Otto English Busted

Otto English (né Andrew Scott) doesn’t like what he calls “fake history”. He hates it so much he has written a book called Fake History, wherein he tries to describe and debunk “ten great lies and how they shaped the world”. Of Winston Churchill, Mr. English writes

Hero-fashioning is all in the edit. Churchill the racist, Churchill the useless post-war leader and Churchill the suppressor of Irish, Kenyan and Indian freedom has to be left on the cutting room floor if the legend is to work” (English, Fake History, p.34)

However, in promoting this alternative Churchillian black legend, Mr. English – like so many before him– has to resort to some careful editing of his own. In their case, it involves adding debunked tall tales to Churchill’s record. He writes:

On becoming President of the United States in 2009, one of Barack Obama’s first acts was to remove a bust of Churchill from the Oval Office. At the time he claimed he was simply returning it to its original place elsewhere in the White House. But it cannot have been a coincidence that Obama’s own grandfather was a survivor of what has been dubbed “Britain’s gulag” in 1950s Kenya during Churchill’s second term of office as Prime Minister” (English, Fake History, pp.33-34).

English doesn’t give any citations for this claim (at least in the version I am reading). But I can’t really blame him. It has been reported time and time again that Obama removed the bust of Churchill from the Oval Office. It has been alleged that he did this because he disliked Churchill because his paternal grandfather, Hussein Onyango Obama had been imprisoned and tortured in colonial Kenya while Churchill was Prime Minister. It’s common knowledge, right

Wrong. Shockingly the book Fake History contains some fake history of its own. There are several problems with this theory:

Problem #1: Obama Actually Likes Churchill

Not much else to say here. Obama is reported as saying “I love Winston Churchill. Love the guy.” He has also quoted Churchill (or claimed to quote Churchill) several times throughout his Presidency.

Problem #2: Churchill was Not Kicked Out of the White House

Well, not entirely. In 2001 then-President George W. Bush received a loan of a Jacob Epstein bust from the British Embassy in Washington DC. This loan expired in 2008 and the incoming administration did not take up an offer to extend the loan. However, another bust of Churchill, in the Treaty Room, remained in the White House throughout Obama’s term of office. Obama said he saw it every single day he was working there:

“I see it every day — including on weekends, when I’m going into that office to watch a basketball game,” Obama said. “The primary image I see is a bust of Winston Churchill.”

Problem #3: The Return of the Bust was Expected and had Nothing to do with Churchill Per Se

Obama, being an African American, thought it was appropriate that he honour the memory of people who struggled and gave their lives for the rights of African Americans. Initially, it was reported that Obama was making space for a bust of Abraham Lincoln but then later it was reported that he was making space for Martin Luther King Jr. This seems pretty reasonable to me, and it takes a very Anglo-centric person to regard this reason as a slight on either Britain or Churchill. The British Ambassador at the time did not regard it as a dig at Britain:

Sir Peter Westmacott, who next month finishes his stint as British ambassador to “the single most important country in the world”, says the bust was only ever on loan as a personal gift from Tony Blair to George W Bush for the duration of his presidency.

“So, to be honest, we always expected that to leave the Oval Office just like everything else that a president has tends to be changed,” he explained in a valedictory interview with the Guardian. “Even the carpet is usually changed when the president changes.”

Unfortunately, you can only have so many busts before the Oval Office furniture looks untidy.

“There are only so many tables where you can put busts,” he [Obama] said. “Otherwise, it looks a little bit cluttered.”

Problem #4: Obama’s Grandfather Probably Wasn’t Imprisoned

For all the times this story has been repeated you’d think journalists would, I dunno, check the veracity of the claim that Hussein Onyango Obama was imprisoned. David Maraniss, in his biography of Barack Obama, noted that that numerous associates of Onyango Obama denied that he was ever imprisoned or tortured.

[I]n its specifics the story seems unlikely. There are no remaining records of any detention, imprisonment or trial of Hussein Onyango Obama. Sarah did not witness any of it, and she is the only person to offer details. While there would be no obvious reason for her to contrive such a tale, her accuracy on other matters that can be documented is uneven. She speaks only in Luo, knowing some Swahili and no English, so her quotes are dependent upon the inclinations of the interpreter. And five people who had close connections to Hussein Onyango said they doubted the story or were certain that it did not happen.

