Jump to content
Free downloads from TNA ×
The Great War (1914-1918) Forum

Remembered Today:

Attempting to gain perspective on Churchill


kenneth505

Recommended Posts

As another viewpoint from which to gain a perspective of WSC, one might like to recall that Churchill was firmly of the belief that there was a ruling class and that he was a member of it. Some of what we might see as high handed or even arrogant behaviour would stem from his belief that he was exercising an inborn facility. The likes of him were there to tell the likes of me what to do. Democracy was still viewed with some suspicion and in Churchill's circle, labelling someone a democrat had, in recent times, been a criticism bordering on insult. Ruling the country in time of peace quite naturally led to leading the army in time of war, which encouraged Winston to no sooner have an idea than to set the wheels in motion to enact it. He was born to lead, at least in his own estimation. He had the Marlborough blood in him.

Are we to take it from this post, Tom, that you believe Churchill held no other view throughout his long life and political career other than that of being a firm believer in an aristocratic ruling class? To believe that would surely belie the self-evident truth that Churchill for most of his career was, in essence, a staunch believer in parliamentary democracy.

Is it surprising that Churchill would hold such autocratic views as a young man? After all, such views would simply mark him as a product of his time - back then he would not have been considered exceptional in holding such opinions; the overwhelming majority of his contemporaries, even from the working classes, would have held similar viewpoints (even an overwhelming majority of the WW1 generals, whose reputations we seek to re-establish these days, would not have been at odds with such views). So why single out Churchill in this manner?

It is no coincidence, surely, that Churchill is loathed in equal measure by those on both the extreme right and left of the political spectrum (at home and abroad, and even to this day). It is an undoubted fact that when many of his contemporaries, from all social-classes, were finding the dogma of both communism and national socialism to be somewhat attractive ideologies, Churchill was an avowed, and highly vociferous, enemy of both these totalitarian political systems. Indeed, in May 1919 in a speech in the commons, Churchill stated that, "Bolshevism is a great evil, but it has arisen out of great social evils." This hardly seems like a man shackled by a past belief system; he clearly places the evils of bolshevism on a par with the evils of the old, highly autocratic, ruling-class regimes, and in doing so shows that he has learnt plenty; and when placing his political stance squarely between extreme right and left he shows democratic instincts of the highest order. As I said earlier, why are generals allowed "learning-curves" these days but Churchill isn't?

And, let's not forget that Churchill, though from an aristocratic family, inherited neither title nor wealth - and, more importantly, let's not forget that the only title he eventually accepted was a knighthood; no House of Lords for him, no Barony, no Earldom, no Dukedom for him. Here's an interesting insight into Churchill's thoughts about being ennobled:

"Earlier, George VI had offered WSC a knighthood, the Order of the Garter, to which he famously replied (but not to the King): "I could hardly accept His Majesty's offer of the Garter when his people have given me the Order of the Boot."

1952: On 22 February Jock Colville and Lord Moran (Churchill's private secretary and physician respectively) went to Lord Salisbury for advice: the PM was "not doing his brief" and was indifferent to business. He hated delegating anything, yet he quickly noticed and reacted against any plan to "kick him upstairs." Salisbury felt WSC might go to the Lords and remain Premier, with Eden leading the House as effective Premier. Colville said: "He won't do it. I did once suggest to him that he should go to the Lords, and thought at first he was taking it seriously, when he said: "I should have to be the Duke of Chartwell, and Randolph would be the Marquise of Toodledo." I saw that he was laughing at me." Salisbury agreed, saying, "He regards us in the Lords as a rather disreputable collection of old gentlemen."

They agreed that one person might persuade Churchill to go the Lords: The Queen. But soon he made another remarkable comeback with a great fighting speech, and the matter was laid aside." (see Moran's Churchill: Struggle for Survival, pp. 375-8, quoting Colville; and Colville, Fringes of Power, p. 642.)

Hardly the actions of a man who fervently believed all his life that he was a member of an aristocratic ruling-class - surely, a man who carried such fervent beliefs as you imply, Tom, would have just loved to call himself Duke or Lord somebody or other, wouldn't he?

