Churchill's Shadow: An Astonishing Life And A Dangerous Legacy by Geoffrey Wheatcroft
The title only tells half the story contained in this book. Yes, it takes you in entertaining and assiduous detail through Churchill’s undoubtedly astonishing and long life. And yes, it does not end with Churchill’s end in 1965. Instead, in the long final section, it looks at the last fifty years’ events in this country – the fluctuating relationship with Europe, the ‘special’ relationship with America, Thatcher and Blair’s wars, the gradual decline of our economy and soft power – and does so in relation to what Wheatcroft calls Churchill’s dangerous legacy.
This is a persuasive argument because how often do politicians here and, particularly, in America quote an aphorism or action by the blessed Winston to support their cause? There are a whole range of complex reasons why our political leaders operate in a framework delineated by Churchill; and the most important of all is that the great man was a writer first and foremost, very talented but very partial, whose prodigious output painted himself as the man of the century – no wonder his words and deeds have provided the template for democratic leaders.
I said only half the story, though, and that is because throughout this book Wheatcroft builds a case that Churchill was a dangerous, lucky and morally ambiguous failure. He dares to say that even Churchill’s great achievements in the second world war were tainted.
This is, of course, not a new take on Churchill. Even his most ardent admirers would point to his misjudgements and rash actions prior to his darkest and greatest hour in 1940. The Gallipoli disaster, a flashy, offensive strike intended to change the slow course of the war, was a typically Churchillian military manoeuvre – typical in that it was conceived for quick, decisive results and ended as an ill-conceived disaster. That, as well as bad judgements about India’s call for independence and his underwhelming spell as Chancellor of the Exchequer that contributed to unemployment, lower living standards and the scarring divisions of the General Strike, are acknowledged by many historians. This has hardened into a view of Churchill as an idiosyncratic national genius with great, but unusual talents who did not find his moment until the rise of Hitler. Wheatcroft has none of that. He dissects all the political actions from Churchill’s long career and provides fascinating context. He dispels the excuses put forward for the failures and unacceptable opinions espoused in Churchill’s books and by Churchill’s admirers that have dominated the national story.
It was this digging into the well-known story that was generally illuminating to me. I was aware, for example, that Churchill was set against Indian independence before the war and despised Mahatma Ghandi. I had assumed that this was understandable for a man born into the ruling class in the late Victorian era who had fought as a soldier to preserve the empire. Yet Wheatcroft explains that, not only did Churchill stand out against prevailing political opinion about India’s future, but that his reasons for doing so, even in his own time, were considered extreme. He was constantly obsessed by a literary project to write a history of the English-speaking people because of a passionately held belief in the superiority of his race over most other races and particularly Hindus. These views he vehemently outlined at the same time as he was warning of the dangers Hitler posed. To be fair to Wheatcroft, he is clear that Churchill would never have manifested his repugnant racial beliefs into the genocidal policies of the fuhrer. Yet he never tries to sugar-coat Churchill’s most troubling views.
Which brings me back to the second world war. You see, this was the section that I found most enlightening and disturbing. Having been brought up on a diet of war films and derring do adventures in the comics that I read, I go along with the national consensus that this was the country’s finest hour. In terms of the behaviour of the ordinary citizen I still feel that’s the case but Wheatcroft makes us aware that we need to look at this conflict with a more objective eye. Few of the British army’s military actions were decisive – he suggests only really in its battles with the Italians. Time and again, smaller, more motivated and better led German forces defeated the British and the war was, in effect, won by Russian blood and American wealth and military hardware. In addition, as soon as America joined the war, Churchill was significantly less influential in directing the war often suggesting the sort of rash but eye-catching military strikes typified by the Gallipoli fiasco. Thankfully, Eisenhower and others usually over-ruled him.
Even on the home front, things were less straightforwardly patriotic and unified as the national story has mythologised. In 1942, when the tide was turning, there was such disapproval of Churchill’s leadership that there was a serious possibility that he would be deposed as PM. Indeed, throughout the war, when the national government operated a by election pact not to stand against the incumbent party, independent candidates often defeated Tory candidates in a gesture of dissatisfaction against Churchill’s leadership. The stunning Labour victory in 1945 should not have surprised anyone.
Time to stop, though - the problem in reading such a well-researched, thoughtful and engaging book, that challenges some of the bedrock notions of our nation, is an awful temptation to regurgitate Wheatcroft’s charge sheet against the greatest ever Briton (2002 BBC poll). Read the book instead. Mind you, don’t be seduced by Wheatcroft’s cogent case. Too often he underplays the qualities that he recognises in Churchill: his incredible energy, quick mind bubbling with ideas and his sense of purpose and destiny. I do not believe that shrewd politicians such as Lloyd George continually placed him in senior positions in their cabinets just because he was the right sort of chap with an aristocratic background. But, as I say, if you have any interest in political history, read the book yourself and make up your own mind.