Geoffrey Best, Churchill: A Study in Greatness (1st published, 2001. This ed. London: Penguin Book, 2002), pp. 370. Price $ 8.99 (in Pakistan, Rs. 645).
Winston Churchill became the most inspiring icon of the Second World War in Britain. His speeches resonated through the hearts of the British public in the darkness of the winter of 1942 when the German bombs fell over London at night and everybody feared that Britain would fall to Hitler’s forces in months. As such, there are many biographies of Churchill given on pages 353-354 of the book. However, for someone who wants a brief, lucid but sympathetic account of the great leaders’ life, the present book is a valuable source.
Geoffrey Best starts off with Churchill’s world---late Victorian England. Born in 1874 when Britannia ruled the waves and, for that matter, a very large part of Africa and Asia, he was brought up to believe in Britain’s ‘destiny’ to rule the world. He belonged to the British aristocracy, his father, Lord Randolph Churchill, was the younger son of the Duke of Marlborough---the legendary figure whose biography Churchill was to write later. Churchill’s school years were not pleasant. After preparatory schools he went to Harrow and then to the Royal Military College at Sandhurst. From there he got commissioned in a swashbuckling cavalry regiment (4th Hussars) and got posted to India in 1896. In 1898 he went to Sudan to take part in the battle of Omdurman. In 1899 he resigned as a lieutenant form the army and became a journalist. He then went to South Africa to cover the Anglo-Boer war and got imprisoned by the Boers. Luckily he escaped and went back to England to write about the war.
Churchill then entered the House of Commons as MP for Oldham. He was a Conservative at that time but later changed his party. However, some of his ideas remained conservative even during the time when he was a Liberal. Soon enough he became the First Lord of the Admiralty, the civilian cabinet minister who controls all naval affairs, which was a great success at his young age (in his thirties). In his characteristic style he started reforming the Royal Navy by removing senior admirals whom he did not think well of. Thus, when the First World War started in 1914, the Navy was seaworthy.
The chapters on the first war give us very useful insights into the political system of Britain. The war was run by civilian decision-makers though chiefs of the services were always available to give their professional advice. The civilians did not interfere in tactical matters but Churchill did direct overall strategy though, of course, he was never a naval man. This speaks of the unusually strong democratic culture of the British armed services and the people. Even more surprising is the fact that Churchill lost his admiralty position when it was discovered that there was a shortage of shells. While Churchill himself had nothing to do with the shells, the government yielded to the formation of a coalition government. Churchill now had a semi-sinecure---Chancellorship of the Duchy of Lancaster. He was frustrated and appealed to be posted to the army so that he could fight on the French front. Surprisingly he was made a colonel so that somebody who had lorded it over admirals a short time back, now went to commanding an infantry battalion in 1916. This went on for six months when he returned to the parliament. This incident, perhaps unique in modern history, again speaks high of British discipline which allowed an ex-minister to serve as a middle-ranking army officer and do exactly what his role demanded at that time.
Churchill’s views were typical of the imperialists of his age. He hated socialism and communism (which he called ‘Bolshevism’) and was very distrustful of the Soviet Union till the time during World War-2 when Hitler attacked it. He was also against the idea of Indian freedom. His view was that India needed a benevolent and neutral authoritarian administration. It was not fit for democracy. He felt that, if the British were to concede freedom and withdraw, they would be acting irresponsibly because the Hindus and Muslims would fight. If they created two countries the countries would go to war and the people would suffer. Much of what Churchill said did, indeed, happen but not for reasons given by him. The author, who seems to sympathize with Churchill even in his prejudices, does not go into the details of why things happened in South Asia the way they did. He also fails to tell the reader how the Western anti-Communist bias and latent imperialism has created the wars of the late twentieth and the present centuries. Anyway, ironically enough, in Pakistan Churchill’s views about the inability of South Asians to rule themselves democratically have been expressed by Iskander Mirza and, following him, every military dictator who has taken over power in the country.
Churchill’s greatest hour was his elevation to the prime ministership of Britain in a coalition government in 1940. He now committed himself to the defence of Britain and its huge empire---a very daunting task when America had not yet joined the Allies. His style was still authoritarian as for as the bureaucracy and the military were concerned though, in true democratic fashion, he dutifully answered questions in the parliament. The British principle of civilian supremacy even in the middle of a war so impressed an American high-ranking functionary that he ‘soon discovered, the Chiefs of Staff had no direct access to parliament, nor did they enjoy the mighty influence that America’s military leaders could exert an Capitol Hill. The British Chiefs of Staff were simply advisers to the War Cabinet, which in turn represented the political leadership of the country. It was the politicians who ran the war---not the generals or admirals’ (p. 177). This, indeed, was the tradition of British democracy and Churchill would often remark that it was important that generals, admirals and air marshals did not make the crucial decisions even about the conduct of the war.
Another remarkable feature of British democracy is that nobody, not even a war hero, is allowed to become a ruler for life. In Churchill’s case, on 5 July 1945, before the War ended, Churchill lost the election. As he writes: ‘Just before dawn I woke suddenly with a sharp stab of almost physical pain. A hitherto subconscious conviction that we were beaten broke forth and dominated my mind’ (p. 269). Like any other leader in these circumstances he felt that he was really needed on the world’s stage at this critical juncture. However, unlike undemocratic leaders he did not declare an emergency or hide behind charges of rigging or annul the elections. Instead, he just left office and went into retirement. After some years he was elected again and he finally went into retirement in 1955---but that is what democracy is.
Churchill died on 24 January 1965 mourned by millions of the British people. He was a great national hero and was given a hero’s burial. The author’s account of the burial ceremony is moving and the epilogue provides a brief justification of his greatness. However, while the author has amply demonstrated the ‘greatness’ of British democracy and of British society in general, he does not demonstrate Churchill’s ‘greatness’. British democracy is great for reasons given earlier---civilian supremacy being respected in two great wars, war heroes not being allowed to rule permanently and the respect for elections---and British society is great because it did not allow Churchill, or other great men, to become rich at the public expense. Churchill lived well but on money obtained from journalism or, towards the end of his life, donated by philanthropic friends. Churchill himself emerges as an authoritarian figure whose imperialistic mind could not sympathize the yearning for freedom among Indians and Africans. He also did not stop the barbaric bombing of the German cities at the hands of the RAF nor did he understand that the atomic bomb should not be used in Japan or that it should be banned---as Niels Bohr urged him to do so. No warmonger can be called ‘great’ though it is true that, if a country is defending itself, then it does need the most competent of the warriors. Churchill’s ‘greatness’ lies then in his respect for democratic values and this greatness is attributable to British culture rather than personal qualities. Geoffrey Best, by being unduly sympathetic to his subject, ends up supporting western imperialism and militarism rather than democracy and humanism.