Recently, a sceptical correspondent sent an article by the above gentleman. It is of the opinion that Churchill was one of the most mendacious and self-seeking people who ever lived. The article is, this website submits, a very poor piece of work that qualifies not as history, but as a controversy-seeking tirade. However, as it propagates some old myths and complaints about Churchill (see Christopher Hitchens' Atlantic piece for more), it has been included on the website, as these pieces should not go without rebuttal.

See below for the original piece, and then Churchill Online's dissection of it.....

Harry Elmer Barnes Article

Churchill Online Responds

Who is Harry Elmer Barnes?

Harry Elmer Barnes - Winston Churchill - A "Tribute"

The significance of Churchill's career for this and later generations was admirably summarized by the British journal, The European:

"In terms of personal success there has been no career more fortunate than that of Winston Churchill. In terms of human suffering to millions of people and destruction to the noble edifice of mankind there has been no career more disastrous. In that sad paradox lies the tragedy of our time."

Back to top

Churchill Online Responds

>> Winston Spencer Churchill: A Tribute

By Harry Elmer Barnes

His political career revealed no firm political principles or ideology.  He shifted in his party affiliations from the Conservatives to the Liberals and back to the Conservatives.  

 

I find it very difficult to understand on what basis HEB came to this conclusion. Why did Churchill leave the Conservatives? Because he had an ideological, principled commitment to Free Trade (and a lifelong one), which made him out of place in the Conservative party at the time. To switch political parties is usually political suicide, so to claim that he did so for anything other than principled reasons is somewhat non-sensical. You only have to glance through the evidence (letters, speeches, comments) to see that it was precisely Churchill's principles, and his unwillingness to sacrifice it for the sake of a smooth political passage, that made his move to the Liberals inevitable.

 

HEB's only point here seems to be based on the premise that to switch political parties displays a lack of principles or ideology. To me this is politically naive in the extreme. I do not think it wise to assume that sticking to a party means that you are sticking to your principles. It is a political truism, in fact rather a trite one, that politicians frequently sacrifice their principles for the sake of fitting in with their parties.

 

Turning to when Churchill left the Liberals to return to the Conservatives. Once again he found himself out of sorts with the party he was in (eg India), and because he was unable to remain in that party due to his principles, he had no option but to move. If HEB is claiming that Churchill's "lack of principles" was for political gain, what was Churchill supposed to have gained? The disfavour of two parties for leaving them instead of one?!!

 

In general, Churchill was a man who, it can almost be said, had a political death-wish in his commitment to principles (whatever you may think of the principles themselves). India, opposition to Nazism and the Abdication Crisis were all points of principle, and all ones that kept him out of office for ten years.  Hardly a man with no principles or ideology. If anything, he had too much of it.

 

He praised Mussolini and Hitler lavishly after their totalitarian programs had been fully established and their operations were well known.  

 

Two typically vague generalisations from HEB here. When were their operations "well known", and when were their programs "well established"? And what, for that matter, does HEB mean by the terms "totalitarian programs" and "operations"? And what "lavish praise" did Churchill bestow on them? HEB needs to give examples if he is to make this kind of accusation. This is not history at all, and very poor journalism. Throwing bland accusations at people is not very difficult, and not very impressive.

 

However, to deal with what I imagine are his points. Churchill did indeed make some complimentary comments about Mussolini, but these had ceased by about 1935. It was only about three years later that Mussolini really began to display all the vile tendencies of fascism that had more clearly characterised Hitler's regime much earlier. It is very easy to look back with hindsight, now that we know what fascism is all about, and criticise someone for something that was very much in the shadows at the time. No-one really knew quite how bad fascism was going to turn out. Many in Britain thought that Mussolini and Hitler were just typical European autocrats, not unlike the rulers those countries had endured before. Many were far more favourably inclined to fascism than Churchill, and remained so long after his highly qualified positive observations (which basically centred on the fact that they had restored order and banished Communism) had ceased. Perhaps Churchill's greatest political campaign was his early, sustained and vigorous opposition to fascism.

 

Re: Hitler, Churchill wrote an article in the late 1930s entitled "Hitler and his Choice" which was published in his book "Great Contemporaries". This is often used by his detractors (HEB included??...who knows, he doesn't say) as it contained phrases along the lines of "if Hitler draws back from the brink of war now, he will go down as one of the greatest statesmen Germany has ever produced". The rest of the article makes clear that this is only due to his pulling Germany out of the communist-filled gutter after WW1, and effectively is a challenge to Hitler. There is a massive "IF" in there, and Churchill, from other sources, quite clearly thought that it was one that would not be answered.

