April 25, 2015

Finest Hour 119, Summer 2003

Page 45

Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, Sixth Series, Volume XI. “Churchill in the Twenty-First Century: A Conference held at the Institute of Historical Research, University of London, 11-13 January 2001.” Cambridge University Press, 450 pages, $40, member price $30.

Note: Transactions is the annual collection of historical writings published by the RHS. It contains essays on subjects ranging from 15th century British politics to 20th century blues and folk music. This review considers only the Churchill material in the second half of the volume.

2024 International Churchill Conference

Join us for the 41st International Churchill Conference. London | October 2024

More

1. Spectrum or Opinion

By Christopher H. Sterling

To have been the proverbial fly on the wall at this conference! For while this book presents edited versions of eleven papers in an insightful anthology, the discussions and related conversations must have been fascinating.

After all, here was a remarkable spectrum of opinion—Paul Addison, John Charmley, Chris Wrigley, David Cannadine, not to mention Tony Benn and Lady Soames—all gathered in the same place to assess Churchill a half century after the end of his active government years. The conference celebrated the centennial of the beginning of Churchill’s six decades in Parliament.

Addison opens with a review of “The Three Careers of Winston Churchill,” suggesting that they can be divided into the period up to 1915 and his fall from power, the years to 1940 including the Wilderness decade, and the premierships of 1940-45 and 195155). Addison argues that “Churchill’s character and opinions, his repertoire of political roles, and his view of the world, were largely settled by 1915.”

Roland Quinault provides a rhetorical study of “Churchill and Democracy,” drawing from speeches and writings. We learn that while Churchill greatly admired and practiced democracy, he also expressed reservations. Quinault also concludes that Churchill’s attitudes were those of an “essentially late-Victorian” member of the political elite.

David Reynolds dissects “Churchill’s Writing of History: Appeasement, Autobiography and The Gathering Storm” to demonstrate the sometimes subtle ways that WSC selectively told his story of pre-war appeasement politics. The Gathering Storm became far more detailed than originally planned as more information became available. That even more has become available since helps us better understand the book for what it is—a riveting but still very personal account. Reynolds consulted early drafts in the Churchill archives and discovers several instances where Churchill had written “counter-factual” history—a rather arch way to describe at least bias and sometimes clear misrepresentation of the now known historical facts.

“Churchill and the British Monarchy” by David Cannadine explores WSC’s reverence for the throne, but varied degrees of disagreement with several of its occupants. Churchill had some decidedly difficult times with Edward VII and George V, then stuck with the ill-starred Edward VIII far too long, leading to a difficult start in relations with George VI in early 1940. But wartime exigencies brought out the best in both of them, as did the 1952 transition to the youthful Elizabeth II.

Chris Wrigley’s “Churchill and the Trade Unions” traces a more difficult relationship, including many positive Churchill comments on the role and value of unions in British society. Peter Hennessy assesses “Churchill and the Premiership,” focusing particularly on Churchill’s second government (195155) and the reprise of some who had served during the war.

In “Churchill and the Conservative Party,” Stuart Ball reviews that sometimes tortured relationship, concluding that WSC was “a more capable party politician and effective Conservative leader than has previously been acknowledged.”

The next three papers are revisionist, focusing on foreign policy and the U.S. relationship. David Carl ton’s “Churchill and the Two ‘Evil Empires'” disagrees with several respected historians (including some in this anthology) to suggest Churchill was not always in favor of fighting Hitler but always hostile to the Soviets. Ted Hutchinson in his following review elaborates on the pitfalls to this approach.

Those familiar with John Charmley’s books will not be surprised that his “Churchill and the American Alliance” argues that Britain lost far more than she gained from the partnership. But Charmley pays Churchill tribute for giving history “some regard and great respect—which is more than some of our modern politicians do.” Finally, John Young discusses “Churchill and East-West Detente” by studying WSC’s fruitless postwar quest for a summit conference with the Soviet leadership.

This engaging collection wraps up with a panel discussion by four people who actually knew Churchill (a fastdwindling breed): Tony Benn, Lords Carrington and Deedes and Lady Soames. Far less formal than the preceding papers (no notes!), this section of the book provides four sets of varied memories. All are fascinating and one hopes it won’t be lost in this series, where it makes up the “back half” of the volume.

