What do you think?
Rate this book
Churchill's Empire: The World That Made Him and the World He Made
The imperial aspect of Churchill's career tends to be airbrushed out, while the battles against Nazism are heavily foregrounded.
A charmer and a bully, Winston Churchill was driven by a belief that the English were a superior race, whose goals went beyond individual interests to offer an enduring good to the entire world. No better example exists than Churchill's resolve to stand alone against a more powerful Hitler in 1940 while the world's democracies fell to their knees. But there is also the Churchill who frequently inveighed against human rights, nationalism, and constitutional progress—the imperialist who could celebrate racism and believed India was unsuited to democracy. Drawing on newly released documents and an uncanny ability to separate the facts from the overblown reputation (by mid-career Churchill had become a global brand), Richard Toye provides the first comprehensive analysis of Churchill's relationship with the empire.
Instead of locating Churchill's position on a simple left/right spectrum, Toye demonstrates how the statesman evolved and challenges the reader to understand his need to reconcile the demands of conscience with those of political conformity.
A charmer and a bully, Winston Churchill was driven by a belief that the English were a superior race, whose goals went beyond individual interests to offer an enduring good to the entire world. No better example exists than Churchill's resolve to stand alone against a more powerful Hitler in 1940 while the world's democracies fell to their knees. But there is also the Churchill who frequently inveighed against human rights, nationalism, and constitutional progress—the imperialist who could celebrate racism and believed India was unsuited to democracy. Drawing on newly released documents and an uncanny ability to separate the facts from the overblown reputation (by mid-career Churchill had become a global brand), Richard Toye provides the first comprehensive analysis of Churchill's relationship with the empire.
Instead of locating Churchill's position on a simple left/right spectrum, Toye demonstrates how the statesman evolved and challenges the reader to understand his need to reconcile the demands of conscience with those of political conformity.
448 pages, Hardcover
First published March 1, 2010
36 people are currently reading
506 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 43 reviews
December 22, 2024
(Because I posted this review late in the evening I discovered almost immediately numerous infelicities and mis-spellings so I have had to correct them and repost. My apologies.)
One star is probably unfair because this is not a bad book. Some people will probably find it useful but I felt it was compromised by flawed inspiration and a lack of clarity in what it wanted to say and to whom it wanted to say it.
It is not a specialised study of Churchill and empire aimed at academic audiences but a popular history which attempts to reach everyone no matter how limited their knowledge of Churchill, the British empire, UK history or 20th century history and in particularly Anglo-USA history both as it was fantasised by Churchill and in a more realistic perspective. So in less than 400 pages, including notes and bibliography, the author tries to provide a life of Churchill, a history of the UK and British empire, two world wars and UK-USA relations. It is too many subjects, particularly when he tries not simply to explain Churchill's changing views on empire (more apparent than real in my opinion) but to place them within the shifting cultural positions and understandings of empire between, approximately, 1880-1965. He dips into all these things but the vastness of the topic and the necessarily superficial nature of his coverage means readers understanding of any of them is going to be limited at best.
Perhaps the problem is that Richard Toye likes Churchill far more than I do (but more on that later). A more pertinent problem is that Richard Toye never gets round to admitting what empires, The British or the European colonial empires, were there for - which was to make the 'mother' country rich and powerful. A great deal of flimflam was produced after territories had been conquered, native populations subjugated and foreign rule imposed about 'missions' and 'duties' that the imperial powers were impelled by and the benefits imperial rule provided and introduced. All such justifications are spurious when they are not actually disingenuous if not mendacious - no colony was acquired by any European power because politicians, electorates, or the military caste had urgent desire to help, improve, educate, uplift, feed, cloth or general better the condition of those they conquered. Colonies were acquired because of the needs of England (the members of Celtic populations that fringed England only registered for Churchill as soldiers, miners or beaters on hunting estates).
The British empire takes on a wholly different complexion when it is viewed from the perspective of the colonised. As an Irishman, the near 1,000 years of English interference in Ireland, provides an instructive insight into both British colonial policy in general and Churchill's in particular.
For most of the 19th century Irish politicians had asked with good manners and incredible patience to have just the tiniest bit of self government over things like education and post and telegraphs, we're not talking foreign affairs or taxation. Churchill, like so many English men, saw any concession as the death knell of the empire and refused to consider any concessions until eventually from 1916 onwards the Irish gave up being polite and rebelled. Churchill along with the PM Lloyd George tried to bomb, burn and shoot the Irish back into subjugation. They couldn't and by 1923 it was discovered that Ireland could be granted far more freedom then they had asked for in the days when Churchill (and Churchill pere, but that is another story) were reduced to apoplectic rage at the cheek of these 'gombeen' men having the effrontery to speak, let alone make demands, on their betters.
