Hands off Churchill!

The modern malaise of destroying reputations

My new book Grand Narrative is being released chapter by chapter for paid subscribers.

CONTENTS:

PROLOGUE: The Oxford Union has betrayed British Values

The Oxford Union has betrayed British Values

INTRODUCTION: Who’s afraid of grand narrative?

Who's afraid of Grand Narrative?

BOOK 1: LANGUAGE: ON LIES & CIVILIZATIONAL DEMISE

1.1: Living a Lie

Living a Lie [Grand Narrative, Chapter 1.1]

1.2: Corruption of the Masses

Corruption of the masses

1.3: The Dangerous Confusion of Language

The dangerous confusion of language

1.4: The Great Genocide Lie

The Great Genocide Lie [Chapter 1.4]

1.5: Hands off Churchill!

1.6: In Praise of the British Empire for Abolishing Slavery Worldwide

1.7: Declaring War on Post-Modernism

1.8: The Problem with Atheism

1.9: Justice Lost: From Plato to Hamas

1.10: Word Inflation

1.11: Thou Shalt Not Lie: On the Destruction of Worlds

1.12: Freedom of speech?

1.13: Democracy cannot survive in a World that accepts Truth as Lie

BOOK 2: TRUTH: ON THE BIRTH OF HUMAN AGENCY

BOOK 3: SOVEREIGNTY: ON THE DEMOCRATIC NATION

BOOK 4: NARRATIVE: ON THE FULFILMENT OF MEANING

BOOK 5: FREEDOM: ON WRITING THE NEXT CHAPTER

BOOK 6: COVENANT: ON CREATING A NATION OF NARRATIVE

BOOK 7: NATIONHOOD: ON EXPANDING THE NARRATIVE

BOOK 8: LEADERSHIP: ON REACHING THE PROMISED LAND

BOOK 9: PEACE: THE END OF THE JOURNEY

---

[Image: Image of protesters simultaneously guarding Churchill’s statue and calling for the release of the hostages. Retrieved from Toby Young (November 2023): “My futile morning guarding Churchill’s statue | The Spectator”]

Chapter 1.6: Hand off Churchill!

The modern malaise of destroying reputations

Introduction: Reputations matter. History matters.

“17. Rabbi Shimon used to say: There are three crowns–the crown of the Torah, the crown of the priesthood, and the crown of kingship, but the crown of a good name surpasses them all.” (Pirkei Avot, 4:17)¹

The modern penchant for lying has effects far beyond the present day. Its tentacles stretch far back into the mists of time, destroying the reputations of those long dead and unable to defend their good name. As the great Rabbi said, “the crown of a good name” surpasses all; to destroy a reputation, so that their deeds may no longer be counted for good, is a grievous act of wrongdoing. If that be so for mere mortals, then it applies tenfold for Winston Churchill, the hero of World War II and the saviour of the free world. For this human giant, the crown jewel of the British national story, has had his name dragged through the mud of late² and it is my duty to restore the Crown to his noble head.

Despite his monumental role in modern history, his reputation has faced attacks from Indian nationalists, the far-left and the far-right. In the latter camp, we find the “historian” Darryl Cooper³; appearing on the Tucker Carlson show, he ridiculously claimed that Churchill was the “Chief villain of the Second World War”, a claim barely needing rebuttal. From the left flank and within India, we find those who would cast the great man as a genocidaire and unrepentant imperialist; that he led the fight against Hitler be damned! These are the villains who would cheer at the appalling desecration of his Parliament Square statue⁴. These are the liars who would see his heroism airbrushed from history. Today we put the record straight. For this abuse of language - this rewriting of past truths - can no longer be tolerated.

Father of the Welfare State

It is no exaggeration to say that if it weren’t for Winston Churchill, I wouldn’t be writing this chapter. He saved Britain, the world and my life⁵. And in addition to his incredible exploits during the Second World War and his decades of public service, he found the time to win the Nobel Prize for Literature⁶ and become an accomplished artist⁷. Unlike other politicians of his day - and ours - who send young men to battle with little consequence for their own lives, Churchill actually saw combat on the front⁸ and escaped a Boer Prisoner of War camp in South Africa⁹.

