Chapter Three
The Lessons of Failure

Though Churchill entered the Great War
readily, if not eagerly, we must remember that he had warned in
speech and print that it would be a catastrophe for humanity. He
was the only one, apart from that brilliant prophet of the future
H. G. Wells, to predict its horrors so clearly. And they proved
worse than either supposed. Indeed the first of the two world wars
proved the worst disaster in modern history, perhaps in all
history, from which most of the subsequent problems of the
twentieth century sprang, and many of which continue, fortissimo,
into the twenty-first. He saw all these tremendous events from a
highly personal viewpoint and portrayed them vividly, seen from
close quarters and invested with strong emotion. As with every
major event in his life, he told the story as soon as it was over,
on an appropriately large scale. A. J. Balfour, who always viewed
him with a salty mixture of admiration and vitriol, put it:
“Winston has written an enormous book about himself and called it
The World Crisis.”
Even before the book appeared, he had epitomized
its monstrous nature in glowing words on a sheet of War Office
paper:
All the horrors of all the ages were brought
together, and not only armies but whole populations were thrust
into the midst of them. The mighty educated states involved
conceived— not without reason—that their very existence was at
stake. Neither peoples nor rulers drew the line at any deed which
they thought could help them to win. Germany, having let Hell
loose, kept well in the van of terror; but she was followed step by
step by the desperate and ultimately avenging nations she had
assailed. Every outrage against humanity and international law was
repaid by reprisals—often on a greater scale and of longer
duration. No truce or parley mitigated the strife of the armies.
The wounded died between the lines: the dead mouldered into the
soil. Merchant ships and neutral ships and hospital ships were sunk
on the seas, and all on board left to their fate, or killed as they
swam. Every effort was made to starve whole nations into
submission, without regard to age or sex. Cities and monuments were
smashed by artillery. Bombs from the air were cast down
indiscriminately. Poison gas in many forms stifled or seared the
soldiers. Liquid fire was projected upon their bodies. Men fell
from the air in flames, or were smothered often slowly in the dark
recesses of the sea. The fighting strength of armies was limited
only by the manhood of their countries. Europe and large parts of
Asia or Africa became one vast battlefield on which not only armies
but entire nations broke and ran. When all was over, torture and
cannibalism were the only two expedients that the civilised,
scientific Christian states had been able to deny themselves, and
they were of doubtful utility.
At the time, Churchill was too busy to reflect on
the horrors of war. He was responsible for 1,100 warships, with
more joining them every week from the shipyards. But they were
vulnerable. Three cruisers were lost to a U-boat on a single day,
September 22, 1914. In October the battleship Audacious was
sunk and soon after two more cruisers went down in the lost battle
of Coronel. Combined loss of life was over four thousand. The
failure of the Mediterranean fleet to sink two German warships on
their way to Istanbul inspired Turkey to join the war on Germany’s
side. On two occasions German warships made hit-and-run attacks on
Yorkshire towns. The fact that the navy had enabled the six
divisions of Britain’s expeditionary force to be transported
without loss of a single man was taken for granted, though it was a
notable achievement. Churchill sent fast battle cruisers to the
South Atlantic to avenge Coronel, and they did so at the battle of
the Falklands, the entire German squadron being sent to the bottom.
But that was taken for granted, too. The public demanded to know
what the Grand Fleet was doing, and why it had not won an
overwhelming victory. Why had there been no Trafalgar? Where was
Nelson? The French had saved Paris by their victory at the Marne in
early September, but Britain had made no spectacular contribution
as yet to victory in the war, which all (except Churchill and
Kitchener) believed would be short.
In his frustration, Churchill involved himself in a
typical personal adventure. He had already created a naval division
for land use and set up a base in Dunkirk, with a naval air
squadron, and commandeered Rolls-Royces protected by sheets of
steel armor, the earliest version of the tank. When news reached
the cabinet that the Belgians were about to surrender Ostend and
Antwerp, thus defeating the whole object of Britain’s intervention
in the war, it ordered Churchill, a delighted volunteer, to go to
Antwerp to take charge. He did so and had a tremendous time,
commanding every available man and piece of artillery, improvising,
and inventing new weapons. He afterward described it in The
World Crisis with rhetorical relish. He set up his HQ in the
best hotel, went around in a cloak and a yachting cap, and held the
city for a week, during which the three chief French Channel ports,
essential links between Britain and the expeditionary force, were
made secure. But his proposal that he resign his office and be
appointed commander on the spot, though approved by Kitchener, was
rejected by the cabinet, and he was ordered home. Antwerp fell, and
with it two thousand British troops who were killed or taken
prisoner, and Churchill was blamed, particularly by the Tories and
senior army generals. Clemmie, who had had a baby (Sarah) while her
husband was fighting, was also critical. But the prime minister was
warm in praise: “He is so resourceful and undismayed, two of the
qualities I like best.”