 

The eminent Anglo-American publicist, Francis Neilson, declared that Churchill's praise of Hitler was the most extreme tribute ever paid by a prominent Englishman to the head of a foreign state.  

 

Mr Neilson is entitled to his view. What "praise" is he referring to?

 

When his "great and good friend" of former days, Mussolini, was murdered by Communist partisans and his corpse hung up head down in Milan, Churchill rushed in to a dinner party with the news, exclaiming: "Ah, the bloody beast is dead!" In World War II he declared that it was his great life purpose to destroy Hitler and National Socialism. 

 

Doesn't this answer the point above? Surely this shows his true attitude to Mussolini? I am not sure if the "great and good friend" is a Churchill quote. If it is, it should be cited so its context can be checked.

In WW2 it was indeed his purpose to destroy Nazism. Is he being criticised for that? Not having expressed any admiration for the creed in the first place (go and read "Arms and the Covenant"/"While England Slept" in the USA), early 1930s speeches, if you don't believe me), there is nothing inconsistent about that.

Churchill's shifts on Communism were equally fantastic. He had been one of the most bitter critics of Communism and its leaders, denouncing it as "foul baboonery," but during World War II he extolled Stalin as generously as he previously had Mussolini and Hitler, only to shift again as early as 1946 and demand a Cold War on Communism. 

 

Churchill's attitude to communism was indeed hostile. He would have made no apology for that. However, he was a realist, and knew that in 1941 Nazi Germany was the enemy: the current, aggressive enemy, whom he needed to defeat NOW. He knew that Britain could not do this on her own, and so put aside his political feelings in the common interest. As he said in a speech to the House of Commons, when he was asked why, as a life-long opponent of Communism, he was supporting Stalin, he said "if Hitler invaded Hell, I would at least make a favourable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons". This shows his true feelings towards Communism and to Hitler. As part of the war effort and in support of an ally, he did indeed praise Stalin and it was right that he should do so. In war, you choose allies that support your interests. This does not mean that they are your friends. This attitude does not make Churchill inconsistent or perfidious. It makes him a realist.

HEB's use of "Cold War" is problematic. Firstly, he must be referring to the Fulton "Iron Curtain" speech of 1946, where Churchill told of the situation in Europe. This was not "demanding" a Cold War, it was just telling it how it was: there WERE Soviet troops camped across Eastern Europe, like it or not. Churchill spent most of his 1950s premiership seeking a summit with the Russians and the Americans (always rejected by one or the other), which is not exactly the hallmark of a man "demanding a Cold War". "Cold War" was, in any case, a later phrase to describe the tension: it was not something Churchill could have "demanded" at the time, for no such concept existed.

Again, I find the implied criticism difficult to reconcile with HEB's criticism of Churchill for not doing something about the Soviet position at the end of the Second World War elsewhere in this article. At one point he is criticising Churchill for being hostile to the Soviets, in another, criticising him for not being hostile enough. Which was it, HEB?

There is no convincing evidence whatever that Churchill ever proposed or supported any public measure with a primary interest in its probable effect on the welfare of Britain or humanity. He appeared to be exclusively concerned with its probable reaction on his own political career. In this he differed from Roosevelt.

 

Firstly, this comment seems to take no account of all the measures Churchill brought in whilst a Liberal minister before the First World War. For example: labour exchanges, half-day closing on Wednesdays, compulsory breaks for workers, insurance for workers. Some of these measures effectively made Churchill the founding father of Britain's Welfare State that came along fifty years later (also drawn up under his wartime government, incidentally).

 

Once again, HEB advances no evidence whatsoever for claiming that these measures (if they are the ones he was referring to?) were "exclusively concerned with its probable reaction on his own political career". This is cynicism of an extreme degree. If someone does something that is beneficial, is it not normal to assume that that beneficial effect was deliberate, unless you can demonstrate otherwise? Not so for HEB, who seems to be driven by a deep-seated hatred of his subject, and who will twist and stretch his material to fit his prejudices.

 

As for his comments about Roosevelt, he is once again, in my opinion, displaying his gross political naivety. Roosevelt was as concerned with the effect of his policies on his career as any politician. Of course his measures were meant for the welfare of the USA, but so were Churchill's for the UK. It is not very realistic to blindly condemn one whilst turning a blind eye to the other's human failings.  

 

It would hardly be an exaggeration to say that he was the most vain person in the whole history of prominent public figures, a trait enduring until his death and after, when he had planned years or months in advance even the details of a pompous and dramatic public funeral.