Do I need to explain the similarities of the Irish debacle and that of India? Well I will. Again for ages very polite, well educated (far better educated than Churchill) Indian gentlemen (again until WWII most of Churchill's contemporaries would have hesitated at defining Churchill as a gentleman) asked politely to be allowed to have a minimum of involvement in the running of their country. Churchill found it unacceptable that a load of uppity Baboo natives should have the gall to even dream of interfering in the running of India, the source of the army which preserved British power in the Middle and Far East. Churchill rejected any change because it would be the 'death knell' of the empire (death knell is a term which crops up regularly in the history of the demise of the British empire an institution which had one of most prolonged 'deaths' of any in history). Churchill was in the 'wilderness' for so many years because he undermined every effort by the UK government to find a solution to India's requests which in the end, like Ireland's, eventually become demands, for self government and rebellion in the form civil disobedience.
Churchill looked upon the division of India and Pakistan and the nightmare of partition as proof that he was right about India not being ready for freedom and Richard Toye seems to endorse this view. He doesn't begin to understand that the bloody massacres in the Punjab, like Ireland's poisoned sectarian relations, were a direct result of England's colonial policies.
Churchill's view of the empire was very simple - it made England a great power - that is all that mattered. He was racist, not in the dogmatic way of segregationist USA or apartheid South Africa, and more than anything he was the grandson of a Duke and part of hierarchical society which placed him at the very top and everyone else a very long way below. It is farcical to read of Churchill's struggle as a young officer to survive on £800 a year when most British families survived on £60 (and that was five people). Churchill viewed the empire through Britain's needs and greatness which more or less meant the needs of his class. But he viewed everyone's needs through this narrow perspective. He thought as little of ordinary English people as he did of the empires teeming millions. That in the 1950s ordinary English people were becoming better fed, more prosperous, better educated and had greater access to health care was of no compensation to Churchill for the dwindling of Britain's world power status. He would have welcomed back slums, rickets and barefoot children with faces rotting from working in phosphorus match factories for the return of the glitter of vice regal equipages.
Churchill was not so much a man of his time as a man of his class. He despised Europeans, outside of the residents of the more deluxe resorts and watering holes, as completely as he did working class English people, Irish Gombeen men or Indian Baboos. They were all below the salt and he led Britain in WWII to ensure Britain remained top dog. At least in WWI there was a pretence of caring about Belgium. Poor Poland never even received that. The Polish airmen who died defending Britain's cities got a War memorial so far outside London that it was almost symbolic of how unimportant they were to Churchill or anyone else.
My final comment is on Churchill's lengthy campaign to remind Americans of what united them to England - his whole unity of the English speaking peoples shtick. I think only an Englishman could spout that drivel without embarrassment at all the Spanish-, Italian-, Scandinavian-, Native-, Slavic-, Jewish-, Oriental- and other Americans it excluded. Even at the time Americans who liked Churchill used to cringe when he banged on in this way.
Now that I have finished my review I think my three stars are too generous and have dropped it to one star, not because it is a bad book but because it isn't hard enough on Churchill. Although his role in providing 'inspiration' was important in winning WWII, compared to the enormous contributions that the empire provided in men, money and material, willingly in the case of the white dominions without asking in the case of everyone else, is niggardly. Also Hitler helped the UK by bringing the men and resources of the USSR and USA into the war. Compared to Lloyd George in WWI Churchill in practical terms contributed almost nothing to the winning of WWII. Any tactical plans of his tended to, if not prolong the war, contribute nothing to its speedy conclusion. The great 'philosophical' achievements of WWII like The Atlantic Charter and the UN only happened because Churchill couldn't stop them.
I think anyone reading this book will actually understand Churchill and the British empire less, unless they knew nothing in which case while they won't have learnt anything they will have picked up a great deal of erroneous evasions and double talk.
One star is probably unfair because this is not a bad book. Some people will probably find it useful but I felt it was compromised by flawed inspiration and a lack of clarity in what it wanted to say and to whom it wanted to say it.
It is not a specialised study of Churchill and empire aimed at academic audiences but a popular history which attempts to reach everyone no matter how limited their knowledge of Churchill, the British empire, UK history or 20th century history and in particularly Anglo-USA history both as it was fantasised by Churchill and in a more realistic perspective. So in less than 400 pages, including notes and bibliography, the author tries to provide a life of Churchill, a history of the UK and British empire, two world wars and UK-USA relations. It is too many subjects, particularly when he tries not simply to explain Churchill's changing views on empire (more apparent than real in my opinion) but to place them within the shifting cultural positions and understandings of empire between, approximately, 1880-1965. He dips into all these things but the vastness of the topic and the necessarily superficial nature of his coverage means readers understanding of any of them is going to be limited at best.