Churchill later wrote that “the weight of the War”
pressed “more heavily” on him in the last months of 1914 than at
any other time. As the enormous and constantly expanding armies
settled down into static, bloody, and horrible trench warfare in
Flanders, Churchill feared his nightmare vision was coming true:
the vision of an endless, infinitely costly but indecisive war, in
which all would lose, none gain, and the only result would be the
ruin of Europe and her empires. The navy had painfully succeeded in
bottling up Germany, clearing the seas of her surface ships and
maintaining British maritime supremacy on the oceans. Otherwise it
was unoccupied and denied the chance to strike a vital blow.
Admiral Jellicoe, commanding the Grand Fleet, was rendered
cautious, perhaps excessively so, Churchill felt, by his knowledge
that though he could not win the war by daring, he could “lose it
in an afternoon” by one serious misjudgment. How to restore
dynamism to the war? He asked Asquith (December 29, 1914): “Are
there not other alternatives than sending out armies to chew barbed
wire in Flanders? Furthermore, cannot the power of the Navy be
brought more directly to bear upon the enemy? ”
One answer was to make more use of Russia’s almost
inexhaustible manpower resources by shipping vast supplies of
modern weapons, especially heavy artillery, to her Black Sea ports.
But this meant knocking Turkey out of the war, or at any rate
clearing the Dardanelles to let the British and French munitions
ships through. This is what Churchill suggested in a memo to
Asquith at the end of 1914. He also offered an alternative: an
invasion of Schleswig-Holstein, which Germany had conquered from
Denmark in Bismarck’s day. This, he calculated, would bring
Denmark, perhaps all the Scandinavian countries, into the war and
also open up communications with Russia. But Churchill preferred an
assault on Istanbul, which would be easier, given overwhelming
Franco-British superiority in the Mediterranean, and bring the
Balkan states of Greece, Rumania, and Bulgaria into the war on the
Allied side, probably Italy also.
This view was accepted in principle. But now it
became clear, at least in retrospect, that Asquith, as prime
minister, did not know how to run a war on such a scale. What
British prime minister ever had? Aberdeen had made a gruesome mess
of British participation in the Crimean War. Pitt had blundered
repeatedly in the Continental War against Revolutionary France and
Napoleon. Asquith, over six years, had proved a skillful peacetime
leader, steering Britain through several crises by his adroit
management of the House of Commons and the cabinet. But he had no
conception of the right way to win a world war. He could keep the
cabinet together and see that general policy orders were given to
the services. But then he sat back and wrote amorous letters to his
beloved Venetia Stanley or played bridge endlessly at his house,
the Wharf. It is clear now that he should have handed over to a
younger and more energetic colleague such as Lloyd George, or
formed a war cabinet to conduct the actual operations and the
mobilization of the economy. He should also have brought the other
parties into the government and so united the nation. But he was
not willing to do any of those things.
Hence the attempt to seize the Dardanelles, the
narrow strip which was the key to the Sea of Marmara and Istanbul,
was a disaster. The year before, Churchill had foolishly brought
out of retirement Admiral Sir John Fisher, the dynamic force—he was
more than a human being—who had created the original Dreadnought
and two more classes of capital ships, to replace Admiral Louis
Battenberg, forced out by popular prejudice because he was of
German blood, as first sea lord. Fisher was now well into his
seventies and increasingly arbitrary and childish (his wild letters
often ended “Yours till Hell freezes”). He could not make up his
mind about the Dardanelles and in the end opposed it. By this time,
January 1915, the Germans and Turks had got wind of the scheme and
were preparing to kill it on the beaches. There was a foolish
tendency, not shared by Churchill, to underrate the Turks as
fighting men. With a large contingent of German officers to advise
and train them, the Turkish army was formidable. On January 31,
Asquith told Fisher, “I have heard Mr. Winston Churchill and I have
heard you and now I am going to give my decision . . . The
Dardanelles will go ahead.”
If Asquith had then appointed Churchill supremo of
the operation (and told him to replace Fisher), the campaign might
still have succeeded. But he did no such thing. He was already
thinking of forming a coalition with the Tories and knew they would
require Churchill’s departure from the Admiralty as part of the
price. There were endless arguments about the nature of the naval
force and the relative importance of the army in the attack. The
admirals were timid. The land commander, General Sir Ian Hamilton,
was charming but lacked resolution. There were leaks from the
cabinet, which under Asquith had no sense of the absolute need for
security, and by the time the operation began at the end of April
1915, the assaulting troops, mainly Australians and New Zealanders,
plus Churchill’s naval division, had not a chance. It was a
massacre, and the casualties enormous. The divided command insisted
on reinforcing failure, thus breaking the most elementary rule of
strategy, and the death toll rose. Fisher noisily resigned, and
Asquith formed his coalition, moving Churchill, despite his almost
tearful protests, from the Admiralty to the nonjob of chancellor of
the Duchy of Lancaster. It was the only time in his life that
Clemmie Churchill made a dramatic appeal on behalf of her husband.