John Ndalo Aguk, who worked with him before the alleged incident and kept in touch with him on a weekly basis in Nairobi thereafter, when he was placed in the homes of several employers at Hussein Onyango’s recommendation, said he knew nothing about a detention or imprisonment and would have noticed if his mentor had gone missing for several months. Zablon Okatch, a Luo who worked with Onyango after the supposed incarceration, when they were servants in the house of American embassy personnel, said, “Hussein was never jailed. I know that for a fact. It would have been difficult for him to get a job with a white family, let alone a diplomat, if he once served in jail… All prospective workers had to have details about themselves scrutinized at the Labour Office”. Charles Oluoch, whose father, Peter, had been adopted by Hussein Onyango when he was a young boy, said he doubted the story: “He did not take part in politics, nor did he have any trouble with the government in any way.” Auma Magak, Hussein Onyango’s daughter, disputed the story but offered a different version: “He was not detained. There was an incident where some thugs kidnapped him. He mysteriously disappeared. He was taken to a river where he was tied and left there. Some leopards were around him but left him alone. But the detainment never happened. He was working in Nairobi during those years. He never disappeared [for six months].” Perhaps the most authoritative account disputing Sarah’s story came from Dick Opar, who went on to become a senior police official in Kenya. “At that time, I would have known”, Opar said. “It may have been a day or two. People make up stories. If you get arrested for another thing. No. No. I would have known. I would have known. If he was in Kamiti prison for only a day, even if for a day, I would have known.” (Maraniss, Barack Obama, pp.54-55)

Maraniss also pointed out:

Several pieces of logic contradict the story. First if Hussein Onyango had been imprisoned, even if one were to further accept that he was eventually cleared of whatever charges were against him, he likely would have had difficulty, as Zablon Okatch noted, securing employment in the homes of security-conscious white officials in the following years, when the country was in turmoil and there were increasing concerns about the motives and loyalties of Kenyan workers. Yet he continued to be hired throughout the next decade…. Second, it is also unlikely that his son would have been accepted into the most prestigious boarding school in western Kenya within a year of his father’s imprisonment, or that after many months without a salary the family would have been able to afford the tuition” (Maraniss, Barack Obama, pp.55-56)

 

So, to sum up, the story that Obama’s grandfather was imprisoned and tortured has:

• No documentary evidence supporting it
• Is contradicted by five people who knew the man
• Makes it really, really weird that the man was employed by white settlers in subsequent years

Problem #5: Churchill Wasn’t Prime Minister When Obama's Grandfather was Allegedly Detained

The most glaring problem with the story is that Sarah Onyango Obama, Hussein Onyango Obama’s wife, said that Onyango Obama was arrested and imprisoned in 1949, i.e., while Clement Attlee was Prime Minister and a whole two years before Churchill’s re-election. She claimed that her husband was held for two years. Churchill did become Prime Minister until after the election on the 25^th of October 1951. If her story is true (see problem #4) it is likely that he was released while Attlee was still Prime Minister or shortly after Churchill became Prime Minister again. In the former scenario, this story doesn't concern Churchill at all. In the latter scenario then shouldn't Churchill be credited for setting Obama's Grandfather free (assuming the decision to detain one particular African was taken in 10 Downing Street and not in Colonial Kenya)?

Conclusion

For some reason, Otto English is taken seriously, despite being a playwright and not a historian, even by people who are normally pretty sound. It doesn’t take much effort to find the truth about the Returned Churchill Bust fable. That’s all the story is - a fable. Many on the right-wing of the political spectrum bring it up as a jab at Obama and now many on the centre-to-left wing are uncritically repeating it as a dig at Churchill. The fact that English repeated the fable suggests his research isn’t very thorough or he doesn’t really care about inaccurate history, provided the inaccuracies go a certain way. 

Obama and British PM David Cameron admire a bust of Churchill in the White House

Further Reading

Hattem, Julian, Obama denies disrespecting Churchill: I 'love the guy', The Hill, 04/22/16

Maraniss, David, Barack Obama: The Story (Simon & Schuster, 2012)

The Fine Art of Cherry Picking, or Gas in Iraq

One of the more notorious Churchill quotes is usually presented as follows:

I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes…[It] would spread a lively terror.