Why was Churchill "the most vain person in the whole history of prominent public figures"? Let's hear some examples!!

OK, he gives one, which is a poor one, and can be easily dispatched. Firstly, was it "years" or "months" when the funeral was planned? Which was it? What "details" did Churchill plan? Why doesn't HEB know? The reason he doesn't know is that he has no evidence for this claim. Churchill's funeral was a STATE funeral, it was planned by the state, not by Churchill, who could not have planned and ordered something involving the nation in such a way (i.e. blocking up central London, using a railway line, having a flight of RAF Lightnings fly by) because he did not have the authority. It was, and can only be, ordered by the state, which it was, as a tribute to the man who saved the nation. It is more or less a set formula, as last year's funeral of HM Queen Mother showed.

Some of the measures were, in any case, spontaneous (such as the cranes bowing as the funeral barge passed by) and were not planned by anyone except the those involved.

Churchill was completely lacking in integrity with respect to his public career. He had no hesitation in uttering the most flagrant misstatements when this appeared necessary to him to promote his political ambitions or cover up his past mistakes. He did not turn aside from deceiving the British people on matters of great public import if this was required for his political self-protection.

 

It is at this point that the article ceases to be merely foolish, but actually becomes what would be potentially libellous if Churchill were still alive. OK, he gives one example, which I shall deal with below, but this is a disgusting comment and one that totally removes HEB's right to be considered as a serious historian or journalist. He really cannot back this up at all.

 

Perhaps the best of many examples was his report to the House of Commons after his return from the disastrous Yalta Conference, where he had witnessed Stalin's duplicity and mendacious greed, having already observed this at Tehran and in the atrocious violation of Stalin's promises in regard to the Soviet treatment of Poland. Churchill assured the House: "The impression I brought back from the Crimea is that Marshall Stalin and the other Soviet leaders wish to live in honourable friendship and democracy with the Western democracies. I feel that no government stands more on its obligations than the Russian Soviet Government."

 

"Best of many egs".... it would be nice to hear some of them (just a list, without explanation, would do). However, as for the one he does give....

 

The fact that he met Stalin on a number of occasions does not necessarily mean that Stalin's duplicity was on clear display. The Western Allies were doing their best to deal fairly with an essential ally, and on that basis some assumption that Stalin too was dealing with an element of good faith is necessary. As it happens, Stalin was not, but that does not mean that Churchill knew that at the time. All the evidence suggests that he held out strong hope that Stalin would be reasonable. So much so did Churchill believe this, that he continued to press for a tripartite summit during his second premiership in the 1950s, believing that he could deal with Stalin, who would be reasonable. You can form your own judgement on whether Churchill was being realistic, but neither opinion suggests that Churchill was in any way misleading the British people. This does not make him deceptive.

 

Let's assume, for a second that Churchill did, against all the evidence, know that Stalin was planning to take Eastern Europe. What would HEB have him do? Start World War Three against the Russians to drive them out, using the already exhausted British nation, plus all and more that the USA could throw in, with all the millions of lives and destruction of property that that would mean? And let's remember, this view is from someone who did not think that the Nazis were worth fighting...

It is far more credible to believe that Churchill never did so well as he did in negotiating with Stalin in 1944-1945 over eastern Europe. Churchill had no cards at all - even on the western side of the Allies, Britain had by then become the junior partner in the coalition. Yet he hung on to Greece in spite of significant Communist opposition. Yes, he almost single-handedly saved Greece's freedom. He got as much as he possibly could have given Britain's military position. HEB and others like him should give some consideration to what Churchill had to work with at the time. Given the situation, he couldn't have done much better, and could certainly have done far worse.

It is well to remember that Churchill's great current reputation as a statesman rests entirely on events between April 1940 and July 1945. He was so thoroughly discredited as a politician by 1933 that both the Baldwin and Chamberlain governments considered that to have him in the Cabinet would be a detriment to Conservative prestige and prospects.

 

This is not true. Churchill is remembered for the great work he did in helping to draw up the Boer constitution, in bringing about the Irish settlement in the 1920s, in supporting the early years of the RAF, in the social reforms brought in before WW1, in his work in getting the Navy ready before WW1, in his constant warnings of Nazi aggressive intentions (totally against his own interests) during the 1930s, in his efficient demobilisation of the Army after WW1, in his encouragement of European unity and friendship after WW2, just to name a few of the most obvious.

