Honestly, I got nothing against the government...

See other books on Negotiation

It has been quite some time since I read that book. It was back in 2024. The book was titled as “Bargaining With The Devil”.

The chapter 5 of the book discussed the World War II dynamics and Great Britain’s planning from inside of the British War Cabinet.

The chapter raises a question at the opening: “Should Churchill Negotiate With The Hitler?”
And in that chapter, there is a very important character, Lord Edward Halifax.

He was the “Rahul Gandhi – Leader of Opposition” of the British politics in May 1940.

And Halifax’ role could be summarized as below, read carefully.


...If you read the War Cabinet minutes carefully, you begin to see something surprising: Lord Halifax was not simply Churchill’s opponent in May 1940 — he was, in many ways, the man who strengthened Churchill’s final decision.

Halifax played the role of the rational skeptic in the room. At a time when British troops were trapped in France and the situation looked disastrous, he asked a question that many others were afraid to ask: Should Britain at least explore the possibility of negotiating through Mussolini? 

This was not naïve appeasement. Halifax knew Hitler could not be trusted. But he argued from the cold facts on the ground. Britain was losing. France was collapsing. The United States was not yet in the war. In that situation, he insisted it was logical — even responsible — to find out what terms might be available 

Every time Churchill made a sweeping claim — “Hitler would enslave us,” “There is no point talking” — Halifax calmly pushed back: How do we know? What if terms preserved British independence? Would we still refuse? 

At one point, he even reminded Churchill that just a day earlier he had said he would accept terms preserving independence “even at the cost of some territory.” 

Halifax exposed inconsistencies. He forced Churchill to define what he really meant by independence, by unacceptable terms, by fighting to the finish.
This pressure did something important. It made Churchill think harder.
Out of that debate emerged one of Churchill’s most powerful strategic insights: that failed negotiations, conducted publicly while Britain was losing, would shatter morale. 

Entering talks was not cost-free. Even the signal of willingness could weaken national resolve.

Without Halifax’s relentless questioning, Churchill might have relied only on moral instinct — his deep belief that Hitler was evil and must be resisted. Halifax forced him to go beyond instinct. He had to reason through the risks, the psychology, the long-term consequences.
In that sense, Halifax didn’t weaken Churchill’s case. He strengthened it. He tested it. He stress-tested it.

By the time Churchill rejected negotiation, it was no longer just emotional defiance. It had survived rigorous internal challenge. And that is what made the decision — and the argument behind it — far more durable... 


Opposition is not what weakens a government. It is what that makes sure that the government is doing its job. It is the opposition who makes sure that the government is answerable to the people of the country.

It is the opposition which makes sure that the government is not a “bull gone rampant” but a “tamed horse”.

In that sense, I see people like Ravish Kumar as soldiers protecting the voice of the people, the essence of democracy and all the values we hold dear towards our nation, towards our country.

Thank you.

PS: I personally feel I want to give voice to the Opposition, because I consider myself a rebel, a revolutionary. And, honestly, I got nothing against the government... It is just that I want to keep the government on its toes – always.

Read the full CH.5 here

Tags: Indian Politics,Politics,Book Summary,