This statement appears in Johann Hari’s review of Richard Toye’s book Churchill’s Empire. Hari characterises this as an instance of Churchill demanding that colonial subjects, when they “defied his script…be crushed with extreme force” and that, partly for his view on using gas on “uncivilised tribes”, Churchill was “seen as at the most brutal and brutish end of the British imperialist spectrum”. Shashi Tharoor, in his essay in the Washington Post, includes the aforementioned quote and describes this as the act of a “war criminal”. The BBC placed Churchill’s opinion of poison gas as the second-most controversial aspect of Churchill’s life and legacy. 

In fact, this quotation is a fine example of the fallacy of incomplete evidence, otherwise known as cherry picking. The statement derives from a minute that Churchill wrote in May 1919 (not 1921, despite what Tharoor writes). It reads as follows:

I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. We have definitely adopted the position at the Peace Conference of arguing in favour of gas retention as a permanent method of warfare. It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas.

I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes. The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses: gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on those affected (Quoted in Douglas, “Chemical Weapons”, p.861; emphasis added).

Churchill was clearly advocating the use of tear gas (“lachrymatory gas”) and pointing out the absurdity (to him) of causing horrific injuries with conventional weapons yet refusing to employ less harmful chemical weapons. Dr Warren Dockter, of the University of Aberystwyth, summarises Churchill’s position thus:

These memoranda clearly demonstrate that Churchill saw the employment of gas as a tool for controlling ‘native tribes’ and for creating a crisis of morale among the ranks of the dissidents, a concept Trenchard wholeheartedly endorsed. Poison gas was never meant to exterminate frontier tribesmen but it did set a precedent in Churchill’s thinking on colonial air-policing as he would repeatedly return to the use of gas as a relatively humane and inexpensive way to maintain order (Dockter, Islamic World, p.113).

David A.T. Stafford, formerly of the Centre for the Study of the Two World Wars at the University of Edinburgh, describes the interpretation that critics like Hari and Tharoor place on the quote as “far from accurate”. He attributes the continued misrepresentation of the minute to “Churchill’s own confused use of the term ‘poison gas’ when he was referring to non-lethal tear gas and not the far more deadly chlorine or phosgene gas” (Stafford, Oblivion or Glory, p.187).  Here I have to disagree with Stafford. I think many of Churchill’s determined critics – and I include Tharoor in this category without question - are set to despise him come what may. They just don’t seem to care about what Churchill actually said and did.

Churchill’s support for non-lethal gas as a tool of counter-insurgency is impossible to miss if you’ve carefully read what Churchill wrote. Many people online have no intention of doing that and are content to spread misinformation. Of course, the internet is a large space and full of (to quote Chris Snowdon) “bad faith actors, obsessives, bores, pile on merchants, psychopaths and borderline retards”. It isn’t surprising, therefore, to see the misquote still widely used by Churchill's detractors. It is much more concerning that even (semi-)respectable outlets publish dross containing the misquote.

Before moving on, I wish to highlight another example of selective quotation. In his article, Tharoor writes:

 “He [Churchill] wanted to use chemical weapons in India but was shot down by his cabinet colleagues, whom he criticized for their “squeamishness”, declaring that the “objections of the India Office to the use of gas against natives are unreasonable”.

Tharoor however leaves out what exactly Churchill thought was unreasonable. In a minute dated May 29^th 1919 Churchill wrote:

If it is fair war for an Afghan to shoot down a British soldier behind a rock and cut him in pieces as he lies wounded on the ground, why is it not fair for a British artilleryman to fire a shell which makes said native sneeze? It is really too silly” (quoted in Douglas, “Chemical Weapons”, p.868-869, fn.39; emphasis added).

Again, Churchill was pointing out the apparent absurdity of using high explosives and machine guns on enemy troops (which the India Office had no qualms about using) while balking at the prospect of using non-lethal chemicals against those same enemy troops.

What Actually Happened in Iraq?

Critics often connect Churchill’s minute of May 1919 to the insurgency in Iraq the following year. Therefore, it is worthwhile discussing what actually happened during that conflict. The rebellion broke out in June 1920. In August, the C-in-C of the British forces in the country – Lt. Gen. Sir James Aylmer Haldane - messaged London requesting that both the Army and the Royal Air Force be given permission to use chemicals weapons – “gas bombs” – against the insurgents. The commander of the local Royal Air Force contingent agreed with Haldane. In London, Haldane’s request was supported by none other than the head of the British Army, Sir Henry Wilson (Douglas, “Chemical Weapons”, pp.872-873).