But Winston’s political career should not be evaluated merely in the light of his War exploits. Even if his career had ended in 1914, he would still, in the words of Vernon Bogdanor, have “bequeathed a very considerable political memorial”¹⁰. As one of the founders of the British welfare state, he would have been immortalised alongside Aneurin Bevan as one of the giants that lifted up the poor from their squalor. Despite his aristocratic background, poverty was always a great concern for Churchill and it was the reactionary nature of the early 20th Century Conservative Party that led him to defect to the Liberals. He considered that the Party of his father had gone astray from the principles of Disraeli, namely that their success came from implementing social reform¹¹. In Glasgow, in 1906, he put forth a set of forward-looking, compassionate principles that guide many of our leaders today:

“I do not want to impair the vigour of competition, but we can do much to mitigate the consequences of failure. We want to draw a line below which we will not allow persons to live and labour, yet above which they may compete with all the strength of their manhood.”

In a similar vein he proclaimed:

“I see little glory in an Empire which can rule the waves and is unable to flush the sewers.”¹²

Rhetoric was one of Churchill’s most celebrated qualities, but it is his delivery of change that elevates him to greatness. His achievements as the President of the Board of Trade are oft forgotten; but their consequences stretch far beyond his own era and into the domain of our contemporary lives. Entering Asquith’s cabinet at the tender age of 33, he brought about social reform with characteristic vigour. He pioneered the world’s first unemployment insurance scheme, and did so being careful not to attach any stigma to the claiming of benefits. Rejecting the idea that evidence of good character should be obtained for the receipt of monies, he stated: “Our concern is with the evil, not with the causes, with the fact of unemployment, and not with the character of the unemployed.” Other achievements introduced to fight poverty included the establishment of labour exchanges and the introduction of a minimum wage in “sweated trades”. His crucial involvement in enacting these radical reforms is often obscured by Lloyd-George’s struggles over the People’s Budget, but to be clear: Churchill was the energy that uplifted the wretchedness of so many.

Father of European Unity

After the war, Churchill was one of the pioneers of a United Europe. His speech at Zurich (1946) has entered into legend; there he stated:

“My counsel to Europe can be given in a single word: unite. We must build a kind of United States of Europe.”

He first used the phrase “The United States of Europe” in an article in 1930 and after the Battle of El Alamein, his stated rather presciently to his foreign Secretary Anthony Eden:

“Hard as it is to say now, I look forward to a United States of Europe in which the barriers between the nations will be greatly minimised and unrestricted travel will be possible.”

It is debated whether he saw Britain as part of this alliance - “we are with Europe, but not of it”¹³ - but that he was passionate about the peaceful necessity of Franco-German political unity is clear. He is rightly seen at the bringer of peace to Europe, not only in terms of his Second World War heroics, but in his capacity as a spiritual father of the European Community.

Father of Consensus Politics and Seeking the Common Good (On the 1951-1955 government)

His government of 1951 to 1955 can pail into unmemory when regarded next to the defeat of Adolf Hitler; but that - again - would be an error. Bogdanor considers that his 1950s peacetime government could be regarded as one of the most successful in post-war British history¹⁴. It was this government that magnificently underpromised and overdelivered. For the 1951-1955 administration achieved the end of rationing, very healthy economic growth, increased productivity and vastly improved living standards. But above all it offered peace and quiet. After years of war, turmoil and unprecedented social change, Churchill offered the blessed elixir of tranquility. Though many feared that he would roll back the changes of the 1945 Labour government, he rather did that which seems anathema to modern politicians and maintained continuity with the policies of those across the aisle.

In his own words¹⁵:

“We meet together here with an apparent gulf between us, as great as I have known in 50 years of House of Commons life. What the nation needs is several years of quiet, steady administration, if only to allow socialist legislation to reach its full fruition.”

In the same vein, he called for a¹⁶:

“good, long, steady period in which the opposing parties may be able to see some of each other’s virtues instead of harping on each other's faults.”

