Subscribe now and receive weekly newsletters with educational materials, new courses, interesting posts, popular books, and much more!
Articles
A New Gospel of Churchill Perfidy by Otto English
- By HERBERT ANDERSON
- | November 11, 2022
- Category: Books
Fake History: Ten Great Lies and How They Shaped the World, by Otto English. London: Welbeck, 2021, 320 pages, $22.00, paperback $14.94. This review first appeared in History Reclaimed, and is republished by kind permission of the author and publishers.
English lesson
As the book’s cover suggests, Otto English purports to discuss lies involving historical figures other than Churchill.. This review is restricted to Churchill, and what Mr. Snglish regards as politically motivated fables. The author styles himself a dispassionate revisionist, overturning the “taboo” on criticizing Churchill. (If there is one of those, it has a lot of violators.)
Of the “thousands” of Churchill biographies, English contemptuously writes that many are filled either with things that “Churchill never said… or never did.” How lucky we are that he is here to dispel the myths! Well, perhaps not….
“Fake History” includes a bit of fake historiography. For example, I have never encountered a portrayal of Churchill as having come from other than a privileged background. But most biographies at least recognized that he faced youthful difficulties. As a boy he was physically abused by the headmaster of his school. For some reason the author doesn’t mention that when discussing Churchill’s childhood. English goes on a lengthy diatribe against quotations incorrectly attributed to Churchill, apparently ignorant of authors, websites and even whole books debunking these false quotes. English accuses earlier biographers of downplaying the importance of Churchill’s wife, but doesn’t give any examples. Yet numerous testimonials exist to Clementine’s crucial role in her husband’s life and career.
Counterfactuals
Mr. English characterizes Churchill as a consistent supporter of wanton imperial violence. He can only sustain this claim by ignoring the abundant record that contradicts it. Thus, he mentions that Churchill was involved in the one-sided British victory at Omdurman, but neglects to mention that Churchill criticized the British treatment of enemy wounded. He notes that Churchill believed the colonization of Australia and America were not in themselves “wrong,” but ignores Churchill’s opposition to imperial atrocities such as the brutal suppression of the Bambatha Rebellion, punitive expeditions in Nigeria, or the Amritsar massacre. Incidentally, Churchill wasn’t “defending the suppression of Aborigines” when he made that remark. He was refuting an argument against Jewish emigration to Palestine. Had Churchill been heeded, more Jews would have survived the Holocaust. It is also fanciful to suggest that a majority of white Americans or Australians in the 1930s would have disagreed with Churchill’s view.
English also makes numerous factual errors. Some are minor, but they are so many as to undermine the author’s arguments. For example, Churchill reported on the 1895 Cuban insurrection, but did not fight for the Spanish. As Churchill put it “I have not even fired my revolver. I am a member of General Valdez’s staff by courtesy only, and am decorated with the Red Cross only by courtesy.”
All errors great and small
I could go on, so I will. Churchill did not “reinvent” himself as a journalist for the Second Boer War. He had previously covered the Cuban insurrection for the Daily Graphic. He was commissioned as war correspondent for the Daily Telegraph, and covered the reconquest of Sudan for the Morning Post. Churchill was not “alone” in his opposition to Indian independence in the 1930s. The Government of India Act of 1935 was intended by the government to foster more local government, not independence. President Obama did not remove Churchill’s bust from the Oval Office because his Kenyan grandfather was tortured while Churchill was prime minister. It is doubtful that his grandfather was ever even imprisoned, but in any case, it would have happened while Attlee was PM. Artillery did not shell the East End of London during the siege of Sidney Street.
Amusingly, even when English tries to be evenhanded, he gets his facts wrong. For example, he credits Churchill for cancelling the dispatch of troops to Tonypandy, forgetting that WSC reversed his position within a day because of widespread rioting. The soldiers didn’t engage in massacres, but their presence brought the rioting to a close.
According to English, everything Churchill did was mainly for the self-promotion. When Churchill achieved anything good, it can be attributed to the influence of his wife. As example he offers the social reforms Churchill introduced while Home Secretary. However, Churchill had begun stating his support of social reform as early as 1899, five years before he even met Clementine. While campaigning in his first election that year, Churchill said: “I regard the improvement of the condition of the British people as the main aim of modern government.”
The war disremembered
English’s characterization of Churchill’s time on the Western Front in 1915-16 is especially egregious. According to his book, Churchill was miles away from the “real war” and never in any real danger. English also suggests that Churchill proved inept as an officer. But Martin Gilbert—whose books English cites—offered numerous instances of Churchill surviving German artillery or machine gun fire, and of leading soldiers into No Man’s Land. The soldiers who served with Churchill had every reason to regard him as an aristocratic interloper. In the end they praised him to a man. To quote Captain Jock McDavid:
After a very brief period he had accelerated the morale of the officers and men to an almost unbelievable degree. It was sheer personality…. No detail of our daily life was too small for [Churchill] to ignore. He overlooked nothing…. I have never known an officer take such pains to inspire confidence or to gain confidence; indeed he inspired confidence in gaining it.”
Insofar as Churchill goes, Mr. English has not produced a work of history. I cannot comment on the other chapters of his book, but the chapter on Churchill doesn’t inspire confidence. It is an inaccurate and mean-spirited political polemic. Readers who want to read a decent work on Churchill’s life and career would be advised to pick up biographies by Martin Gilbert, Andrew Roberts, and many other balanced, evenhanded historians.
The author
Herbert Anderson writes about Churchill misconceptions he finds online and in the media.