Churchill considered the matter and agreed in principle. He was, however, bound by a Cabinet decision the prior October that Britain would not initiate chemical warfare but only retaliate in kind. Believing he had found a loophole, Churchill authorised the use of chemical weapons provided they were either in Iraq or in the process of being transported to Iraq. Churchill informed Wilson that:

If gas shell for the artillery is available on the spot or in transit it sh[oul]d certainly be employed in the emergency prevailing. It is not considered that any question of principle is raised by such an emergency use of the limited ammunition of various kinds. As no question of principle is involved there is no need for any special declaration. G.O.C.-in-C. should defend his positions with whatever ammunition is at hand (Quoted in Douglas, “Chemical Weapons”, p.873).

It turned out that there were no gas weapons in Iraq. In September, Haldane had to request the importation of chemical weapons from the nearest source – Egypt. He asked for 5,000 rounds of 60-pounder SK shells and 10,000 rounds of 4.5-inch howitzer shells. Churchill authorised the dispatch (Douglas, “Chemical Weapons”, p.874). Transport difficulties meant that the weapons did not arrive until after the rebellion had been defeated (Douglas, “Chemical Weapons”, pp.882-883).

At the same time, Churchill authorised the Royal Air Force to begin experimental work on producing aerial gas bombs, saying that he wanted them to produce a weapon that would “inflict punishment upon recalcitrant natives without inflicting grave injury upon them” (quoted in Gilbert, “Churchill”, pp.424-425).

The weapons Churchill sent to Iraq were tear gas shells. According to R.M. Douglas, the Russell B. Colgate Distinguished University Professor of History at Colgate University:

The use of gas shells in Iraq albeit containing tear gas rather than poison gas, was indeed sanctioned by the War Office [i.e., Churchill’s ministry] during the emergency of 1920. The decision to do so was taken by Churchill alone, who neither consulted nor even informed his ministerial colleagues – no doubt in view of the certainty that they would have strongly opposed it (Douglas, “Chemical Weapons”, p.874; emphasis added).

Douglas goes on to quote Sir John Salmond, the head of the Royal Air Force in Iraq, as describing SK gas as “Lacrimatory” [sic] and J.A. Webster, assistant secretary at the Air Ministry, as describing the chemical weapon sent to Iraq in 1920 as “definitely classified as non-lethal” (Douglas, “Chemical Weapons”, p. 876). The British Army conducted human trials in Iraq (using their own soldiers as the test subjects) using the 4.5-inch SK artillery shell to determine its effects. It found that the gas irritated the eyes of men even if they were wearing respirators, but within twenty minutes the effects wore off and the subjects could “remove their masks completely and walk about without discomfort” (Douglas, “Chemical Weapons”, p.878).

The Royal Air Force asked permission from Churchill for permission to convert the artillery shells to aerial gas bombs. Tellingly, the case they put across to Churchill stressed the non-lethal effects of aerial gas weapons and made them seem benign. In this respect, they were an improvement even on the artillery shells. Notwithstanding the human trials conducted by the Army, and while conceding that the 4.5-inch shells were “non-lethal” weapons and “far less noxious than even mustard gas”, Webster argued that they potentially could have “serious” and “permanent effects” on eyes and in “some certain circumstances, cause death”. However, “the dropping of these shells from aircraft is definitely less likely to produce fatal results than their discharge from guns, since it would be exceedingly difficult to obtain a concentration sufficient to cause anything more than extreme discomfort” (quoted in Douglas, “Chemical Weapons”, p.876 & 862). If Churchill had been so indifferent to the lives of native tribesmen as often alleged, why did the Royal Air Force feel the need to sell the prospect of aerial chemical weaponry to him by stressing how humane it was?

Churchill declined to make a decision until advised by the British plenipotentiary in Iraq, Sir Percy Cox. Sir Percy talked the issue through with Iraq’s monarch, Faisal I. Faisal had “no objection to the use of gas bombs in Iraq provided that they were not lethal or permanently injurious to health”. Sir Percy recommended the usage of the aerial gas bombs (Douglas, “Chemical Weapons”, p.879).

Having been informed that the SK gas was non-lethal, that aerial bombs were even less dangerous than artillery chemical weapons, and that the Iraq government has no problem with the use of chemical weapons, Churchill authorised the Royal Air Force’s use of those weapons in December 1921. Formal permission was conveyed in January 1922. However, the Royal Air Force could only use it in the defence of “isolated post[s] whose communications are cut and whose existence is threatened”. In any other scenario, the Royal Air Force would need to request permission from the Colonial Secretary before using aerial gas bombs (Douglas, “Chemical Weapons”, p.879).