 

The reason Churchill was excluded from Conservative cabinets was because he proposed unpopular policies, because he spoke unpalatable truths, such as the necessary rearmament if the country was to have a hope of surviving the inevitable Nazi assault. Baldwin said in a speech that he could not rearm because it would have meant that he would lose the election, and this tells you more about Churchill's exclusion.

 

When public issues returned again to domestic affairs in 1945, Churchill was resoundingly defeated in the General Election of that summer.

 

There were lots of reasons for this, as any impartial analysis shows. For example: people wanted a new start that the Labour party appeared to promise, they distrusted the Conservatives who had failed the country so dismally by Appeasement. Churchill was a part of the defeat, for sure, but there was more to it than that.

 

As a wartime administrator he showed tremendous energy rather than organizing and directive genius. He was more distinguished for his pugnacity than for his statecraft.

 

Firstly, energy and pugnacity were what were required: it was not his job as a war leader to be an organizing and directive genius. That job goes to other people, lower down in the chain of command. But for that matter, he came up with the idea for Mulberry Harbours, and encouraged the use of tank variants such as minesweepers, to give two examples, so there is some organisation and directive genius for you.

 

As for statecraft, I have dealt with that charge above. Briefly, he saved Greece from Communism, and ensured France was represented on the winning side. Also, there were the remarkably close US-UK relations, which stemmed from his close relationship and wooing of Roosevelt. These are all fine examples of his statesmanship.

 

There can be no doubt that he inspired the British to unite and continue the war against Hitler, but it may be questioned if unthinking resistance to Hitler after Dunkirk was the best policy for Britain.

 

Well, not from my point of view, but HEB is entitled to his. This is a different issue, outside the scope of this response, but I fail to see how anyone would want to live in the shadow of a Nazi Europe. Look at how much damage the French defeat in 1940 has done to that country. There is no reason why we would have taken it any better, be it actual military defeat or defeat in the shape of a dishonourable peace with Nazism. 

 

As for "unthinking", try reading John Lukacs' "Five Days in London". Unthinking is the last thing that the decision to fight on after Dunkirk was. There was an exhaustive period of meetings, discussions, evaluations and fact-finding missions. This book shows you that the decision to fight on was in every way considered, not least by Churchill, and that he had the support of the British people behind him.

 

The most effective indictment of Churchill's wartime statecraft is that after gaining military victory he lost the peace to Soviet Russia.

This is grossly unfair. Why is it all Churchill's fault? What about the vastly more powerful and, by that point, largely incapacitated Roosevelt? Remember, Churchill left government in 1945, so the peace on the British side was largely conducted by Attlee. And then there was Stalin, who had no intention of pulling back his forces anyway, whatever Churchill said or did. Unless, of course, HEB would think that WW3 was a palatable prospect....The Red Army camped all over Eastern Europe sealed the deal.

Arguably, in holding Russia to a Cold War that ultimately economically exhausted her and brought about her fall by peaceful means, he DID win the peace anyway.

There has been no greater fallacy than to regard Churchill as a military genius,

 

Nobody does. He was a gifted amateur strategist, but no-one would put his talents further than that.

 

it is probable that no other important British leader has so loved war or worked harder to insure it when it seemed within the range of possibility.

 

Examples? Evidence?...

 

Would this be the same Churchill who proposed a break in naval building  (a naval "holiday")  before WW1 in an effort to slacken the pace and reduce the tension (the Germans did not reply)? Would this be the same Churchill who urged a strong approach to Germany through the League of Nations during the 1930s in an effort to avoid war? Would this be the same Churchill whose great purposes  post-war were to foster understanding between the European peoples, and to hold a summit with Soviet Russia, all with the desire to prevent war?

 

He did not love war, although he was indeed fascinated by its situations and the events it threw up. However, as he wrote before WW1, the more he saw of it, the more he was convinced "what vile and barbarous folly it all is" (letter to his wife). How many other people had that foresight then?

 

Churchill was responsible for the disastrous attempt to force the Dardanelles in 1915, which was Britain's most spectacular defeat in the World War I (except for the futile attempts to break through the German trenches). It has been said that it was a good plan if it had worked, but a truly good military plan must work out in practice and not merely be impressive on paper. Both Lord Fisher and Lord Kitchener warned against the project. Churchill was compelled to resign as responsible for the failure.

 

The Dardanelles is a complicated subject, and I cannot deal with it properly here, save to say that, while he must bear some responsibility, Churchill was made the scapegoat. Others were responsible too, including Fisher and Kitchener. HEB is dealing in gross over-simplifications here, and his comment that "Both Lord Fisher and Lord Kitchener warned against the project" just goes to show quite how little HEB knows about the subject. If you would like to read about it, try the books by Martin Gilbert and Geoffrey Wallin , and for an overtly negative view, Trumbull Higgins. 