She wrote to Asquith: “Winston may in your eyes, and in those with
whom he had to work, have faults, but he had the supreme quality
which I venture to say very few of your present or future Cabinet
possess—the power, the imagination, the deadliness, to fight
Germany.” This was true but unavailing: Asquith was beginning to
fight for his own political survival and he saw that the sacrifice
of Churchill was essential to it. Besides, his noisy and dominating
wife, Margot, whose shouted advice was to get rid of Churchill at
any cost, told him: “I have never varied in my opinion of Winston I
am glad to say. He is a hound of the lowest sort of political
honour, a fool of the lowest judgment, and contemptible. He cured
me of oratory in the House, and bored me with oratory in the
Home.”
So Churchill was out and had to watch, impotent and
silent, while the politicians, admirals, and generals compounded
their mistakes and the operation, after a quarter of a million
casualties, ended in ignominious evacuation. Though an official
inquiry eventually exonerated him, at the time (which is what
mattered) he got the blame. As Theodore Roosevelt once remarked of
a financial crisis: “When people have lost their money, they strike
out unthinkingly, like a wounded snake, at whoever is most
prominent in the line of vision.” Here it was not money but lives
lost, and there was no doubt who was most prominent. So the
Dardanelles disaster became identified with Churchill and the fury
this aroused persisted until 1940, and even beyond, especially
among the Tories and a huge chunk of the public.
It was the lowest time in Churchill’s life. At this
point, Sir William Orpen, Britain’s finest painter, did his
portrait. It is the best ever done of Churchill, of the fifty or so
that have survived, and one of the best Orpen himself ever
produced: dark, somber, troubled, defiant—just—but more despairing.
When it was finished, Churchill sighed, “It is not the picture of a
man. It is the picture of man’s soul.” Orpen used to speak of “the
misery in his face.” He called Churchill “the man of misery.” No
one can understand him properly without looking long and earnestly
at this great work (now in Dublin). A quarter of a century later,
when Churchill was back at the top and able to look at his life
more philosophically, he said, “Yes, it’s good. He painted it just
after I’d had to withdraw our forces from the Dardanelles, and I’d
got turfed out. In fact when he painted it I’d pretty well lost
everything.” He brooded in his inactivity, something he had never
experienced before. His wife later told Martin Gilbert, his great
biographer, “I thought he would die of grief.”
At this moment, providence intervened. By pure
chance, his sister-in-law “Goonie” Churchill (Lady Gwendeline
Bertie, daughter of the Earl of Abingdon) was painting in
watercolor in the garden of Hoe Farm in Surrey, which they had
rented jointly. Churchill: “I would like to do that.” She lent him
her paints and soon, ambitious as always, he sent for a set of oils
and canvases. He loved it. The Scots-Irish master Sir John Lavery,
a neighbor, took him in hand, and his dashing wife, Hazel, also a
painter, gave him excellent advice. “Don’t hesitate. Dash straight
at it. Pile on the paint. Have a go!” He did, with growing relish.
He discovered, as other sensible people have done, that painting is
not only the best of hobbies but a sure refuge in time of trouble,
for while you are painting you can think of nothing else. His first
painting, The Garden at Hoe Farm, with Goonie in the
foreground, survives. Soon, misery began to retreat. His mind, his
self-respect, his confidence were restored. He found he could paint
strikingly and loved it; his efforts improved with each canvas. The
colors were strong and cheerful. His friends liked them and were
delighted to have them. He had discovered a new field to conquer
with his audacity. Painting, after politics and the family, became
his chief passion, and he painted for the rest of his life, as the
perfect relaxation from his tremendous cares. His eventual election
as an Honorary Royal Academician Extraordinary in 1948 may have
been colored by his wartime eminence. But it is a compelling fact
that in 1925 Lord Duveen, the leading art dealer of the century,
Kenneth Clark, later director of the National Gallery, and Oswald
Birley, one of the top portrait painters, formed a committee to
award a prize to works of art submitted anonymously by amateur
artists. The three gave it instantly and unanimously to Churchill’s
submission, Winter Sunshine, and Duveen found it hard to
believe the painter was an amateur.
Enlivened by art, Churchill determined to go back
into the fray by fighting in Flanders. He went to the front on
November 18, 1915, and was there till May 1916. After much
opposition, he was given a battalion to command, the Sixth Royal
Scots Fusiliers, and saw action in the trenches. A photograph
survives showing him wearing a French infantryman’s helmet, which
he preferred to the British tin hat, and dressed in a uniform so
badly put on and buckled as to cause heart failure in Sir Douglas
Haig, the ultrasmart commander in chief, who as Lloyd George
scathingly put it, was “brilliant to the top of his boots.” But he
looks happy. The experience restored his faith in himself and
winning the war. He later wrote:
As, in the shadows of a November evening, I for
the first time led [my men] across the sopping fields which gave
access to our trenches, while here and there the bright flashes of
the guns or the occasional whistle of a random bullet accompanied
our path, the conviction came into my mind with absolute assurance
that the simple soldiers, and their regimental officers, armed with
their cause, would by their virtues in the end retrieve the
mistakes and ignorances of staffs and cabinets, of admirals,
generals and politicians—including, no doubt, many of my own. But
alas at what a needless cost! To how many slaughters, through what
endless months of fortitude and privation, would these men,
themselves already the survivors of many a bloody day, be made to
plod before victory was won!