Such respect for his opponents and such commitment to consensus paid handsome dividends and the Conservatives were rewarded with an increase of both seats and votes at the subsequent election¹⁷. His belief that policies need more that a short Parliamentary term to be tested - and that they shouldn’t be jettisoned by a new government just in the name of change - is one that I share. It was this attitude that made Churchill a unifying figure and a Prime Minister of consensus. It was this attitude that gained him the continuing respect of his political opponents. And it is a value that, in my view, we should apply in all walks of life.

Just one personal example. The current educational climate, which demands of British teachers that they change their practice radically every academic year; that there need be constant improvement in a circle until you arrive back in the original position; is causing burn out in the teaching profession¹⁸. Perhaps our current governments should listen to Churchill’s advice: “What (we) need is several years of quiet, steady administration.”

It was Churchill’s ability to voice the sentiments of his nation that made him such a successful Prime Minister; both in war and at peace. We can all recite by heart “We’ll fight them on the beaches”. We all cry in joy at “We will never surrender”. Indeed, Clement Attlee, the post-war Labour Prime Minister, said that it was Churchill’s ability to “talk about” the war that was instrumental in victory¹⁹. But even in peacetime, he had the quality of echoing back to the people what they were thinking; and in 1951 it was “we’re exhausted”. Those, citing his advanced age²⁰, who criticise Churchill for remaining in power in 1951 forget that he saw the role as less administrative and more as a pedestal from which to express what the people were thinking. In both his administrations, he fulfilled this role remarkably. It is perhaps the exemple par excellence of how the Office of Prime Minister should be approached.

The Modern Prophet

The prophetic powers of Churchill were legendary. Of the 1930s Gathering Storm, we are all well-versed. It was Churchill that warned of the dangers of Hitler’s rise and that alone has granted the man from Blenheim²¹ a place in history. But he saw the dangers many times, often to the dismay and ridicule of others. He called for intervention in 1920s Bolshevik Russia to topple the regime, an action that may, in retrospect, have averted the Cold War and halted the Nuclear Arms Race that still threatens us all. The failure of the British government to act decisively can be understood so soon after the bloodbath of the First World War; as was the general attitude - still prevalent today - that we shouldn’t intervene in the internal affairs of other nations. But I am forced the following: would the world have been better off if we had heeded his advice?

Years later, Churchill spoke of the “Iron Curtain” descending over Europe²². The exhausted, fighting masses of World War II didn’t want to hear about it. The US Congress and the Western peoples could only think of peace. But he was right of course. And the consequences of Russian aggression in Eastern Europe are still with us today.

We should also speak of his warnings about India. It is often said that Churchill was kept out of the 1930s Cabinet because of his German foreboding. In fact, that isn’t so. It was his opposition to Indian Constitutional Change, supported by the Conservatives and their opponents alike, that caused Churchill to exclude himself²³. It was his sincere belief that home rule would lead to bloodshed between the different Indian communities, especially between those of Muslim and Hindu confessions, and that without British security to prevent the inevitable massacres, India would disintegrate and hundreds of thousands would die. In Zareer Masani’s words:

“While the Indian National Congress, led by Gandhi, was demanding independence and claimed to speak for all India, its claims were hotly contested by India’s 100 million Muslims, 50 million Untouchables and 546 autonomous princes. While the British government would have liked a united India to evolve to self-governing dominion status, like Canada and Australia, the key hurdle was how to guarantee the rights of Indian minorities against majoritarian Hindu domination.”²⁴

So was Churchill really wrong? Or was this yet another example of his famed prophetic abilities in geopolitical affairs? After the horrors of Partition, we should applaud Churchill for his humanitarianism²⁵. Indian independence was an inevitability by this point, but up to 2 million dead later, the deadly events of 1947 should give us pause.

Churchill was wrong, of course, to compare Gandhi with Hitler; just as Gandhi was wrong to speak false in his assessment of Hitler; but this just underlines my general thesis that language matters. Having spoken in negatively superlative tones of the Indian nationalist leader, no-one was willing to believe him when he later cried wolf. He was left languishing on the backbenches, his pleas ignored as the Fuhrer signed Munich.