While any of us can cite authors who might usefully have been included (John Ramsden or Martin Gilbert, to name two), what is here is very much worth reading and pondering. Collectively, the authors suggest many new angles on Churchill’s historical role.

2. Not WitWt Its Weak Links

By Ted Hutchinson

Other than a broad requirement to consider “major aspects of Winston Churchill’s career and reassess his contributions to modern history from the perspective of the twenty-first century,” there seems little that bound the writers of these essays, and upon first glance there appears no unifying theme. A careful reading, however, suggests that many of the better essays stress that Churchill is a complicated, multi-faceted individual who consistently resists simplistic analyses and observations.

The essays that celebrate and investigate that complexity, instead of resist it, are illuminating and well worth the reader’s time. David Cannadine, for instance, analyzes Churchill’s complicated relationship with the monarchy. (See Chris Sterling’s foregoing review.) Similarly fine essays are contributed by Chris Wrigley on Churchill’s relationship with trade unions Stuart Ball on Churchill and the Conservative Party. Wrigley argues that Churchill had a surprisingly cooperative relationship with Labour that defies easy explanation, while Ball challenges the conventional wisdom that Churchill was not a good party man. These essays provoke in the best sense, forcing readers to reconsider commonly accepted opinions.

Other essays also deserve positive mention. Paul Addison delivers a straightforward historiographic essay with a number of elegant turns. Roland Quinault writes on Democracy and reminds the reader that Churchill actually supported women’s suffrage as early as 1904 before changing his mind, and then changing it again. David Reynolds writes a challenging and engrossing piece on The Gathering Storm. It’s an interesting point that few world leaders have had the opportunity to write their memoirs and then assume power for a second time. We can only imagine how his War Memoirs would have been different had Churchill retired following the elections of 1945.

The collection is not, however, without its weak links. Peter Hennessy’s article on Churchill and the Premiership is a mixed bag, and at one point even seems to suggest that Churchill’s quest for an East-West summit in the early 1950s was motivated primarily by a desire for the Nobel Peace Prize. (305) John Charmley repeats his usual accusations that most students of Churchill can by now recite by heart. Charmley still believes that Churchill sold out the independence of Britain to the United States during the Second World War, and then covered all this up in his memoirs. Whether Britain’s decline was caused by the American alliance or already preordained, what goes unsaid is that the alternative to Churchill’s course was subservience to the Nazis. Neither Churchill nor the vast majority of his countrymen could find that acceptable.

It says volumes about the quality of David Carlton’s essay on Churchill and the Russians that Charmley’s contribution is not the least convincing in this volume. Carlton insists that Churchill had a consistent and straightforward (read simplistic) policy of hostility towards the Soviet Union his entire adult life! This allows Carlton to offer an indirect challenge to John Lukacs in arguing that, contrary to established thought (and Charmley), Churchill seriously considered making peace with the Nazis in May of 1940, and came within a hairsbreadth of doing so. (In fact Churchill did consider it—but only for the historical equivalent of a millisecond, and his consideration was owed to many factors other than WSC’s blind hatred of the Soviets.)

More problematic still are the later portions of Carlton’s essay, where he describes an older Churchill, once again Prime Minister, as frothing to begin a nuclear war with the Soviet Union. This portion of the essay serves as a perfect model of how not to do historical reporting, as it ignores wellknown evidence while greatly privileging only those documents that support the writer’s argument.

For example, on pages 345-48, Carlton greatly exaggerates a conversation Churchill had with his doctor while lying in bed. At the same time he nearly or completely ignores comments and speeches Churchill made on the same subject in political settings, including the floor of the House of Commons. It should not be necessary to suggest that some evidence is simply more significant than other evidence, and that offhand comments made by a sick man to a medical doctor do not outweigh major policy statements. It is judgments like these that color the whole of Carlton’s essay and suggest that he is far more concerned with his own personal biases than the accuracy of his evidence.

That being said, these essays are a worthwhile read for the serious scholar. They demonstrate that the academic world not only still takes the study of Churchill seriously, but that sometimes they even get him right.