Two days before Salmond got permission to convert the gas shells to aerial bombs, the Washington Disarmament Conference passed a resolution forbidding the use of chemical weapons of any kind in war, even tear gas. Churchill therefore quickly rescinded his authorisation to the RAF (Douglas, “Chemical Weapons”, pp.879-880).

Churchill in Context

When discussing Churchill, many of his defenders feel the need to suggest he was “a man of his time” or “everyone/ lots of people had similar feelings back in Churchill’s day”. This is often unnecessary as the criticisms are frequently made up out of whole cloth and Churchill’s views seem reasonable by today’s standard, let alone the standard of one hundred years ago.

In this case, though, it is worth discussing the milieu when Churchill made his remarks about chemical warfare for two reasons. Firstly, because many of his detractors claim this as an example of Churchill’s extremism and brutishness that astonished even his contemporaries (e.g., Hari’s remarks quoted above). The second is because the taboo against using any kind of chemical agent is so strong today that it is easy to assume that it was ever thus.

 In regard to this taboo, historian Marion Girard wrote:

The taboo did not develop immediately after World War I in Britain, let alone in the world. Nor was it instinctive; there were many rational arguments for keeping gas in the repertoire of weapons, as Haldane, Churchill, and others demonstrated during the interwar period. The British taboo was not inevitable. If Britain had continued to accept gas rather than reject it, so might the rest of the world. After all, in the decades between the World Wars, Britain was still one of the most influential global leaders. If she had refused to abandon gas, perhaps others would not have embraced arguments against gas and emphasized its negative characteristics. Yet, because they did so strongly, only the destructive story of gas has been remembered and told; the part of its history in which gas has been accepted and even embraced has been forgotten, and thus the taboo seems inescapable (Marion Girard, Strange and Formidable, p.198).

The important thing to remember is that Churchill - and others – had just witnessed one of the most devastating wars in European history. They had seen men’s skin shredded on barbed wire, bones and nerves destroyed by artillery fire, horrendous burns caused by flamethrowers, and bodies riddled by machine gunfire. To many people, gas, especially tear gases, didn’t seem so bad in comparison to conventional weaponry. This was not an opinion unique to Churchill. The General Staff made the same point in March 1919:

If it is advisable and possible to abolish gas on purely humanitarian grounds, the abolition of High Explosive, a far more terrible weapon which removes limbs, shatters bones, produces ‘nerves’, and generates madness, is equally advisable(quoted in Douglas, “Chemical Weapons”, p.867).

At various times, the use of tear gas weapons in Iraq was endorsed by:

• Field Marshall Sir Henry Wilson, Chief of the Imperial General Staff
• Lt-Gen Sir James Aylmer Haldane, Commander-in-Chief of the Mesopotamian Expeditionary Force
• Sir John Salmond, then Air Officer Commanding British Forces in Iraq and later Marshall of the Royal Air Force
• Sir Percy Cox, High Commissioner of Iraq
• Faisal I, the King of Iraq

There were other senior colonial officials from elsewhere in the Empire who asked, well into the 1920s, for the Cabinet’s prohibition on the use of non-lethal gas to be set aside. Douglas mentions officials in India, Southern Rhodesia, Nigeria and Egypt asking for this. The Chiefs of Staff, the General Staff and members of the Committee for Imperial Defence also made the same point (Douglas, “Chemical Weapons”, p.881). Authorities in France, South Africa and the United States of America used tear gas “hundreds” of times in the inter-war period (Douglas, “Chemical Weapons”, p.881).

It wasn’t just colonial officials who were in favour of non-lethal gas weapons either. In some respects, gas seemed less cruel than conventional weapons. One of the most brilliant scientists of the 20^th century, J.B.S. Haldane, felt very strongly that this was the case and argued in a book titled “Callinicus: A Defence of Chemical Warfare” in 1925 that chemical weapons did not result in a large proportion of combat fatalities (Coleman, History of Chemical Warfare, p.33). “In his opinion, gas did not deserve its status as a pariah among armaments (Girard, Strange and Formidable, p.164). Another scientist, Victor Lefebure, also “believed that gas was a relatively humane weapon, if a humane weapon was one that produced a lower “death rate… [and] a much smaller proportion of the injured suffered any permanent disability”” (Girard, Strange and Formidable, p.179; emphasis in the original).