Perhaps the problem is that Richard Toye likes Churchill far more than I do (but more on that later). A more pertinent problem is that Richard Toye never gets round to admitting what empires, The British or the European colonial empires, were there for - which was to make the 'mother' country rich and powerful. A great deal of flimflam was produced after territories had been conquered, native populations subjugated and foreign rule imposed about 'missions' and 'duties' that the imperial powers were impelled by and the benefits imperial rule provided and introduced. All such justifications are spurious when they are not actually disingenuous if not mendacious - no colony was acquired by any European power because politicians, electorates, or the military caste had urgent desire to help, improve, educate, uplift, feed, cloth or general better the condition of those they conquered. Colonies were acquired because of the needs of England (the members of Celtic populations that fringed England only registered for Churchill as soldiers, miners or beaters on hunting estates).
The British empire takes on a wholly different complexion when it is viewed from the perspective of the colonised. As an Irishman, the near 1,000 years of English interference in Ireland, provides an instructive insight into both British colonial policy in general and Churchill's in particular.
For most of the 19th century Irish politicians had asked with good manners and incredible patience to have just the tiniest bit of self government over things like education and post and telegraphs, we're not talking foreign affairs or taxation. Churchill, like so many English men, saw any concession as the death knell of the empire and refused to consider any concessions until eventually from 1916 onwards the Irish gave up being polite and rebelled. Churchill along with the PM Lloyd George tried to bomb, burn and shoot the Irish back into subjugation. They couldn't and by 1923 it was discovered that Ireland could be granted far more freedom then they had asked for in the days when Churchill (and Churchill pere, but that is another story) were reduced to apoplectic rage at the cheek of these 'gombeen' men having the effrontery to speak, let alone make demands, on their betters.
Do I need to explain the similarities of the Irish debacle and that of India? Well I will. Again for ages very polite, well educated (far better educated than Churchill) Indian gentlemen (again until WWII most of Churchill's contemporaries would have hesitated at defining Churchill as a gentleman) asked politely to be allowed to have a minimum of involvement in the running of their country. Churchill found it unacceptable that a load of uppity Baboo natives should have the gall to even dream of interfering in the running of India, the source of the army which preserved British power in the Middle and Far East. Churchill rejected any change because it would be the 'death knell' of the empire (death knell is a term which crops up regularly in the history of the demise of the British empire an institution which had one of most prolonged 'deaths' of any in history). Churchill was in the 'wilderness' for so many years because he undermined every effort by the UK government to find a solution to India's requests which in the end, like Ireland's, eventually become demands, for self government and rebellion in the form civil disobedience.
Churchill looked upon the division of India and Pakistan and the nightmare of partition as proof that he was right about India not being ready for freedom and Richard Toye seems to endorse this view. He doesn't begin to understand that the bloody massacres in the Punjab, like Ireland's poisoned sectarian relations, were a direct result of England's colonial policies.
Churchill's view of the empire was very simple - it made England a great power - that is all that mattered. He was racist, not in the dogmatic way of segregationist USA or apartheid South Africa, and more than anything he was the grandson of a Duke and part of hierarchical society which placed him at the very top and everyone else a very long way below. It is farcical to read of Churchill's struggle as a young officer to survive on £800 a year when most British families survived on £60 (and that was five people). Churchill viewed the empire through Britain's needs and greatness which more or less meant the needs of his class. But he viewed everyone's needs through this narrow perspective. He thought as little of ordinary English people as he did of the empires teeming millions. That in the 1950s ordinary English people were becoming better fed, more prosperous, better educated and had greater access to health care was of no compensation to Churchill for the dwindling of Britain's world power status. He would have welcomed back slums, rickets and barefoot children with faces rotting from working in phosphorus match factories for the return of the glitter of vice regal equipages.
Churchill was not so much a man of his time as a man of his class. He despised Europeans, outside of the residents of the more deluxe resorts and watering holes, as completely as he did working class English people, Irish Gombeen men or Indian Baboos. They were all below the salt and he led Britain in WWII to ensure Britain remained top dog. At least in WWI there was a pretence of caring about Belgium. Poor Poland never even received that. The Polish airmen who died defending Britain's cities got a War memorial so far outside London that it was almost symbolic of how unimportant they were to Churchill or anyone else.
