Otto English (né Andrew Scott) is a journalist who has recently published a book on historical myths. He devotes one whole chapter to what he regards as the myth that Churchill was Britain’s greatest Prime Minister. His book has not been well received by historians, with one describing it as among the “worst books about history I have ever read”. In spite of this though, his book is a bestseller on Amazon, ranking in the top ten in the category of “World History”.
Judging by the reviews, many of his readers are accepting Otto English’s arguments hook, line and sinker. “Well written, balanced, and fair””, says one. “Interesting, informative and irreverent" says another. “[A] brilliant exposure of the lies we are exposed to daily about our past” says another. Laypeople are taking Otto English seriously. So, despite his work not being proper history but merely political polemic (as some of his defenders suggest) it is worth responding to.
Mr. English clearly thinks he is a brave defender of the “truth” (no joke, he actually believes this). For him, the idea that Churchill was a great Prime Minister is propaganda being used by Brexiteers and Tories. He seems particularly irked by the current UK Prime Minister’s biography of Churchill. In fact, English’s guiding principle when writing his own book seems to have been “if the Prime Minister says X, then X never happened”.
Now, for the record, I have not read Boris Johnson’s biography of Churchill. I likely never will. English is so blinded by his dislike of him though that he makes some egregious errors. In fact, he goes further than that. A close examination reveals that Otto English is deliberately misleading his readers by presenting half-truths and lying by omission. I will demonstrate this by reviewing his treatment of Winston Churchill’s time on the Western Front during the First World War.
Otto English on Churchill in the Trenches
For years people accepted that Churchill’s service in the
army in 1915 and 1916 was to his credit. But we’ve been misled, according to
English. He writes that Churchill was never really in any danger as he was
posted to a quiet part of the front, miles away from the “actual war”. It is highly
unlikely he ever ventured into No Man’s Land. He spent his time strutting
around in an Adrian helmet, making his men practice marching (badly), writing
letters, and painting watercolour. He dismisses as a “complete fabrication” the
idea that Churchill was in danger. As a commander of troops Churchill proved
incompetent so it was probably a good thing for the men that they were miles
away from the front line with Churchill.
Anyone even remotely familiar with Churchill’s time on the Western Front will recognize this as downright wrong. It’s so wrong a reader might think I am strawmanning him. I am not.
English goes on to say that after a few months Churchill got
“bored stiff” of being a soldier and decided to leave the war after a few
months.
But if Otto English’s characterization of Johnson’s
description of Churchill’s time at the front is anything to go by, Johnson
produced a more careful and accurate book than Otto English’s Fake History.
(Lest anyone take this as an endorsement of Johnson, please see this review by Richard Evans.)
What Otto English Gets Correct
Otto English isn’t completely wrong. A few things he writes
are correct. However, this is highly revealing as to his methodology. For
example, Churchill did, on one occasion, erroneously give a cavalry command to
the infantry, causing them confusion. The late military historian, Carlo
D’Este, described it thus:
The 6th Fusiliers were assembled on a slope when Churchill appeared riding his black charger and began barking out commands: ‘Royal Scots Fusiliers! Fix Bayonets!’ The whole scene was farcical: ‘The command could not possibly be carried out from the slope position. A couple of the chaps put their rifles on the ground and pulled out their bayonets; the rest were merely mystified. Eventually [Captain] Gibb persuaded Churchill to call “Order Arms” and to fix their bayonets in the normal way. Winston then inspected the men. Having done so, he gave a cavalry order: “Sections Right!” This meant nothing to the Jocks [Scots], who had the sense to stand still and do nothing.’ (D’Este, Warlord, p.313)
Oops. Pretty embarrassing, still no real harm done. Churchill
himself was a cavalryman originally, and since took place on his first day
with Fusiliers we can probably cut him a little slack.
It is also true that Churchill wore a French helmet, an
Adrian helmet. He also found a little time to do some painting. However, there
is much more to the story. The fact that Mr. English gets these details right
suggests that he has done some research on this aspect of Churchill’s life.
This also makes sit inexcusable that he only discusses these aspects.
English is clearly trying to spin a narrative and in doing so is deceiving his
readers.
English is right to describe how Churchill’s experience at
the front as a Member of Parliament was not unique. Churchill was not the only
MP to see combat in World War One. A number of MPs were killed in action. But,
did anyone ever claim otherwise? Not as far as I know. English is tilting at
windmills here. I am not sure that Churchill and other MPs are on a
reputational seesaw. It doesn’t take anything away from Churchill that other
people saw more combat during the First World War than Churchill did.