In my opinion, the reason it failed was in large part none of Churchill's doing, and as he was the only person who tried to find an alternative to throwing men at barbed wire in Flanders, I feel he should receive far more credit than he does.

In regard to World War II both English and American experts have indicated that Churchill's interference in strategic decisions was often disastrous. General Albert C. Wedemeyer has pointed out that Churchill and Roosevelt really ran military operations like a pair of Indian chiefs conducting a scalping party, with little consideration of the ultimate military or political outcome. Churchill's constant demand to concentrate the Allied attack against the "soft underbelly of Europe"-a sort of return to the Dardanelles fantasy- was properly discredited by the impressive manner in which General Kesserling defended the Italian sector of the soft underbelly under the greatest handicaps, defeated in the end mainly by the treachery of Hitler and his SS underlings.

 

I don't understand what is meant by the "scalping party" comment, so will not comment on it.

 

The Italian campaign, although difficult, was designed to relieve the pressure on the Russians and to draw away divisions from Normandy, so as to ease the way of the invading D-Day troops. To what extent it achieved this is debatable. That it did, however, is not.

It is held even by restrained admirers of Churchill that we must at least give him credit for saving Britain. One might ask: saving Britain from whom and from what? 

 

To my mind, this is where HEB's article descends into farce. Does he really need telling of the horrors of Nazism?.....I am sure you do not, so I shall not patronise you by listing them.

 

Hitler was a worse bootlicker of Britain than the Kaiser and the cornerstone of his foreign policy was to achieve a permanent understanding with Britain.

 

HEB didn't have the benefit of reading "Invasion 1940 - the Nazi plan for Britain" as it was not released then, nor did he have access to the plans which were laid out for how to deal with Britain. Therefore, we can be more generous with this piece of naivety. As discussed below, Hitler's "permanent understanding" would have been intolerable to Britain, and to anyone who loved freedom.

 

All the Nazi horrors happened on the Channel Islands too, so HEB cannot claim that Hitler would have made an exception for Britain. He did not.

 

Even after Dunkirk, where he deliberately permitted the British to escape, he offered Britain a generous peace

 

Generous? Handing over the fleet and large parts of the Empire, and allowed to survive as a vassal state so long as we had a pro-Nazi government? Marvellous. Those were the terms in the offing -  the only terms mooted.

 

Besides, experience showed that the Fuhrer's guarantees guaranteed nothing. Look at Czechoslovakia, after Munich. "The last territorial demand I have to make", said Hitler. Then he took the rest of Czechoslovakia, then Poland, and later, as much of Russia as he could. It is no use HEB saying that this only happened because of the war, because it is all there in Mein Kampf. Hitler was not a man to be trusted, and everyone - except HEB - recognised this by 1939.

 

and told his generals that he would put the German Wehrmacht, air force and navy at the service of Britain to preserve the British Empire.

 

That would have been dishonour and shame greater than having the Nazis marching up Whitehall, and no-one in Britain would have tolerated living under Hitler's shadow, our existence only guaranteed by his whim.

 

Real statesmanship would have dictated Churchill's agreeing to a stalemate with Germany in June 1941, and letting Germany and Russia bleed each other white and thus remove the threat of dictatorship from either the Right or the Left.

 

HEB has no way of knowing what might have happened, and this is a ridiculous assumption of the unknowable. The dictatorships did bleed themselves white, at Kursk, Stalingrad, Berlin, and so on. But there was still a winner, and that winner would have dominated the whole continent, not just the Eastern half. More likely, not only would dictatorship not have been removed from right or left, there would have been one dominant winner, and that winner would have hated us for leaving them to "bleed themselves white". The Russians hated us enough as it was for thinking that was what we were doing, even when we were not. What would the post war world have been like if we really had?

 

This was what wise Americans like Herbert Hoover, Robert A. Taft, and Harry S. Truman recommended at the time. But Churchill was just getting too much joy and thrill-

 

I am not sure that many people would regard Hoover as wise....

 

Once again, what is HEB's evidence for this remark? Where does it suggest that Churchill was "getting too much joy and thrill" from being war leader? All the evidence - which is in the books listed at the top of this if you want to read them - suggests that he was deeply upset by the waste, destruction and killing of the war.