Churchill’s service in the trenches served him well
in both world wars because it enabled him to understand the views
of ordinary soldiers and officers (much better than Sir Douglas
Haig, who never went near the trenches if he could help it: he
thought his nature too tender and that experiencing horrors would
undermine his ability to take hard decisions). He returned to
London exhilarated, eager for work—and to earn money to replace his
ministerial salary writing articles for the Sunday Pictorial
and the Times.
After demeaning attempts to cling on, Asquith was
finally ousted in December 1916 and replaced by Lloyd George, who
began to do many of the things that should have been automatic from
the beginning of the war. He wanted to bring Churchill back, but
the Tories in his coalition would not hear of it. After a key
meeting with LG behind the Speaker’s Chair in May 1917, Churchill
became his unofficial adviser on the war, though holding no office.
Thus “master and servant” were reunited and Churchill, chastened by
his experiences and aware of the risks the prime minister was
taking to talk to him at all, was for a time silent and almost
servile. His position, however, was helped by his alliance with a
new friend, Max Aitken, Lord Beaverbrook, a Canadian financier who
was rapidly building up one of the most successful newspaper
empires in Britain. They became intimate friends and the
Beaverbrook press sang his praises. Clemmie disliked him even more
than she did F. E. Smith, and thought his advice to her husband
always wrong and often inflammatory. In my experience of
Beaverbrook I found him shrewd and often wise, honest, reliable,
and truthful. But many thought otherwise and agreed with Clemmie.
At all events, by July 1917 Lloyd George felt strong enough to
bring back Churchill and made him minister of munitions.
This was a brilliant move, and Churchill rapidly
made himself one of the most efficient departmental ministers in
British history. It was a confused ministry which had grown up
haphazardly during the war and was a maze of duplications,
contradictions, and bureaucratic gang warfare. In a short time of
fanatical hard work Churchill made it simple, logical, and
efficient. He forged a close link with the front to ensure the
troops got exactly the right weapons and ammunition they wanted, in
the right quantities. He visited the front constantly, and Haig was
so impressed by the improvement in supplies that he completely
reversed his opinion of Churchill and let him use the Château
Verchocq near Calais. Within a year, the British army was better
supplied with weapons of their choice than either the French or the
Germans. The vast quantities of heavy artillery, mobile cannon, and
machine guns Churchill sent played a notable part in the slaughter
inflicted on the German divisions, which attacked in March 1918,
when for the first time in the war the relative casualty rate was
decisively reversed. The German army began to bleed to death—the
prime cause of their plea for an armistice in November 1918.
Churchill was also effective in ensuring that American forces,
arriving at the front in growing numbers from late 1917, never went
short of munitions. There is a vignette of Churchill, after a day
at the front, getting lost in his Rolls-Royce near Verchocq and
shouting to his driver, “Well, it’s the most absolutely fucking
thing in the whole of my life.” It is worth noting that Churchill,
who disliked swearing in others and usually restrained himself,
occasionally indulged when things went wrong. His secretary
Elizabeth Layton once recorded: “He was in a very bad temper all
this week, and every time I went to him he used a new and worse
swear word.”
Lloyd George also used Churchill in various key
roles in the creation of a unified command with France in 1918. It
was at his suggestion that the prime minister brought General Smuts
into the war cabinet, in recognition of the enormous efforts the
commonwealth had made to help Britain in the war. Soon after the
armistice, LG held a general election, which he won with a huge
majority for his coalition, Churchill defending Dundee again, as a
Liberal (coalition). LG now felt strong enough to make full use of
Churchill, bringing him into the cabinet and putting him in charge
of both the army and the air force. His first job was to get the
soldiers and sailors home as quickly as possible, and this he did
with a brilliant scheme, entirely his own, whereby priorities were
decided simply by length of service, wounds, and age. As he put it,
“I let three out of four go and paid the fourth double to finish
the job.” This worked, as did a surprisingly high proportion of his
ideas. It would be hard to say whether he produced, in his
lifetime, more superb ideas or phrases.
His ideas, when they prospered, sometimes had a
huge effect on the future. When they foundered, they left a
desolating feeling of what might have been. He regarded Lenin’s
Bolshevik coup of November 1917, his subsequent murder of the czar
and his family, and the creation of a Communist state as one of the
great crimes of history. He was determined to reverse it and sent
troops and armies to Russia through Archangel. This intervention
had begun before Churchill took over the War Office but he
increased its scale and inflated it with his rhetoric, and had he
been allowed he would have done more, and for longer. It did not
seem to be working, and his colleagues insisted he pull out. Once
again, he was “conspicuous,” and got all the blame. In a sense it
was another Dardanelles. If it had succeeded, more than 20 million
Russian lives would have been saved from starvation, murder, and
death in the gulag. It is most unlikely that, with Bolshevism
crushed, Mussolini could have come to power in Italy, or still
less, Hitler in Germany. Imagine the postwar world without either
triumphant Communism or aggressive Fascism!