Why Churchill Left for the Front
In May 1915, Churchill resigned as First Lord of the
Admiralty, scapegoated for the failures of the Dardanelles campaign. In
November the same year, he resigned from the Cabinet. Churchill was left with
two options – either do nothing and retire or re-enlist in the army and serve
his country on the battlefield. In fact, there is reason to believe that Churchill
had always intended on re-joining the army eventually. In 1914 he wrote to his
brother Jack that:
As soon as the decisive battle has been fought at sea – I shall try to come out to; if there is any use for me (quoted in Russell, Soldier, p.359).
After Gallipoli, when he was no longer able to influence the
grand strategy in London, he likely decided that he was of best use to his
country in the army. As he put it in a letter to Curzon:
I did not go [to the front] because I wished to disinterest myself in the great situation or because I feared the burden or the blow: but because I was and am sure that for the time being my usefulness was exhausted & that I cd only recover it b a definite & perhaps prolonged withdrawal (quoted in Russell, Soldier, p.376)
Churchill's Experience at the Front
Otto English is wrong to suggest that Churchill spent barely
any time at the front. Deducting time spent on leave and in the rear, historian
Paul Addison estimated that Churchill spent roughly one hundred days on the front
line (Addison, Unexpected Hero, p. 84)
On November 18th Churchill arrived in France. He
was immediately (and unexpectedly) taken to see General Sir John French, C-in-C
of the British Expeditionary Force. The General thought very highly of
Churchill and offered him a promotion to Brigadier General and command of an
infantry brigade. Churchill accepted, but suggested that before he assume
command, he should spend time at the battalion level so he might be educated in
the ways of trench warfare. The General agreed and Churchill was to train for
the next few weeks with the Grenadier Guards. The troops rotated between 48
hours in the front line then 48 hours in support for 12 days followed by six
days in divisional reserve (Russell, Soldier, p.362).
Douglas S. Russell describes Churchill’s time at the front line with
the Grenadier Guards as a time when he faced “constant danger” (Russell, Soldier,
p.362). Churchill didn’t face the occasional “stray bullet” or “rogue shell”.
He faced daily rifle, machine gun, and artillery fire. According to Russell, it
was quite normal for several soldiers to be killed or wounded each day. On the
25th of November 1915, Churchill experienced a near-miss when a
dugout he had been in was destroyed by German artillery fire minutes after he
had exited it (Russell, Soldier, p.363; D’Este, Warlord, p.305-306).
In January 1916 Churchill was assigned to the IX (Scottish)
Division and given command of the Sixth Battalion, Royal Scots Fusiliers. His
battalion spent the first few weeks of January at a French village called
Moolenacker. There Churchill was responsible for drilling and training the men.
Contrary to the impression English gives, Churchill did not prove “rusty” as a
commander. This period is actually very well documented as the officers who
served under him wrote about it too. One of them, Andrew Dewar Gibb – who would
later go on to found the Scottish National Party – wrote a memoir of his time
at the front with Churchill. According to Gibb:
From day to day [Churchill] introduced particular little innovations which he liked and by the end of ten days he had produced a manifest smartening up on every side… it is only just to admit he improved us greatly (Gibb, With Winston on the Front, p.24).
Carlo D’Este writes that Churchill:
Immersed himself in every aspect of [the soldiers] daily lives. Changes were made, improvements initiated, and constant, almost incessant lectures delivered on a variety of subjects. There did not seem to be a single topic with which Churchill was not conversant. The men smartened up, and a sense of order and purpose emanated from the confidence displayed by their leader (D’Este, Warlord, p.314).
On January 26th the battalion took over a section
of the trenches near the town of Ploegsteert. While it is true that this was a
comparatively quiet section of the front, it is completely misleading to
describe this as being miles away from the “actual war”. The 6th
Royal Scots Fusiliers suffered a twenty percent casualty rate during the
following half-a-year (Russell, Soldier, p.374). On the Western Front,
it didn’t require a big battle for men to be killed or wounded. Churchill’s
battalion would spend six days in the frontline trenches (less than 100 yards
from the German trenches) and then six days in the support trenches and rotate
back. German artillery fire was a constant risk and Churchill himself was
nearly killed on a number of occasions. Russell mentions near-misses on the 3rd
of February (when artillery shells exploded in the next room while Churchill
was at the battalion HQ), on the 12th of February (while watching an
artillery barrage against the German trenches and he was caught in a counter
barrage), and on the 16th of February (again while Churchill was in
HQ) (Russell, Soldier, p.371-372). This is not a definitive list by any
means.
Despite what Mr. English thinks, Churchill also led patrols
into No Man’s Land (which he was not obliged to do) (Russell, Soldier, p.373,
D’Este, Warlord, pp.319-320). His bravery was remarked upon by the men
who served with him. Gibb wrote that “there was no such thing as fear in
[Churchill]” (Gibb, With Churchill at the Front, p.68). Lt. Hakewell
Smith said:
He would often go into no man’s land. It was a nerve wracking experience to go with him…. He never fell when a shell went off; he never ducked when a bullet went past with its loud crack. He used to say after watching me duck: ‘it’s no damned use ducking; the bullet has gone long past you by now (quoted in Russell, Soldier, p.374).