Hoping for Peace

But Churchill was no warmonger. Although the Labour Party sought to fan the flames of fear in the 1951 election campaign - “Whose finger on the trigger?” - the main foreign policy priority of his second government was peace with the Soviet Union. Following the death of Stalin in 1953, he sought a summit with the great power, both to deal with the catastrophic dangers of nuclear weapons development and to re-negotiate the post-war settlement in East Europe. Indeed, it was Churchill who first coined the term “Summit” in an election speech in 1950. He sought to balance an understandable Russian desire for security with Eastern European demands for democratic freedom.

In a move that may still serve us well in the current Russia-Ukraine confrontation, he offered the following “Finland” compromise: that East European states be militarily neutral, but governmentally democratic. And since-opened Soviet archives have shown that the Politburo were open to the idea. To quote Bogdanor:

“Soviet leaders were prepared to consider withdrawing Soviet troops from East Germany if a united Germany would remain neutral, and that might have begun a process of disengagement in Central Europe, a limited détente”.

Again Churchill was right. Again Churchill showed an uncanny ability to read the European, geopolitical weather. But again he was opposed. Opposed by the Americans and opposed by his own Cabinet. In that small window of opportunity after Stalin's death, we ignored Churchill once more, condemning Hungary, Czechoslovakia and their compatriot nations to slavery.

Churchill’s aim in life was peace. Blessed peace. His belief in the British Empire was predicated not on domination, but on the belief that it brought peace, free trade and stability to the world; and its disintegration in his latter years led him to view his life as a failure²⁶. He didn’t want Britain to rule the world; just to ensure that the peace of Australia, Canada and the other self-governing dominions could be enjoyed by all. He remained in power in 1951, not to outstay his welcome, but to prevent greater evils ahead:

“If I remain in public life at this juncture, it is because, rightly or wrongly, but sincerely, I believe I may be able to make an important contribution to the prevention of a Third World War and to bring in nearer the lasting peace settlement which the masses of the people of every race and in every land so fervently desire.”

Learning from his Mistakes

Now of course Churchill made errors. How could the leader of the world’s most eminent power do otherwise? Every mistake he made was amplified 100-fold. That is the fate of those with the courage to face the rigours and responsibilities of public life. Those who carp and criticise from the sidelines are those who have taken on no more responsibility in their lives than organising a wedding. And looking back from 100 years hence, how will history judge us? Poorer than Churchill I wouldn’t hesitate to predict. The difference between Churchill and us mere mortals - one of the many differences - is that he admitted to his errors and learnt from them. In the great man’s own words,

“All men make mistakes, but only wise men learn from their mistakes”.

Similarly:

“Success is not final; failure is not fatal; it is the courage to continue that counts”.

Churchill was a man of repentance. Every mistake he made was recognised, mourned and learned from. In the aftermath of the Dardanelles disaster²⁷, and Churchill’s subsequent removal from the British cabinet, he took the extraordinary and humble step of rejoining the army and going to fight in the trenches. Could you imagine Tony Blair fighting in Iraq? Or George W Bush? At the front, he showed himself to be a remarkably courageous, astonishingly brave soldier and an English commander that commanded respect from his Scottish men. I quote from www.riflemantours.co.uk²⁸:

“Churchill was given ten days to get the battalion ready for front line service. And after much square bashing and hard work he began to get results. In exchange for hard work and loyalty, Churchill secured the best equipment and food available for his men. The battalion was one of the first to receive steel helmets. The Scots began at first to admire, then even adore, their new CO. His officers thought he was lax when it came to discipline as any man on a charge who went up in front of Churchill only had to mention that he fought at Loos was let off immediately with nothing more than a reprimand…..Soon the battalion was moved into the front line at Plugstreet in the southern section of the Ypres Salient….. Churchill set up his headquarters at Lawrence Farm. The incessant shelling did not stop him from playing his gramophone records or getting his painting kit out and painting the surrounding landscapes. This man’s quiet confidence and assuredness seemed to calm the men. Churchill was also a frequent visitor to the frontline trenches and would visit sentries sometimes three times a day and often in the middle of the night. Showing no fear he was led out into no-man’s land on almost 40 patrols although these excursions were not popular with the men chosen to accompany him.”