Churchill was never allowed by his critics to
forget his failed attempt to extinguish Communism, but he did not
pine himself. He had too much to do, especially in the Arab world,
where he was much more successful, and his work had immense
consequence, and still does. Throughout the nineteenth century it
had usually been British policy to treat Turkey, “the sick man of
Europe,” gently and to try to keep its crumbling empire together.
All that changed when Turkey joined Germany in 1914. Then it became
Anglo-French policy to strip Turkey of its Arab provinces and
divide the spoils. By the Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916 France was
to get Syria and the Lebanon as protectorates, and Britain the
rest. At Munitions, Churchill became involved by speeding guns to
the advancing army of General Allenby (whom he regarded as
Britain’s best general) in Palestine, and by providing rifles with
which to arm Arab rebels organized by Colonel T. E. Lawrence, the
visionary soldier and adventurer who became one of his close
friends. The success of Allenby and Lawrence in December 1917 and
the subsequent collapse of Turkey made a tabula rasa of the whole
vast area which Churchill now began to call the Middle East, on
which Britain—and he himself—could paint the future.
He was aware from his Indian service of the variety
of Islam and the ferocious force of its fundamentalist elements. He
was fond of saying, “The British Empire is the world’s greatest
Moslem power,” with 80 million in India, which was then undivided,
alone. In his two Indian campaigns, and in the Sudan in 1899, he
had been fighting fundamentalists. So, essentially, had been
Britain in the Persian Gulf since the early nineteenth century. The
strongest fundamentalist force in the Arab world was the Wahhabi
sect, a confederation of tribes ruled by the Saud family. Britain
built up a series of Gulf peoples—in Muscat and Oman, Kuwait,
Qatar, and Bahrain—whose moderate views and trading interests made
them natural allies—to pen the Saudis in and prevent their
piratical dhows from raiding communications with India. Britain
also made friends with the Hashemite family, hereditary sharifs of
Mecca by direct descent from the time of the Prophet
Muhammad.
When Churchill took over, first as head of the army
and air force, and from early 1921 the Colonial Office, the idea
was to make the Hashemites the pivot of British policy. This was
frustrated by the ferocity of the Saudis who, the moment Turkish
power collapsed, overran most of the Arabian peninsula,
slaughtering their opponents and setting up a kingdom which
included the majority of the Gulf coast, already recognized as the
world’s largest oil reserves. Churchill would have liked to reverse
this decision, but war-weary Britain had no relish for another
campaign in the East, and the lesson of the recent failure to
reverse history in Russia was too painful, even for him. What he
did was to concoct with General Trenchard, head of the air
force—which Churchill formed into a separate body—methods of using
bombers to control large areas of sparsely populated territory.
Churchill’s backing for the new RAF was enthusiastic and provident,
and by the time he moved to the Colonial Office it was easily the
largest air force in the world. He also encouraged the expansion of
the British air construction industry which, between the wars, was
exceptionally fertile and dynamic, and was to save the country,
under his leadership, in 1940.
He now remodeled the Colonial Office to found a new
and powerful Middle East department, which in the spring of 1921
organized a high-level conference in Cairo to refashion the area in
light of the Saudi triumph. This was one of the highlights of
Churchill’s career, and it gave him a taste for summit conferences
he never lost. It was highly productive. Two new kingdoms were
created, Iraq and Transjordan, for the two leading Hashemite
princes, Emir Faisal, sharif of Mecca, and Emir Abdullah. The role
of the RAF was confirmed and a vast new base in Habbaniya in
northern Iraq, still in use by the West, was created. This
settlement lasted half a century and would have endured longer but
for an unfortunate intervention by the world’s largest oil company,
Standard Oil. While Britain was using Anglo-Persian and Anglo-Dutch
Shell to develop the fields in Persia, Iraq, Kuwait, and elsewhere
in the Gulf, Standard formed an alliance with the Saudis to develop
fields on their territory, which proved the richest of all.
American policy almost inevitably backed Standard, and so the
Saudis. Thus the Wahhabi fundamentalists became a great power in
the Middle East, immune from attack because of U.S. support and
provided with colossal sums of oil royalties with which to
undermine the moderates everywhere and the Hashemites in
particular.
