Churchill, good and bad

 Like many Americans, I grew to admire Winston Churchill as I learned more about him. Early on, I bought a recording of some of his most famous speeches and marveled at his stirring words.  I happened to be in London at the time of his funeral and felt that I was part of a great historic moment. I have often quoted some of his witty sayings, even though many now seem to be apocryphal. I was thrilled to visit the Churchill War Rooms and see the actual place where so many consequential policies were formulated.

I have just read Geoffrey Wheatcroft's critical and revisionist biography, Churchill's Shadow, which adds a lot of negative facts to the ledger assessing Churchill's legacy.  Wheatcroft savages Churchill's reputation by quoting from letters and diaries by contemporaries, who point out his flaws -- inconsistency, hypocrisy, frequent inebriation,  social isolation, and so forth. He also repeats many statements which Churchill later disavowed or pretended he never said. [And he quotes Churchill as saying of war cabinet meetings, "All I wanted was compliance with my wishes after a reasonable period of discussion."]

There has been too much hagiography about Churchill. It's time for a fuller picture of his human qualities, including his failings, as well as his political accomplishments, including their blemishes. Like most successful politicians, he was vain, ambitious,  and self-centered, better at tactical adjustments than consistency or strategy. He was a loving though patriarchal husband, but a poor parent. He drank too much and stayed in power too long.

And he was a racist, demeaning all but white, Protestant, English-speaking people much of the time. Sadly, so were many if not most of his Victorian era contemporaries. Nevertheless, I am not ready to pull his statues down or shatter the busts simply because of those abhorrent views. His political accomplishments were world-historical and worthy of honor despite their flaws.

The most useful correctives I found in Wheatcroft's books  were on lesser points.

- He was a defender of the Empire to the bitter end.

- His own history books were group-written and fabricated to enhance his roles.

- He had some surprising and consistent policy views, including support for a national health service and other social programs and support for Zionism.

- He exaggerated his friendship with FDR and his areas of agreements with the Americans.

- Many of his wartime strategy proposals were profoundly unwise [Gallipoli, Norway, Greece, Singapore].

- He strongly favored terror bombing in World War  II, despite earlier and later misgivings.

And yet...in 1940 especially he rallied a defeated force and a demoralized nation -- and onlookers in America -- to fight back and join together in common cause. He did that, and it's unlikely anyone else could have.