My final comment is on Churchill's lengthy campaign to remind Americans of what united them to England - his whole unity of the English speaking peoples shtick. I think only an Englishman could spout that drivel without embarrassment at all the Spanish-, Italian-, Scandinavian-, Native-, Slavic-, Jewish-, Oriental- and other Americans it excluded. Even at the time Americans who liked Churchill used to cringe when he banged on in this way.
Now that I have finished my review I think my three stars are too generous and have dropped it to one star, not because it is a bad book but because it isn't hard enough on Churchill. Although his role in providing 'inspiration' was important in winning WWII, compared to the enormous contributions that the empire provided in men, money and material, willingly in the case of the white dominions without asking in the case of everyone else, is niggardly. Also Hitler helped the UK by bringing the men and resources of the USSR and USA into the war. Compared to Lloyd George in WWI Churchill in practical terms contributed almost nothing to the winning of WWII. Any tactical plans of his tended to, if not prolong the war, contribute nothing to its speedy conclusion. The great 'philosophical' achievements of WWII like The Atlantic Charter and the UN only happened because Churchill couldn't stop them.
I think anyone reading this book will actually understand Churchill and the British empire less, unless they knew nothing in which case while they won't have learnt anything they will have picked up a great deal of erroneous evasions and double talk.
October 27, 2013
This is not a biography of Winston Churchill, but rather an in depth analysis of his relationship to, and with, the British Empire. What it meant to him, how he related to it, defended it and believed in it. As a Victorian schoolchild, there is much on the influence of his father and his education - both at Harrow and Sandhurst. Although Churchill was to say that his time at Harrow was deeply unhappy, it is also obvious that he believed in the ethos of the major public schools and considered they played an important imperial role. During the Second World War he revisited Harrow, and gave a speech in which he said that, "although Hitler claimed the Adolf Hitler Schools had shown their superiority to Eton, he had forgotten Harrow!"
During this illuminating and interesting read, we discover Churchill's career as both a soldier and of his work as a journalist. He certainly seemed extremely brave (especially if he thought someone was watching, or there was a chance of a medal, which I found both very human and charming) and was a young man of extreme ambition. He talks of "jolly little wars against barbarous people," and described the Boer war as being, "great fun galloping about." Obviously, this is a major simplification, but he certainly saw the role of the Empire as being paternalistic and that British authority was derived from "moral ascendancy, liberty, justice, English tolerance and English honesty." Much of the book obviously looks at WWI and WWII, at Churchill's role in foreign policy and world politics. There is also much about his difficult relationship with India (he was to tell Leo Amery, "India breaks my heart") and his reaction to the dismantling of much of the Empire in the post-war world.
This interesting book focuses on an interesting aspect of Churchill; his Imperalist belief in the benign outside force of the British Empire, and yet his equally ardent belief in the spirit of freedom. It discusses how his world shaped his beliefs and how Churchill, as a world leader, both reacted to that world and changed it. Full of engaging stories, it is not a dry read at all, but both entertaining and fascinating. A great read for anyone who wants to consider Winston Churchill from the angle of Empire and of it's changing role and influence over the course of his lifetime.
During this illuminating and interesting read, we discover Churchill's career as both a soldier and of his work as a journalist. He certainly seemed extremely brave (especially if he thought someone was watching, or there was a chance of a medal, which I found both very human and charming) and was a young man of extreme ambition. He talks of "jolly little wars against barbarous people," and described the Boer war as being, "great fun galloping about." Obviously, this is a major simplification, but he certainly saw the role of the Empire as being paternalistic and that British authority was derived from "moral ascendancy, liberty, justice, English tolerance and English honesty." Much of the book obviously looks at WWI and WWII, at Churchill's role in foreign policy and world politics. There is also much about his difficult relationship with India (he was to tell Leo Amery, "India breaks my heart") and his reaction to the dismantling of much of the Empire in the post-war world.
This interesting book focuses on an interesting aspect of Churchill; his Imperalist belief in the benign outside force of the British Empire, and yet his equally ardent belief in the spirit of freedom. It discusses how his world shaped his beliefs and how Churchill, as a world leader, both reacted to that world and changed it. Full of engaging stories, it is not a dry read at all, but both entertaining and fascinating. A great read for anyone who wants to consider Winston Churchill from the angle of Empire and of it's changing role and influence over the course of his lifetime.