Churchill was painfully aware of the shadows this
cast over the future, but there was little he could do about it at
the time. What he could, and did, do was to ensure the continuation
of the Jewish experiment in making a National Home in Palestine. To
reinforce worldwide Jewish support for the Allies, Britain had
issued in 1917 a promise known as the “Balfour Declaration” (he was
foreign secretary at the time), under which the government promised
“its best endeavours” to help the Jews found their new home there
“without prejudice to the existing inhabitants.” The declaration,
of course, did not exactly envisage the creation of Israel, and it
was internally a contradiction. But it had the enthusiastic support
of Churchill. His time as a Manchester MP had put him in close
touch with a thriving Jewish community. He was always pro-Jewish
and became (and remained) pro-Zionist as soon as it became a
practical scheme. At Cairo and later he was able to defeat attempts
to renege on the declaration and wind up the Jewish National Home
in response to Arab pressure. On the contrary, he gave it every
support in his power, and when in 1922 the House of Commons showed
signs of turning against the whole idea, he made one of his
greatest speeches, which swung MPs round into giving the Jews their
chance. Without Churchill it is very likely Israel would never have
come into existence. It is not given to many men to found, or help
preserve, one new state: his score was three.
Churchill was meanwhile playing a key role in the
latest phase of the Irish problem. He had been at the front,
happily, when the Easter Rebellion broke out in Dublin in 1916 and
was not involved in the subsequent hangings. By the end of the war,
the Irish Republican Army, under the leadership of Michael Collins,
the handsome killer-charmer known as “the Big Fellah,” had reduced
much of Ireland to anarchy. Lloyd George’s first instinct was to
pacify it by force, bringing in a special army of ex-soldiers whose
uniforms made them known as the Black and Tans, and whose tendency
to match the atrocities perpetrated by the rebels with similar
reprisals made them hated. The net result was that there was no
longer any possibility of coercing Ulster into accepting Home Rule,
i.e., inclusion in a Dublin Parliament. The problem was: could the
rest of Ireland be persuaded to accept a settlement which left the
six counties (of Ulster) under British rule? By 1921 Lloyd George
was determined to negotiate a settlement along these lines, and he
called in to help him Churchill and his lord chancellor, Birkenhead
(as F. E. Smith had become). These three men, plus Collins,
eventually reached one. Churchill again proved himself, in
negotiation, a moderate by nature, infinitely fertile in
imaginative compromises, much helped by Birkenhead’s legal genius,
and the Anglo-Irish Treaty must be counted another of his positive
achievements, albeit shared with the other three in the
quadrumvirate. This treaty led to the establishment of the Irish
Free State, under which southern Ireland had the right to govern
itself but retained allegiance to the Crown and remained part of
the empire, Ulster could opt out, and British forces committed to
leaving southern Ireland. It did not prevent a brief and bloody
civil war in the south, when Eamon De Valera led the extreme
nationalists, and Collins (who had told Churchill, “We would never
have done anything without you”) was murdered. But the treaty did
include a provision, on which Churchill insisted, to allow the
British navy to maintain antisubmarine bases on the west coast
(“the Treaty ports”), and it lasted, in most respects, for half a
century, until the next Irish explosion came.
Meanwhile Lloyd George, who had enjoyed heady
personal power for over three years, engaged in his own
Churchill-type adventure on the Turkish coast, where he tried to
come to the rescue of Greek communities against the newly
invigorated Turkish state under Kemal Atatürk. LG loved small,
fierce nations, among whom he numbered Greece, and he wanted to
commit British forces to preserve these Greek pockets. Churchill,
for once, was in favor of withdrawal from what he saw was an
untenable position. LG broke with him over this issue—their
relations had already been strained by the Irish crisis and the
Honours scandal, for which LG was responsible and when Churchill
gave him no sympathy. In what became known as the Chanak crisis, LG
was forced to back down, and that effectively ended his coalition
government. The Tories had long been restive under a regime in
which they provided most of the votes in Parliament and Lloyd
George and his cronies had most of the jobs. On October 19, 1922,
at a meeting of the Carlton Club, Stanley Baldwin, a newcomer to
high politics, made a persuasive speech in which he accused LG of
splitting the Liberal Party and threatening to split the Tories,
too. The Tories voted to withdraw from the coalition, LG resigned,
Bonar Law formed a Tory government, and a general election followed
in November. During the campaign Churchill was in great pain (the
photos show it) and was rushed to hospital for an emergency
operation: “In the twinkling of an eye, I found myself without an
office, without a seat, without a party and without an
appendix.”
Thus, seven years after the Dardanelles disaster,
Churchill was again sent to the bottom. Or rather, it was like a
game of snakes and ladders, and he had now gone right down a snake
and had to face the task of wearily climbing the ladder again, for
the third time in his life. It was not so easy now he was nearing
fifty. For one reason or another the orthodox Liberals, under the
battered but revengeful Asquithians, the Lloyd George Liberals,
Labourites, and the Tories all hated and distrusted him. He now had
a long record. Seen in retrospect, in the twenty-first century, it
seems a record of astonishing variety, most of it admirable. Seen
in 1922, it appeared alarming. Nothing daunted Churchill,
determined to get back into the Commons. Without that, nothing was
possible. With it, and his astonishing powers of persuasion and
sheer oratory, everything was possible. Dundee was hopeless: he had
come in fourth in 1922. So in December 1923 he stood for Leicester
West, as a Liberal free trader, but was well beaten by Labour. He
stood again in March 1924, in Westminster (Abbey) at a by-election.