As for Churchill's fervent belief in his own leadership qualities - are you seriously trying to say, Tom, that such a belief was totally unfounded? It seems to me that Churchill actually surpassed the achievements of his illustrious ancestor, John Spencer 1st Duke of Marlborough - John Spencer led British and coalition armies with great success, and with plenty of diplomatic/political aplomb in maintaining said coalition, but if he'd failed what would the outcome have been, a setback for this country, a fairly severe one but just a setback nonetheless. Whereas, Winston Spencer Churchill achieved high-office with many more responsibilities than John Churchill ever had - and the result of failure of the leadership of Winston Spencer Churchill would almost certainly have meant oblivion for this country. The stakes of failure for Winston Spencer Churchill's tenure in office were far, far greater than anything that John Spencer's generalship had to face - and when push came to shove, Winston Spencer Churchill faced up to the challenge and succeeded; any other conclusion is just blather.

I may have misunderstood the sardonic tone of your post, Tom - but it won't hurt to remind ourselves that to truly put Churchill into perspective we need to look at him in the whole. The words of Hamlet will end this post nicely:

"HE WAS A MAN, TAKE HIM FOR ALL IN ALL,

I SHALL NOT LOOK UPON HIS LIKE AGAIN."

Cheers-salesie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are we to take it from this post, Tom, that you believe Churchill held no other view throughout his long life and political career other than that of being a firm believer in an aristocratic ruling class? To believe that would surely belie the self-evident truth that Churchill for most of his career was, in essence, a staunch believer in parliamentary democracy.

edit...

Cheers-salesie.

I have no wish to radically alter the cherished beliefs of anyone entering the debate. I offered a perspective.

Since you ask, however :whistle:

Parliament was set up by people who believed that aristocratic birth entitled one to rule. Churchill's father and older political relatives would have laughed in your face if you had suggested that working men would be as capable of running a government as the Duke of Blankshire. That view was held by the vast majority of the population, not just the aristocracy. If Churchill and his fellow members of the upper class finally gave way to pressure from the middle and lower classes, it was step by reluctant step. We here on the forum are well aware of one aspect of this idea. We know where officers were recruited from, we know that promotion from the ranks was instituted reluctantly and that steps were taken after the war to roll that clock back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no wish to radically alter the cherished beliefs of anyone entering the debate. I offered a perspective.

Since you ask, however :whistle:

Parliament was set up by people who believed that aristocratic birth entitled one to rule. Churchill's father and older political relatives would have laughed in your face if you had suggested that working men would be as capable of running a government as the Duke of Blankshire. That view was held by the vast majority of the population, not just the aristocracy. If Churchill and his fellow members of the upper class finally gave way to pressure from the middle and lower classes, it was step by reluctant step. We here on the forum are well aware of one aspect of this idea. We know where officers were recruited from, we know that promotion from the ranks was instituted reluctantly and that steps were taken after the war to roll that clock back.

Precisely, Tom - you make the same point as me, that political progress in this country (and movement in Churchill's personal thinking) was brought about by evolution not revolution. Which is why I couldn't understand you singling-out Churchill for holding ruling-class views when younger, he was simply a man of his time back then (and grew into being a man of later times). He is a prime example of "learning-curves" in action isn't he – is that why you singled him out?

As for officer selection, I agree that it was a backward step post WW1, and if Churchill played an intrinsic part in it then he was wrong - but I've never claimed that Churchill wasn't flawed, just human. That said, the rights and wrongs of officer selection are for another thread I think.

Cheers-salesie.

PS. A further point, it's just occurred to me that if the vast majority of the population held the same views (not just the aristocracy), and were happy at the time to be ruled by those of so-called high-birth (an alien and ludicrous notion to us today), then, in essence, that was democratic per se i.e. rule by popular consent, wasn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wasn't Winston's father a proponent of Tory Democracy, and an advocate of embracing social reform, keen to espouse the notion that Conservative policy could be as enlightened - or more so - than that of the Liberals ?

Here's a striking allusion to WSC's character and how he is perceived....this is from L.A. Carlyon's Gallipoli , published about a decade ago :

He has a fine mind and is full of derring-do. He is also impetuous : detail is for clerks. He charms and blusters; he is conciliatory and confronting; he has a gift for rhetoric that so baffles his opponents that they think of what they should have said hours after he has won them around. He understands theatrics. He is on his way to becoming ( as an opponent once said of him) the greatest artist who ever entered British politics.

And, a couple of pages later, Winston's take on the Dardanelles is summarised :

France is mud wrestling; this is chess, Churchill's Gambit Rampant.