Conclusion

Many of Churchill’s detractors paint his support for chemical weapons as evidence of a wicked or depraved mind. At the very least, he is alleged to have shown a shocking indifference to the people who would be affected by the weapons. This is ahistorical. Churchill supported the use of tear gas as a tool of counterinsurgency. He never pushed for chlorine gas or phosgene gas to be used in Iraq. In the case of Iraq specifically, he authorized the use of tear-gas weapons. Later on, he approved the development of an aerial tear gas weapon which, the Royal Air Force claimed, was even less harmful. Churchill wanted weapons to be used that would not inflict “grave injury” nor leave “serious permanent effects” on the natives. Churchill’s support for the use of tear gas weapons was supported by numerous senior officials and the Iraqi Government itself, although not the Cabinet as a whole. In the event, tear gas was not used in Iraq and Churchill rescinded his permission to use such weapons. 

Bibliography

Coleman, Kim, A History of Chemical Warfare (Palgrave Macmillan, 2005)

Dockter, Warren, Churchill and the Islamic World: Orientalism, Empire and Diplomacy in the Middle East (I.B. Tauris, 2015)

Douglas, R.M., "Did Britain Use Chemical Weapons in Mandatory Iraq", The Journal of Modern History, Vol. 81, No. 4 (December 2009), pp.859-887

Gilbert, Martin, Churchill: A Life (Pimlico, 2000)

Girard, Marion, A Strange and Formidable Weapon: British Responses to World War I Poison Gas (University of Nebraska Press, 2008)

Stafford, David, Oblivion or Glory: 1921 and the Making of Winston Churchill (Yale University Press, 2019)

Churchill's Popularity

Introduction 

In journalism and publishing today there is a cottage industry dedicated to slandering “debunking” Winston Churchill. If one wants to hate Churchill, you don’t need to look for very long before you can find an author attacking Churchill from a particular political perspective you happen to share. However, despite this, a positive view of Winston Churchill is firmly established in the minds of most members of the public. According to YouGov, he is still liked by 64% of the public and only disliked by a mere 12%. In other words, there are more than five times as many Churchill supporters than there are detractors.

But was this always so? Some people lately have claimed that Churchill was actually quite unpopular during his lifetime, including during the Second World War. In order to publicize his latest book, Geoffrey Wheatcroft published an essay in The Times describing him as “unpopular, error-prone and reckless”. Incidentally, this isn’t a bad description of Wheatcroft's book.

Kehinde Andrews, Professor of Black Studies at Birmingham City University, made the same point at a recent panel on the legacy of Churchill:

“It’s actually interesting because at the time […] I mean Churchill wasn’t even that popular at the time […] I mean, he was never elected and after this war effort where he supposedly single-handedly led the world against the Nazis, he actually lost the election. And so, this […] is a kind of historical re-placing him back on his pedestal.” (Quoted in Andrew Roberts and Zewditu Geybreyohanes, "Racial Consequences, p.11)

But is this true? Should we trust the word of a distinguished Professor of Black Studies at a noteworthy former polytechnic?

What Actual Historians Say About Churchill’s Popularity

In 2013 Professor Richard Toye published a book on the reception of some of Churchill’s speeches. Professor Toye's argument was that:

The conventional story – that Churchill’s oratory produced unanimous or near-unanimous rapture – is therefore unsatisfactory. A good speech by him might provide a few days’ spike in morale, but it could not in itself effect a long-run shift in people’s beliefs about how the war was going. It is hardly surprising that his speeches were best received when things were going well; we should not exaggerate his capacity – even in the case of Dunkirk – to persuade people that things were better than they were. This does not mean that we need to reject the idea that Churchill’s speeches were successful, but we do need to rethink the nature of their success. If they sometimes caused people to feel depressed, this was usually because of his accurate predictions that the war would last much longer than many expected. This enhanced his credibility in the long run, in spite of the negative emotions created in the short term. Ironically, moreover, the near-relentless focus on the speeches with ‘the quotable bits’ has distracted attention from some equally successful but seemingly less rhetorical ones… (Toye, Roar of the Lion, pp.228-229)

Professor Toye accepts that Churchill was very popular, writing that:

“It is important to stress that Churchill did have widespread popular support and that very few people disliked him as an individual”. Elsewhere Toye describes Churchill’s popularity as “astonishingly high” (Toye, Roar of the Lion, p.6 & p.201).