This was the famous independent-minded seat where in the late
eighteenth century Charles James Fox had triumphed against all the
might of the Crown, with the help of the kisses of Whig duchesses.
Churchill had no duchesses, for Consuelo, the rich American lady
who had married his cousin, the 9th Duke of Marlborough and who was
fond of “Cousin Winston,” had been cast off and had married a
Frenchman. But he had a new admirer: Brendan Bracken, a mysterious
Canadian, who had come from nowhere (many thought, quite wrongly,
that he was Churchill’s illegitimate son) and was busy becoming a
millionaire and a power in city journalism, eventually owning the
Financial Times. He became Churchill’s closest and most
faithful aide, and thanks to his efforts the seat was nearly won.
But a Tory got in by forty-three votes, and all was to do
again.
But one of Churchill’s strengths, both as a man and
a statesman, was that politics never occupied his whole attention
and energies. He had an astonishing range of activities to provide
him with relief, exercise, thrills, fun, and, not least, money. By
the end of October 1923, he had embarked on his enormous record of
the First World War, The World Crisis, which appeared in
multiple volumes between 1923 and 1927. The serialization had begun
in the Times in February. Together with its Aftermath
(1929), it is his best large-scale book, much of it written with a
kind of incandescent excitement, verging at times on poetry, rage,
and even genius. It vindicated his wartime career, so far as
possible, and provided a brilliantly lit guide through the dark and
horrific war. It made a great deal of money over the years and more
than three quarters of a century later is still in print, and read.
Its success opened before Churchill an endless vista of publishers’
contracts all over the earth, for anything he cared to
produce.
It also justified a new venture: a country house.
Hitherto he had borrowed and let several. But he wanted one he
could fashion as his own. In 1922 an inheritance of a small estate
from an old dowager duchess of Marlborough gave him a chance. He
sold the estate and invested the proceeds in buying Chartwell, a
house of Elizabethan origin, plus three hundred acres, at Westerham
in Kent. It was only twenty-five miles from Parliament and had a
magnificent view. He called in Philip Tilden, the fashionable art
deco-style architect (the mode of the twenties), who had worked for
his friend Philip Sas soon and redone Lloyd George’s country house
at Churt, to modernize it. But much of the planning and design was
Churchill’s own work. It had never been a beautiful house, and is
not one now (apart from the view). But it is distinctive, personal,
and fascinating, an extension of the man himself in brick and
mortar, beams and decorations. It has big windows, which Churchill
liked: “Light is life,” he said. It is equipped for a writer and
revolves round the library and study. But it also has an art deco
dining room, which saw countless bottles of champagne uncorked, and
a dazzling succession of lunches and dinners, conjuring up the age
of Lady Colefax and Emerald Cunard, the great hostesses. The real
personality of Chartwell, however, lies in the surrounding grounds
and buildings, which were entirely of his design and often
literally of his creation. As the plaque there states, he built
most of the cottage and a large proportion of the kitchen garden
wall, having learned to lay bricks in a rough-and-ready manner. He
applied for membership in the brick-layers’ trade union but was
eventually turned down, after much argument—trade union prejudice
and Tonypandy playing a part. He excavated mountains of earth in
order to create three connected lakes. He had a mechanical digger
for this task, of which he became very fond. He treated it like his
own prehistoric monster and referred to it as “he.” He also laid
down railway tracks to speed the operations, first eighteen inches
wide, later twenty inches—three in all—and used various devices to
insulate the lake bottoms and keep the water in. His youngest
child, Mary Soames, later recalled, “My childhood was beset by
leaking lakes.” He populated the lakes with black swans which sang
to one another (unlike the silent white swans), danced minuets, and
performed other tricks. There were also cows, pigs, and fowl, sheep
and goats, budgerigars and a parrot. He took particular trouble
stocking the ponds with freshwater fish, goldfish and exotics, and
his greatest pleasure was to feed them and encourage guests to do
so. As in India, he collected live butterflies and had a specially
designed hut to house them. The little estate thus became a
wonderland of creatures and activities, the delight of countless
guests, and the source of provender at Hyde Park Gate, a place of
constant entertainment. Every Monday, a carful of flowers left
Chartwell for the London drawing room, and on Thursday there was
another carful of fruit and vegetables for the kitchen.
