Simon Heffer argues in the NS Essay this week that the romanticised
image of Winston Churchill “suffocates reality” and “keeps us from an honest
interpretation of our history”. Heffer writes that the Prime Minister’s
“indispensable and nation saving achievement in 1940”
... diverts attention from all else that Churchill did
before and after, and even discourages analysis of it. Worst of all, it
discourages reflection on his management of the war, which, as anyone who has
read the accounts of some of his closest colleagues - notably Sir Alan Brooke
and Anthony Eden - will know, was much more hit and miss than conventional
history usually has it. The effect of the often unquestioning idolatry with
which he is widely regarded not only hinders us from evaluating Churchill
properly but from forming an accurate assessment of the times in which he
lived, and that he did so much to shape.
Heffer dismisses Boris Johnson’s “self-regarding travesty
of a biography” and instead explores less laudable moments in Churchill’s
career, from his decision to send troops into Tonypandy in 1910 and disastrous
stint in the navy as the first lord of the Admiralty resulting in the loss of
46,000 lives, to his catastrophic impact on Britain’s economy as chancellor of
the Exchequer in 1925 and his dismissal of Indian independence. He casts
Churchill as, ultimately, “driven by ambition”:
Despite a record of failure and misjudgement that in any
other politician would offset even the most considerable achievements,
Churchill in death has become largely untouchable by all, apart from those who
are dismissed as mavericks and sectarians. The myth keeps us from an honest
interpretation of our history in the first half of the 20th century. The false
and romanticised picture we have of him, created by his reputation from
1940-45, is a huge obstacle to true understanding.
In one aspect of his life, when the man met the hour, he
was as outstanding as anyone in British history has been. In all others he was
just another politician on the make, firing out opinions at random in the hope
that one, now and again, would hit the target. He had a bellicosity that in all
circumstances other than 1940-45 could be intensely dangerous, and that had its
downside even in the fight against Hitler.
But we would best understand his indisputable greatness,
and our enduring debt to him, by realising how his achievements came in spite
of, not because of, his particular character. The myth is too much. It is more
important than ever to examine the reality of his life and works, and to try to
get him in a true perspective.
No comments:
Post a Comment