After re-visiting my old Robert Rhodes James history of the campaign, I am enjoying this rather emotional and eminently readable account by an Australian. After I have finished this, I will re-read Peter Hart's book.

When we watched that play, Three Days in May, the night before last, my old pal came with us. He remarked that he believed the Dardanelles venture was "eminently winnable". Coming from him, this was quite poignant, because his uncle, who had emmigrated to New Zealand in 1910, was killed at Gallipoli in May 1915.

Phil (PJA)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wasn't Winston's father a proponent of Tory Democracy, and an advocate of embracing social reform, keen to espouse the notion that Conservative policy could be as enlightened - or more so - than that of the Liberals ?

edit ...

Phil (PJA)

Lord Randolph's idea of democracy was to extend the franchise so that the workers could vote for him and his fellow peers. He would have totally rejected the idea that a worker such as Keir Hardie should be an MP. That is one of the reasons that salaries for MPs was resisted for so long.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Precisely, Tom - you make the same point as me ... edit ... – is that why you singled him out?

...

Cheers-salesie.

PS. A further point, it's just occurred to me that if the vast majority of the population held the same views (not just the aristocracy), and were happy at the time to be ruled by those of so-called high-birth (an alien and ludicrous notion to us today), then, in essence, that was democratic per se i.e. rule by popular consent, wasn't it?

I singled out Churchill because he is the topic of the thread. Although we are wandering a bit, working class at the time of the great war did not enjoy universal suffrage and the candidates available to them were mainly upper and middle class so I would say, No, it was not democratic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The overwhelming electoral defeat suffered by Churchill in July 1945 - especially at the hands of that modest little man with plenty to be modest about - speaks volumes about the way he was perceived thirty years after Gallipoli.

"A blessing in disguise" his long suffering wife assured him..." The disguise is pretty bloody effective ! " he replied.

Hubris and Nemesis. That suits him.

Phil (PJA)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The overwhelming electoral defeat suffered by Churchill in July 1945 - especially at the hands of that modest little man with plenty to be modest about - speaks volumes about the way he was perceived thirty years after Gallipoli.

"A blessing in disguise" his long suffering wife assured him..." The disguise is pretty bloody effective ! " he replied.

Hubris and Nemesis. That suits him.

Phil (PJA)

Not sure I altogether agree: the election might also tell us a lot about how Atlee and the Labour Party were viewed, too. Maybe they were better trusted to get the necessary post-war reforms through. Your post also (I may be misunderstanding it, of course) seems to infer a connection between Gallipoli and 1945.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, there was no intention to link his electoral defeat in 1945 with Gallipoli : it's the boom and bust, cyclical nature of his political fortune, the Hubris and Nemesis allusion that I made. He didn't do things by halves, did he ?

Phil (PJA)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Putting aside questions of WSC's aristocratic predilections, I would like to get back to Dec. 1914. Still citing The World Crises (it's a long book) Part II Chapter II The Search for a Naval Offensive - WSC expounds at some length on the examination of a naval offensive in the Baltic. Specifically the capture of the island of Borkum, just west of Bremerhaven, which would remove the value of the Kiel Canal and create a situation where Russia could exert some force on Northern Germany. He initially asserts that Fisher is on board but then claims to realize that the FSL was not giving the prep adequate impetous and further that the effort would require at least four or five brigades of highly seasoned soldiers and that the resources simply weren't available.

Then the Gallipoli plan seems to pop up as the consolation prize.

So the question is if there were sufficiently 'cool heads' available to dissuade spending a lot of effort on a Baltic action where were they when it was time to dissuade from the Gallipoli action? WSC himself notes that the success in Turkey could only be second rate compared to what a successful Baltic operation would bring. (This I believe Tom has pointed out earlier.) Doesn't this really point to a failure of command structure? Shouldn't the Sec. of War or Asquith have had the necessary clarity to put a stop to this civilian and his rushed planning, even if this civilian was as persuasive a politician as we've yet seen?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn't this really point to a failure of command structure?

Yes, that sounds plausible, doesn't it ?

Today we call it "systemic" failure.

I reckon that they were just out of their depth.

And I think it behoves us to sympathise rather than condemn.

In a situation of turmoil, assertive chancers are bound to come to the fore.

I also get the impression that Winston was smarting after one or two spectacular naval disasters that had occurred on his watch.

Do you think that he was anxious to redeem his reputaton, and saw the Dardanelles as a quick fix ?