The Churchill family always lived well. There was a
succession of first-class cooks. The cellars were ample. He nearly
always drank champagne at mealtimes (as was normal among the richer
politicians of his generation). His favorite was Pol Roger. Toward
the end of his life he said the 1928 vintage, of which he bought a
great quantity, was the best ever bottled. Madame Roger became a
friend of his and named a special cru after him. In turn,
when he formed a racehorse stable, he named a horse after the
brand. He had a special room for his cigars, of which the Romeo y
Julieta was his chosen Havana. But it is important to realize that,
though he was almost invariably seen and photographed with a cigar
in his hand, his consumption was not large—never more than twelve a
day. He did not inhale. His cigars were constantly going out and
being relit rather than smoked. He never used a lighter, always
very large, specially made matches, of which he once gave me a
specimen. He loved the procedure of cigar smoking more than the
smoking itself—one reason he never had any smoke-produced trouble
with his lungs. As Beaverbrook said, “He smoked matches and ate
cigars.” As for his consumption of hard liquor, he never gulped but
sipped, slowly and at long intervals. Once aboard the yacht of
Aristotle Onassis, the Greek shipping millionaire, he was sitting
in the main saloon with his host and Professor Frederick Lindemann
(later Lord Cherwell), his personal science adviser, when he
suddenly said, “If all the whisky and brandy I have drunk in my
life was added up, it would fill this state-room to overflowing.”
Lindemann: “I don’t think so.” Onassis: “Let us measure the
dimensions of this room and see.” Churchill told the professor to
get out his slide rule and gave him details of his daily intake of
spirits over his lifetime. Lindemann got to work and came up with
the answer: the saloon would be filled up to the height of five
inches. Churchill was plainly very disappointed.
However, if Churchill lived well, he never had much
cash in hand or saw his investments rise to a point when he could
feel secure for life, or even for the next year. Chartwell cost
£5,000 but he had spent £20,000 on it by the end of the 1920s. His
finances roller-skated, and on three occasions he feared he would
have to sell the house. Eventually, after the Second World War, the
Daily Telegraph proprietor bought it and endowed it for the
National Trust, to be kept in perpetuity as a memorial to Churchill
and his day. It was agreed he could live there for the rest of his
life at a nominal rent of £300 a year. It was, and is, handsomely
kept up and has become one of the choicest attractions for visitors
to Britain from all over the world.
All this was in the future. At the time, Chartwell
and all it offered in terms of work and enjoyment blunted the sense
of loss his exclusion from high politics inflicted, until the wheel
of fortune should turn again. And turn it did! It became clear that
his only political future was with the Tories. But how to get back
among them? So long as Bonar Law lived, there was no chance. He
hated Churchill because of Ulster, distrusted him because of the
Dardanelles, and found him an infuriating cabinet colleague.
Churchill had a pernicious habit, which did him infinite harm, of
overrunning the boundaries between the various government
departments and speaking in cabinet—without being invited by the
prime minister—on issues which were not his direct concern. Nothing
makes a cabinet minister more unpopular, and his interventions were
controversial and lengthy. He reduced Curzon to rage and even
tears, and caused Bonar Law to lose his temper in cabinet, the only
time he did so. He recognized Churchill’s abilities but said, “I
would rather see them displayed as my opponent than as my
colleague.” However, in 1923 Bonar Law became mortally ill and
resigned, saying he was too sick to advise George V about a
successor. The job of adviser went to Balfour. He rejected the
favored candidate, Curzon, who would certainly never have offered a
top job to Churchill, in favor of Stanley Baldwin. In the meantime,
Churchill had been worming his way back into Conservatism. He was
helped by Birkenhead and by his father’s old friend in Liverpool,
Alderman Salvidge. They arranged for Churchill to make a big speech
in that city in May 1924. In those days, Churchill often took
several whiffs of pure oxygen to “lift” him before a bout of
oratory, and he traveled up with two canisters. The speech was a
tremendous public success and in it he withdrew his old opposition
to duties and in effect dropped his free trade views. This public
recantation was humbling to make but it achieved its purpose. In
September he was adopted as a “Constitutionalist” candidate in the
Epping division of Essex, and at the general election in October he
was returned with a massive majority of 9,763. It was now the
easiest of moves to ask for the Conservative whip and get it, thus
making himself eligible for office. It opened up a new era in his
life. For the rest of it, he was now seen as a Tory on the great
chessboard of Westminster, and had the ideal seat to keep him
there.
Baldwin, who had briefly served as prime minister
before a Labour interlude under Ramsay MacDonald, was returned with
a handsome majority at the election and was in a generous mood. His
most important Tory colleague was Neville Chamberlain, whom he
originally intended to make chancellor of the exchequer. But
Chamberlain wished to be a reforming minister of health. Baldwin, a
fellow Old Harrovian, took the opposite view of Churchill to Bonar
Law’s: “I would rather have him making private trouble in the
Cabinet than public trouble outside it.” He said, half joking, “I
wish to make a Cabinet of which Harrow can be proud,” and had
Churchill into Number Ten. Churchill was expecting little, and when
Baldwin said, “I want you to be Chancellor,” he thought it meant of
the Duchy of Lancaster, the nonjob he had held in the dark days of
1915. He was tempted to refuse, when Baldwin added, “Chancellor of
the Exchequer, of course.” Churchill was transformed. He “lit up
like a gigantic light-bulb.” In a split second he was transformed
into a radiant, joyful prince of politics again, a man at the top
of fortune’s wheel. He said: “This fulfills my ambition. I still
have my father’s robes as Chancellor. I shall be proud to serve you
in this splendid office.”