The exact number of times Churchill did this I am unsure of.
Andrew Roberts, says it was more than thirty times (Roberts, Churchill,
p.239).
English is correct that Churchill
was popular with the men but wrong to suggest this was due to lax discipline. To
be generous, there is a kernel of truth in what he says. Other officers, such
as Captain Gibb, did think that Churchill was a bit too soft on the men. In
March 1916 Churchill actually received a reprimand for “undue leniency” in
administering punishments. But what does that actually mean? Unit cohesion
never was threatened while Churchill was in charge (Russell, Soldier,
p.371). These days we tend to think that First World War discipline was too
strict. Maybe Otto English would have been satisfied if Churchill had sent a
few shell-shocked teenagers to face a firing squad. But it was not this
leniency that won over the men to him. It was mainly his consideration for
their needs. Carlo D’Este notes on revealing incident:
[A] company runner, a private named Reginald Hurt, encountered Churchill. After saluting… the soldier was asked why he was limping. ‘I explained that my feet were sore because of the bad condition of my boots and that when I had applied for new pair [sic] the quartermaster said they would last another three months. The OC [Churchill] took a letter from his tunic pocket, detached the envelope and rote on it, “Quartermaster Sgt. B. Company, supply bearer with one pair of boots immediately” and signed it’. For Churchill it was small but important gestures like this that won the confidence of his men (emphasis in original; D’Este, Warlord, p.316).
While Otto English sneers that Churchill taught the men “singsongs”, this was actually an important morale booster and shows Churchill’s concern for the men under his command. As far as I know, Otto English has no military experience so perhaps he doesn’t appreciate the importance of songs and music.
Why Churchill Left the Front
Otto English’s explanation for why Churchill returned to politics is perhaps the least charitable one imaginable. He simply got bored. That’s not what happened. Churchill actually found his time on the front rather fulfilling. He was dismayed at what he saw as the incompetence of those in charge of Britain’s war effort and came to believe that he could do more for the war effort in Parliament. As he put it to his wife “there I can help the movements of events” (quoted in Russell, Soldier, p.375).
The Last Words
For all his claims about being a defender of “the truth”, from my point of view, the truth is that Otto English is deliberately misleading his readers. There is no way he could have done enough research to include those piquant details that made Churchill look bad, without realizing that Churchill did face danger at the front, was a competent commander, and was held in high regard by his men. I’ll finish this post by quoting some of the men who served in the trenches with Churchill. I don’t think they’d share Mr. English’s position:
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. We laughed at lots of things he did, but there were other things we did not laugh at for we knew they were sound. He had a unique approach which did wonders to us. He let everyone under his command see that he was responsible, from the very moment he arrived, that they understood not only what they were supposed to do, but why they had to do it…
No detail of our daily life was too small for him to ignore. He overlooked nothing… Instead of a quick glance at what was being done he would stop and talk with everyone and probe to the bottom of every activity. I have never known an officer take such pains to inspire confidence or to gain confidence; indeed he inspired confidence in gaining it (quoted in Russell, Soldier, p.377).
Captain Gibb:
I am firmly convinced that no more popular officer ever commanded troops. As a soldier he was hard working, persevering, and thorough… He was out to work hard at tiresome but indispensable detail and make his unit efficient in the very highest possible degree… We came to realise, to realise at first hand, his transcendent ability… And much more, he became our friend. He is a man who is apparently always to have enemies. He made none in his old regiment, but left behind him, there men who will always be his partisans and admirers, and who are proud of having served in the Great War under the leadership of one who is beyond question a great man (quoted in Russell, Soldier, p.377).
Colonel Seely:
The one vital essential quality in any great commander of men in real war… That quality is cool courage and unimpaired judgment under fire… seeing his men, being seen by them [and inspiring them] with his own will for victory. Churchill had this quality in high degree. Real danger unnerves most men; it nerved him (quoted in D’Este, Warlord, p.327).
Brigadier General Croft:
[T]he Service lost a good soldier when Winston took to politics (William Denman Croft, Three Years with the 9th (Scottish) Division, p.27)
Bibliography
Addison, Paul, Churchill: The Unexpected Hero (Oxford University Press, 2006)
Croft, William Denman, Three Years with the 9th (Scottish) Division (John Murray, 1919)
D’Este, Carlo, Warlord: A Life of Churchill at War
1874 - 1945 (Allen Lane, 2009)
Gibb, Andrew Dewar, With Winston Churchill at the Front:
Winston in the Trenches 1916 (Frontline Books, 2016)
Roberts, Andrew, Churchill: Walking with Destiny
(Penguin, 2019)
Russell, Douglas S., Winston Churchill, Soldier: The Military
Life of a Gentleman at War (Conway, 2005)