Phil (PJA)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Churchill, however, had befriended him when Fisher was First Sea Lord and Churchill a mere under-secretary at the Colonial Office a few years before the outbreak of war. Apparently, Churchill looked on their friendship as a kind of father/son relationship (not unlike GAC & PJA) .

Cheers-salesie.

Oh, if only that were so, salesie !

Fisher lamented that he was too easily seduced by Winston's arguments, that he was turned at every juncture, even if he realised later that he had been right all along.

I would be so flattered if my arguments had likewise persauded George.

But, alas, he would dismiss any attempt by me to vindicate Winston's Dardanelles strategy as a turd polishing excercise.

:lol:

Phil (PJA)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is priceless.

From today's Financial Times, in an article on the relationship between Svetlana Stalina and her monstrous father, Simon Sebag- Montefiore offers us this anecdote about WSC :

When grandson Nicholas Soames asked " Grandpa, are you the greatest man in the world ?" " Yes," said Churchill, " Now ****** off."

Phil (PJA)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Putting aside questions of WSC's aristocratic predilections, I would like to get back to Dec. 1914. Still citing The World Crises (it's a long book) Part II Chapter II The Search for a Naval Offensive - WSC expounds at some length on the examination of a naval offensive in the Baltic. Specifically the capture of the island of Borkum, just west of Bremerhaven, which would remove the value of the Kiel Canal and create a situation where Russia could exert some force on Northern Germany. He initially asserts that Fisher is on board but then claims to realize that the FSL was not giving the prep adequate impetous and further that the effort would require at least four or five brigades of highly seasoned soldiers and that the resources simply weren't available.

Then the Gallipoli plan seems to pop up as the consolation prize.

So the question is if there were sufficiently 'cool heads' available to dissuade spending a lot of effort on a Baltic action where were they when it was time to dissuade from the Gallipoli action? WSC himself notes that the success in Turkey could only be second rate compared to what a successful Baltic operation would bring. (This I believe Tom has pointed out earlier.) Doesn't this really point to a failure of command structure? Shouldn't the Sec. of War or Asquith have had the necessary clarity to put a stop to this civilian and his rushed planning, even if this civilian was as persuasive a politician as we've yet seen?

Ken, to describe Churchill as a civilian is ingenuous in the extreme. He was first lord of the admiralty. He was the senior politician on the Board of the Admiralty. He was the link between the Navy and the government. In Britain, there was a democratic government with the politicians in charge at all times. The Liberal government was ill prepared for fighting a war and this is reflected in the fact that the Prime Minister was doubling as Secretary of War. That post was hastily handed to Kitchener. It was unfortunate in the extreme that Asquith's style of government was very much ' wait and see '. Not a style which lends itself to pro-active leadership at the best of times. The result was that KoK and WSC were given very free rein. The post of Secretary of War demanded a politician of the very highest calibre but was handed to a soldier whose experience was gained almost entirely in Imperial adventuring and whose shining reputation had been gained in the South African war. Kitchener was a very bad choice and indicates how keen Asquith was to get rid of a hot potato. We should bear in mind that there was no political preparation for fighting a continental war. The biggest cloud on the horizon a week before war was declared was the prospect of an armed uprising in Ireland. Another perspective on Churchill might be gained from his massive over reaction to rumours of trouble in Ireland when he brought back capital ships to rendezvous off the Irish coast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Carlyon's book is most avowedly Australian in its perspective.

Churchill gets short shrift in so far as his attitude to Australia and New Zealand is concerned.....the author states that Churchill abandoned Australia to Japanese peril in 1942 after the Fall of Singapore, and he emphasises that he didn't care much about Australians and New Zealanders in 1915, either. And there is certainly a belief among badly informed Aussies to this day that the British abandoned Australians to fight and die at Gallipoli alone - a view which, I hasten to add, Carlyon does NOT subscribe to.

There is compelling summary of Churchill's impact on history in this book. Let me cite a couple of passages :

The one thing that is clear is that, whether it was a good idea or not, Churchill imposed the Dardanelles adventure on a government that had no notion of how to carry the idea through. And the one thing that has never been explained is this : how, precisely, was the appearance of British battleships off Constantinople going to shorten the war in France and Belgium ?

World War II was made for Churchill and he for it. He was not only rehabilitated but seen as one of the political giants of the century; his part in the Dardanelles campaign became a footnote to a fabulous life.

Phil (PJA)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...