great war leader in the UK - I can associate a ton of other identities with him now, both phenomenal and awful.

For my next bio, I've thought about Simón Bolívar, Gandhi, or Nelson Mandela. Any recommendations?