Churchill's Empire
Winston Churchill is justly venerated for his courage and leadership during the darkest days of World War II. But an equally important dimension of his amazing political career 鈥� a lifelong, stalwart defense of the British Empire 鈥� has received far less attention.
Indeed, for all the books in which he is the central figure, there has never been a single volume that analyzed Churchill鈥檚 views of and impact on the British Empire. Historian Richard Toye has now produced such an overview. Churchill鈥檚 Empire is largely sympathetic, but it shows its subject in a much less flattering light than usual.
Throughout his career, Churchill saw nonwhite people as inferior beings that were, nonetheless, capable of improvement. In 1907, for example, after traveling in Kenya, he wrote that he liked 鈥渢hese light-hearted, tractable if brutish children鈥� and concluded 鈥渢hat they are capable of being instructed and raised from their present degradation.鈥�
Some of his comments are shocking. 鈥淚 hate people with slit eyes and pig- tails,鈥� he once said. He especially disliked Indians. 鈥� 鈥業 hate Indians,鈥� he declared, 鈥榯hey are a beastly people with a beastly religion.鈥� 鈥� He proposed that Gandhi be 鈥渓ain bound hand and foot at the gates of Delhi and then trampled on by an enormous elephant.鈥�
Given such views, it鈥檚 hardly surprising that Churchill is usually seen as a complete reactionary for whom preservation of the Empire was an abiding commitment. Indeed, in the middle of World War II, he famously said, 鈥淚 have not become the King鈥檚 First Minister to preside over the liquidation of British Empire.鈥� He was blunter in private, writing, 鈥� 鈥楬ands off the British Empire鈥� is our maxim and it must not be weakened or smirched to please sob-stuff merchants at home or foreigners of any hue.鈥�
Toye鈥檚 central thesis is that Churchill鈥檚 beliefs and actions were less predictable and more nuanced than his rhetoric and conventional wisdom suggest. As late as the 1920s, for example, many fellow members of Parliament regarded him as dangerous because he did not care enough about the future of the empire and seemed overly interested in fair treatment toward the subject peoples.
Churchill did have an unmistakably die-hard commitment to the empire in the 1930鈥檚 and 1940鈥檚. But Toye suggests that this was the result of two factors. First, public opinion 鈥� especially in Western democracies 鈥� was less tolerant of empires and the subjugation of indigenous people and the British Empire looked like an anachronism. In other words, as time passed, the world had changed but Churchill鈥檚 views had not evolved.
Second, and probably correctly, Churchill believed the empire was the only thing that ensured that Great Britain would be regarded a leading power. If the empire disappeared, so would Great Britain鈥檚 place on the world stage.
The British Empire disappeared rather quickly after the war and Churchill鈥檚 attitudes and actions were contradictory as it happened. He glumly acknowledged that 鈥�India must go鈥� and did nothing to stop that from happening. Moreover, he finally accepted an independent Ireland, something he had vociferously opposed when it happened 30 years earlier. Nonetheless, he mourned the end of the empire and once said that his life鈥檚 work had 鈥渁ll been for nothing.... The Empire I believed in is gone.鈥�
Toye repeatedly describes Churchill鈥檚 views and actions with regard to the empire as 鈥減ragmatic鈥� and this seems right. He was born when the empire was at its zenith and was deeply committed to it emotionally. But he intellectually understood 鈥� especially with the passage of time 鈥� that its days were numbered.
This is a carefully researched and exceptionally well-documented book that is a welcome addition to the literature. It is not a traditional biography but more of a study of Churchill鈥檚 behavior in a central area of his career. It makes extensive use of government archives, diaries, and secondary sources. The citation of newspaper articles to underscore the broader reaction to Churchill鈥檚 actions is especially welcome. It is fascinating reading.
It is fairly dense in some places and, because it was written by an English historian, it assumes the reader will have a good knowledge of British government and politics. Lacking such knowledge, it will seem like a tough slog. American readers, for example, may be jarred by the frequent references to 鈥淐ongress鈥� because it does not refer to our legislative body but rather the Indian National Congress party.
Paradoxically, Toye concludes that Churchill himself may inadvertently have helped topple the Empire. His forceful and soaring speeches about freedom before and during World War II inspired the world. Most likely, they also inspired those people longing to leave the British Empire.
Terry Hartle is senior vice president of government relations for the American Council on Education.