 

"having too much fun," as Roosevelt put it-out of being an active war leader to consider for a moment retiring to the role of an observer,

 

In what context was this comment said? Roosevelt said that it was fun to know Churchill, and I think this may be a twisted version of that comment. At any rate, where's the citation? Where did HEB get this from?

 

even if this was probably the only way to assure British safety and the preservation of the Empire.

 

Sitting as an offshore island to a hostile Germany, with her vastly superior military, and in all likelihood nuclear weapons and the rockets to deliver them, would not have ensured British safety as most people would have recognised it.

 

As for the Empire, it was surely on its way out anyway. Most historians now feel that the war just delayed, not hastened, Indian independence, and from that the rest of the Empire would surely follow. If we had had the strength to contest the Empire's departure, we may have been involved in a messy and protracted, not to mention morally dubious campaign, as did the French in Indo-China and Algeria. Thank goodness we did not. In any case the Empire was by then too expensive, and the political will to maintain it no longer there.

 

He condemned England to four more years of costly and brutal warfare, failed to protect eastern and central Europe from Russia and Communism, and made inevitable the liquidation of the British Empire.

War was, by then, what the British people wanted, as Hitler had to be stopped. Hence the fall of Chamberlain, and Churchill's unstoppable popularity. Churchill did not force anyone to fight: the British people were united as they have never been before or since.

As above, I feel the only rational argument is that the Empire's liquidation was inevitable anyway.

Churchill led in the denunciation of the alleged horrible atrocities and brutalities of the Nazis, but his record is surely no better. He rejected Hitler's proposal at the outset of the War to ban all bombardment of non-military objectives and launched this barbarous form of bombing on 11 May 1940, with an attack on the helpless university town of Freiburg. He announced that he would stop at no type or extent of brutality and terrorism to crush Hitler and he made good his word.

 

Churchill's record did not include the industrial slaughter of a race of people for no reason other than their birth or religion. Churchill's record did not include the forced labour of thousands of people because of their nationality. Churchill's record did not include a vicious secret police that sought out and tortured people that disagreed with him. Churchill's record did not include marking races or peoples as "sub-human". Churchill's record did not involve mass hysteria and the mobilisation of millions of people against a minority within his own country. Churchill's record did not include the invasion of neighbouring countries and the unleashing of a war that was to kill 65 million people worldwide.

 

Churchill's record was surely no better? Nonsense. Judge from the evidence. Regarding bombing, Churchill's aim was to end the war. As Patton said, half-measures only prolong it.

 

As for the 11 May 1940 raid, all that HEB has done is to pick out the first raid that happened when Churchill was Prime Minister, a day later. Is Churchill seriously being accused of spending the whole of the 10 May, the day he became PM, in dreaming up and planning a sadistic bombing campaign to start the next day against.....Freiburg, of all the places he could have chosen? The British bombing campaign had been going on since the start of the war, when Churchill, as First Lord of the Admiralty (Navy) had nothing to do with it. Moreover it was the result of years of inter-war planning, when Churchill was out of office. Churchill did not reject Hitler's "offer" (did Rotterdam and Warsaw not count to Hitler? And who was he, as an aggressor, to lay down rules about what in his country we could hit?), because he was not in any position to do so. In any case, it was rejected because it was a meaningless propaganda stunt by the Nazis. Churchill did not launch the bombing campaign, for it was already going on, although, yes, he did support it. As for that side, see my comments above.

 

As for Freiburg being "helpless", take a look at Bomber Command's casualty figures for that period of the war.

 

When did he announce that he "would stop at no type or extent of brutality and terrorism to crush Hitler"? I have never heard this, and would lay a bet that he did not. I think this is a HEB paraphrase of his own views: why, if otherwise, does he not use a direct quote, which is what any other historian would have done?

 

He directed the terrible incendiary bombing of Hamburg, and was solely responsible for ordering the needless destruction of the beautiful city of Dresden, the  most ruthless, despicable and indefensible major atrocity of World War II, in which the losses of life and property were far greater than in the case of the American bombing of either Hiroshima or Nagasaki. He approved and ordered the application of the Lindemann Plan for the saturation bombing of Germany which, for stark brutality in both conception and operation, matched any of the alleged Nazi "extermination" measures. This plan ordered concentration of British bombing on the homes of the poorer or working classes whose houses were huddled close together so that more innocent civilians could be killed per bomb that was dropped.

He did not direct the bombing of Hamburg, obviously, for he was not an operational commander. As for Dresden, he was not solely responsible, as any look at the records or an impartial history book will show. The strategic bombing campaign, as has already been discussed, was a long-held one, with many people involved in inception and operation. The Dresden raid was undertaken on the insistence of the Russians, who believed that a column of German armour was moving through the city that day.