Robert MacKay, in his book on civilian morale in Britain during World War Two gives a different assessment of the impact of Churchill’s speeches:

When it comes to assessing the effect of attempts to reassure the public and to stimulate its patriotic feelings and behaviour, Churchill's speeches stand out as playing a unique role. Was he telling the people what they wanted to hear? A fight to the death? No surrender, come what may? It would seem so. Many contemporary accounts - not just the fancy of retrospect - testify to the very real sense in which he both inspired and personified the people. Molly Weird told of how her mother responded to him: "She loved, above all things, listening to Churchill..."Here he comes. The British bulldog. By God, he puts new life into you". 'What they like most', wrote Mollie Panter-Downes, ' is his great gift for making them forget the discomfort, danger and loss and remember only that they are living history'. His 'blood, sweat and tears' speech, she though, 'struck the right note with the public because it was the kind of tough talk they wanted to hear after months of woolly optimism'. Churchill's own view on this was characteristically modest: 'I was very fortunate: I did nothing more than give expression to the opinion of the people of this country, and I was fortunate in being able to put their sentiments into words'. The implication is that the speeches were not primarily attempts to persuade at all. Frances Partridge was not sure about this: 'I remember, how loathsome his early speeches seemed to me and wonder if it is I who have changed, or Winston? Have we all given in and become war minded, where once we stuck our toes in?' George Beardmore, while coolly objective about the oratorical skill being deployed, was none the less happy to admit that this was a voice both for and of the people: 'A marvelous speech and a long one by Churchill last Sunday in his appeal to the Americans...His closing passage "Give us the tools and we will finish the job" [emphasis in the original], was so intense that it kept a roomful of us silent for three minutes after he'd gone... His genius is that while he puts into magnificent words what we are thinking, he manages at the same time to inspire'. Isaiah Berlin, too, noted Churchill's ability to 'impose his imagination and his will upon his fellow countrymen...[He] lifted them to an abnormal height in moment of crisis', turning them 'out of their normal selves, and, by dramatising their lives and making them seem to themselves and to each other clad in the fabulous garments appropriate to a great historic moment, transformed the cowards into brave men and so fulfilled the purpose of shining armour' (Robert MacKay, Half the Battle, pp.177-178)

 

 How the British People Felt About Churchill

We are fortunate that Gallup repeatedly polled the British public on the question “In general, do you approve or disapprove of Mr. Churchill as Prime Minister?”. The answers strongly contradict Professor Andrew’s remarks that Churchill was not very popular during the war. The results of every opinion poll Gallup took were published in a multi-volume hefty tome in the 1970s. The page references in the table below are from The Gallup International Public Opinion Polls: Great Britain 1937-1975: Volume One: 1937-1964 by George H. Gallup.

The average approval rating for Churchill between Jul 1940 and May 1945 was 87%. The modal approval rating was 91%. The lowest his approval rating dropped was 78% and the highest reached was 93%.

A doubting Thomas might claim that the Gallup polls are clearly rubbish since the Conservative Party lost the election quite decisively in 1945. But in fact, the Gallup polls predicted a Labour lead over the Conservatives as early as June 1943:

It seems that the public was quite able to divorce Churchill from his party. They liked Churchill; they preferred that the Labour Party win the 1945 election. These are not contradictory statements.

Conclusion

Churchill had a long career in politics. There were times when he probably was unpopular, on the whole. This is probably true of most people in politics, other than those content to make zero impact on history. But it is quite clear that during the most important time of his political career, and one of the most important moments in his country’s history, Churchill enjoyed the backing of the British people and was incredibly popular.

Bibliography

Gallup, George H. (ed.), The Gallup International Public Opinion Polls: Great Britain 1937-1975: Volume One: 1937-1964 (Random House, 1976)

MacKay, Robert, Half the Battle: Civilian Morale in Britain During the Second World War, pp.177-178 (Manchester University Press, 2002)

Roberts, Andrew and Geybreyohanes, Zewditu, "The Racial Consequences of Mr Churchill": A Review (Policy Exchange, 2021)

Toye, Richard, The Roar of the Lion: The Untold Story of Churchill's World War II Speeches (Oxford University Press, 2013)