The Dardanelles showed the worst and best of Churchill. Although seen as an error in retrospect, at the time it was viewed as an imaginative way to break the deadlock on the Western Front, a calamity that was costing the lives of hundreds of thousands of men. His future Labour opponent Clement Attlee was wounded fighting in the expedition, yet he regarded the campaign as an imaginative way to advance the British war aims. It showed Churchill as a man of energy, ideas and impatience for success. In the event, Churchill was a fall guy for the failure which in its conception was signed off by the military top brass, the Cabinet and the Prime Minister, many of whom were senior to him in position. Yet while they all shirked their responsibility, he at least admitted his fault and and as we have seen, he took extraordinary measures of contrition on the field of battle.²⁹

Yet the Dardanelles taught Churchill a lesson that he would never forget: trust the experts. Even though they had initially supported the decision, the Admirals soon changed their minds. But Churchill didn’t listen and the disastrous expedition still went ahead. In World War II, Churchill was never to repeat the same mistake. Although he stood up to those that opposed him - demanding justifications and questioning tactics until the small hours of the morning - he ultimately bowed to expert advice if they were unanimous in their view³⁰. As a good leader always should, he questioned the advice given, but knew when to relent in the face of the evidence. This is a lesson that our current politicians would do well to heed. It was the secret of Churchill’s success.

In the Dardanelles episode, Churchill showed humility in the face of error and this was the mark of his long and distinguished career. The idea that great men do not make mistakes is to show ignorance of the human condition. All men make errors and it is how they respond to them that counts. If Socrates or Cyrus the Great or St Augustine had been alive in the 20th Century, I am sure that their biographies would not stand up to perfect scrutiny. Indeed, in the case of the famous Saint of Hippo, it is his errors that are at the heart of his theology. His major work is called “Confessions” for a reason. And in the case of Gandhi, with whom Churchill didn’t see eye-to-eye, equally strong criticisms could be made of his (alleged) attitudes to other races. Yet although the Mahatma is not beyond criticism - being a human and all that - he is rightly seen as one of history’s greats. The cowardly criticism of those who have achieved nothing in history towards those that have achieved everything smells distinctly of sour grapes. “Whichever one of you has committed no sin may throw the first stone”. Or whichever of you perfect people that has saved the world from fascist disaster has the right to destroy Churchill’s reputation.

Do I need to mention World War II?

So far, I have barely mentioned Churchill’s exploits in World War II. Perhaps that isn’t needed. Perhaps the fact that one can fill a long essay about the Wartime Prime Minister without even reference to his greatest achievement shows his greatness. Yet still the wolves come to hunt his good name. From the far-right we see the likes of Mr Cooper, those who would claim that Churchill really wasn’t a great leader in World War II and that we are all suffering from a mass delusion. This is too ridiculous for words and smacks of Nazi apologetics among the far-right. Frankly, I feel that these allegations are unworthy of response. But for those that need a point-by-point rebuttal, I invite you to read Andrew Roberts’ biography Churchill: Walking with Destiny³¹. Or if you are too busy reading Grand Narrative, you could watch Roberts’ Spectator TV interview referenced in the notes³². I also invite you to stop using Elon Musk’s X or listening to Tucker “Vladamir” Carlson’s internet output.

India and Bengal: Debunking the Lies

The other claim used to stain Churchill’s reputation, this time from the far-left and Indian nationalists, is the libel that he starved Bengal. The aspersion that he committed genocide³³. This may be the greatest lie of great lies and a demonstration of the desperate attempts that the envious will go to change history. I for one say this far and no further. So allow me to counter these allegations and rescue our national narrative from the grip of confusion.

Churchill always sought the highest standards of military conduct, not least in its dealing with Indian subjects. Following the Amritsar Massacre in 1919, immortalised in the film Gandhi, where General Dyer ordered his soldiers to open fire on unarmed protesters leaving 267 dead, it was Churchill, as the Secretary of War, that led the House of Commons condemnation. He described Dyer’s actions as “monstrous” and “unBritish” and had him removed from the British forces.

---

[To continue reading this article you will need to become a paid subscriber. It is simply asking the reader to go up to the counter and pay for the book.]

---