 

The purpose was military necessity, be it to destroy the armour, or to break the will of the German people to resist. It is the aim behind the action that matters, in this case to end the war as soon as possible, with minimum loss to your troops. That is what distinguished our actions from the Nazis.

In his remarks at the funeral of Mr. Churchill, former President Dwight Eisenhower laid main stress on Churchill's achievements as a "friend of peace." It would be no exaggeration to say that this was not unlike J. Edgar Hoover paying a special tribute to Al Capone as a friend of law enforcement.

 

Ah, very droll! See again my answer to his point above, re: Churchill's desire for peace and the efforts he made for it pre-WW1, pre-WW2, post-WW2. 

 

You might like to read RAC Parker's recent book (i.e. about two years old) "Churchill and Appeasement". The author makes a strong case that, had Churchill's policies been followed in the 1930s, WW2 could have been avoided.  

 

Even his British admirers have conceded Churchill's lifelong and inordinate love of war. No other British public figure worked as hard to bring Britain into World War I as did Churchill.

 

Have they? Who? Where's the evidence for Churchill working hard to bring Britain into WW1? What did he do, exactly?

 

As above, his suggestion of a naval holiday, which was not replied to, suggests that he worked harder than most others to avoid war. He did, yes, feel that Britain should honour her treaty obligations to Belgium, but he was not alone in thinking that, nor in feeling that Britain must not be an offshore island to a hostile continent, dominated by one power. This, of course has been the natural tenet of British foreign policy since the time of the Tudors, and not surprisingly.

 

This has been admitted in the recent book, Twelve Days, by the English writer George Malcolm Thomson on the crisis of 1914.

 

"Admitted"!! This is priceless. Who on earth is Mr Thompson to "admit" anything?!! He is a historian, not the keeper of Churchill's conscience! Thompson, by the way, is a resolutely anti-Allies historian, who believes that WW1 was all the Entente's fault, and is reluctant to believe that the Central Powers has anything to do with it. Hardly a reliable source for Churchill's involvement.

 

 It is common knowledge that Churchill was the leader of the British war party from 1936 onward, having told General Robert E. Wood in that year that: "Germany is getting too strong; we must smash her." He not only cooperated with the war party in Britain but also worked closely with Bernard Baruch and the other powerful warminded Americans.

 

Actually, he wasn't. There wasn't a "war party" for one thing (their opposition to appeasement might have been more effective if there was). Secondly, what opposition there was was not led by Churchill, who operated on his own, largely because of the India issue that others did not want to get involved with. Eden and Duff Cooper, Harold Macmillan, who were the only other major anti-appeasement figures, did of course keep in touch with Churchill, but they were manifestly not led by him.

Perhaps the best summary appraisal of Churchill's personality comes from the distinguished British publicist, F.S. Oliver:

"From his youth up Mr. Churchill has loved with all his heart, with all his mind, with all his soul, and with all his strength, three things: war, politics and himself. He has loved war for its dangers, he I oves politics for the same reason, and himself he has always loved for the knowledge that his mind is dangerous -dangerous to his enemies, dangerous to his friends, dangerous to himself. I can think of no man I have ever met who would so quickly and so bitterly eat his heart out in Paradise."

In your honest opinion, do you really think that this sounds like the even-handed, judicious, cool-headed summary of an impartial historian? It is to me quite obvious that, as with HEB, that writer is motivated by a deep-seated dislike for his subject.

 

As for the points made, for the first two, if Churchill loved war and politics for their dangers, that is up to him, who would be the direct recipient of any danger that came from active service. As for his "dangerous mind", what on earth does it mean? I have no idea what point the writer is trying to make.

 

What had Churchill supposedly done to his friends? Churchill was, by all the evidence, a loyal and emotional friend. It would be good to hear some examples.

The significance of Churchill's career for this and later generations was admirably summarized by the British journal, The European: 

 

(hardly an even-handed newspaper!) 

"In terms of personal success there has been no career more fortunate than that of Winston Churchill. In terms of human suffering to millions of people and destruction to the noble edifice of mankind there has been no career more disastrous. In that sad paradox lies the tragedy of our time."

 

I hardly think you can call Churchill's career the most fortunate in terms of personal success. Scapegoat for Gallipoli, kept out of office for ten years in the 1930s? He had his fair share of blows. 

 

Yes there was human suffering, to millions of people, but this was the fault of the Axis, who unleashed a war that Churchill just decided not to lose. If someone has a gun to your head, and you fight back, the gunman cannot then complain that you started it. 

 

Has mankind been destroyed? In an age of increasing peace and prosperity (and not just the Western world), with the spread of democracy far beyond the countries that enjoyed it before the war? The legacy of all the good that has come from the destruction of Nazism is owed to Churchill for his determination to fight that revolting creed. Imagine the spectre of a Nazi-dominated world. That indeed would be the "destruction to the noble edifice of mankind".

Additionally, from my correspondent:

"Even if one believes that Churchill should have led England to war upon Germany, deliberate terror bombing of innocent civilians as war policy is pretty indefensible, and in my estimation qualifies one as a war criminal. But the winners write most of the history."

Response:

Do you mean "led England to war upon Germany"? Of course, Churchill was not even in the government, let alone Prime Minister, when was was declared. If you don't believe that we should have fought Germany, you are entitled to your belief, but I would not want to live in the world that resulted. One that would be under the domination of a power that extolled the virtues of bombing civilians (Guernica...).

 

Speaking of which: the deliberate "terror bombing" of civilians. British policy at the beginning of WW2 was not to bomb private property in Germany, including homes and factories. Germany, on the other hand, had turned the terror bombing of civilians into an art form, a precise science. Witness Guernica, Warsaw, Rotterdam, and a little later Coventry, London, Exeter and a whole host of others. That was the way the war panned out, and it was at the behest of the Germans. You cannot then blame the Allies for responding in kind, especially when their populations were getting it so hard and wanted to fight back. Furthermore, once the decision was taken to fight on in 1940, then bombing was the only way in which to do so: Britain had nothing else for many years. Bombing of civilians, though deeply unpleasant and something we rightly go to great lengths to avoid today, certainly is defensible in the context of WW2. Those at the time would have wondered why we are discussing it: it was then a self-evident truth.

 

As for Churchill's personal feelings, yes he supported the policy laid out by his service chiefs (and demanded, incessantly, by the Russians), but he had grave reservations about it, as some famous minutes and comments show, which are easy to find if you want to read them ( any decent Churchill biography). But he didn't allow his personal feelings to get in the way of prosecuting the war in the same ruthless manner in which it was being brought to us. It would not have made him much of a war leader if he had.

 

As for war criminality, civilians have been targeted throughout history. WW2 was not new in this phenomenon. War is hell. Let's not pretend it isn't.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "the winners write most of the history". There is ample documentation around as to what we did in the war and why, and people are, in our free societies, able to draw whatever conclusions they like, and they have. That phrase really refers to pre-twentieth century history, when there were not written records, so I am not sure what relevance you feel it has here. Perhaps the reason that people do not agree with HEB is because his conclusions are not supported by the evidence. At any rate,  it is worth, as a general point, noting that HEB practically never advances any evidence for any of his claims. This is not good history, and it seriously undermines his credit as a commentator.  It is worth taking all his comments in that light. For that matter, for discussion of what some commentators have identified as the anti-Semitism, holocaust denial and general Nazi apologia of Harry Elmer Barnes, see the chapter on "The First Stirrings of Denial in America" in Deborah Lipstadt's "Denying the Holocaust", pub. 1993 (She was later sued by David Irving, who is a similar writer to HEB, for her comments regarding his positions in the book. Irving lost.) You can think whatever you like about Churchill, but HEB is not, in my opinion, a serious writer and not one that you should take seriously.

However, if you want to read critical works about Churchill, there are plenty of quality ones out there (into which category, in my opinion, Irving and C.Hitchens manifestly do not fall, for much the same reasons as HEB). For example: John Charmley's "Churchill - the End of Glory", Robert Rhodes James' "Churchill - A Study in Failure", Ted Morgan's "Churchill - the Rise to Failure", Trumbull Higgins' "Winston Churchill and the Dardanelles". Those few will give you something to be getting on with, if you wish to take this further. However, I would earnestly encourage you to obtain a balanced picture by reading something from the other side as well.  For example: Roy Jenkins' "Churchill", Martin Gilbert's "Churchill - A Life", Piers Brendon's "Churchill", or for a briefer book, John Keegan's new "Churchill". None of these books are uncritical, none of them see Churchill as infallible. They all point to his failings, which were certainly there. However, unlike Irving, HEB and C.Hitchens, they do not see Churchill as a 2D, caricature of a man. He was not a devil come to earth, any more than the earlier hagiographies were right in suggesting that he was an angel. In Hamlet's words, "He was a man. Take him for all in all, I shall not see his like again".

Back to top