March 8, 2017
This book is 'proper' history: well researched, well argued and discussed and told in a logical, chronological, comprehensive way. It is also a fascinating, detailed portrait of a man we all know something about (or thought we did). Churchill's views about the Empire and its peoples were finely nuanced and not always consistent. Those he expressed privately or in his books were sometimes at odds with those he expressed as a member of the government. He was certainly not the dogmatic jingoist some thought him, but descriptions of him as enlightened are only relative to those who were jingoist. There is no doubt he considered the British to be superior to other races. He did not see the various races of the Empire as equal, but did think they should be treated humanely. He did not see most of them as capable of self-government, but did think they would eventually be capable of it once they had learned from the British how to do it. We do not know how long he thought it would take them; we do know he thought most of them were not ready.
A quote: In 1909 he told Wilfred Scawen Blunt that the Empire brought no advantage to Britain and was "a lot of bother" and went on "The only thing one can say for it is that it is justified if it is undertaken in an altruistic spirit for the good of the subject races." Although Churchill's rhetoric on imperial issues grew more strident in later years, there is no suggestion that he ever significantly changed that opinion: the colonies of the Empire should remain colonies for the benefit of their subjects. That is a very condescending view and must have been seen as insulting by all the British educated lawyers and politicians who felt they were quite ready to take over governing their countries, thank you very much.
Churchill's opposition to self-government of various colonies and his incessant outspokenness on the subject may ironically have led to the growth of more hard-line nationalism in those countries, which meant that when they were granted self rule they were more likely to go for full independence rather than the half-way status of Dominion. (In some cases the growth of nationalist fervour would also have been caused by impatience at the delays between the legislation for independence being passed by Parliament and its implementation, so it would be unfair to blame Churchill too much.
Examples: Irish Home Rule Bill on statute 1914, implemented 1922, WW1 intervened, Churchill in favour of Bill
and India Bill on statute 1934, implemented 1947, WW2 intervened, Churchill opposed Bill.)
A quote: In 1909 he told Wilfred Scawen Blunt that the Empire brought no advantage to Britain and was "a lot of bother" and went on "The only thing one can say for it is that it is justified if it is undertaken in an altruistic spirit for the good of the subject races." Although Churchill's rhetoric on imperial issues grew more strident in later years, there is no suggestion that he ever significantly changed that opinion: the colonies of the Empire should remain colonies for the benefit of their subjects. That is a very condescending view and must have been seen as insulting by all the British educated lawyers and politicians who felt they were quite ready to take over governing their countries, thank you very much.
Churchill's opposition to self-government of various colonies and his incessant outspokenness on the subject may ironically have led to the growth of more hard-line nationalism in those countries, which meant that when they were granted self rule they were more likely to go for full independence rather than the half-way status of Dominion. (In some cases the growth of nationalist fervour would also have been caused by impatience at the delays between the legislation for independence being passed by Parliament and its implementation, so it would be unfair to blame Churchill too much.
Examples: Irish Home Rule Bill on statute 1914, implemented 1922, WW1 intervened, Churchill in favour of Bill
and India Bill on statute 1934, implemented 1947, WW2 intervened, Churchill opposed Bill.)
January 27, 2020
Pikka aega kujutasin ette, et Churchill oli selline hea huumorimeelega vanaisa, kes kaanis päev otsa viskit, aga ei jäänud purju, olles alati valmis tootma mõnda järjekordset sügava moraalse sisuga sententsi. Demokraatia kaitsepühaku aupaiste käis muidugi tema persooniga kaasas. Pärast Shashi Taroori lugemist hakkas tunduma, et kõik eelmainitu on briti imperialistliku propaganda loodud luul ja meie südamlik papa on ikka üks jõle rassist ja rahvaste rõhuja... Richard Toye näitab üsna veenvalt, et mõlemad iseloomustused peavad paika. Churchill suutis tihtipeale kolonialismi patud individuaalsel tasandil hukka mõista, ent eelarvamused ja usk brittide ülemuslikkusse takistasid teda võtmast vastu otsuseid, mis oleksid võinud olukorda reaalselt parandada. Teiselt poolt oli ta hämmastavalt hea õppimisvõimega: suutis leppida kolooniate iseseisvumise paratamatusega ja anda järele inimeste vabaduspüüdlustele.
May 8, 2019
A very good, very illuminating work on Winston Churchill.
May 17, 2016
Someone has been waiting for this book. Sadly, it isn't me. I was interested in this particular book because it promised to look at areas of Churchill's life that have not been thoroughly studied. I had read a book on Churchill and FDR that had surprised me because Churchill always seemed to have his own agenda. He wanted FDR to run the war so that the British Empire would be preserved. In other words,their partnership wasn't quite as magical as we are led to believe. Naturally, I expected this well heralded biography to show me who Churchill was and how he learned to think "imperially" from his very first days. I came away in total confusion. In our parlance, Churchill would be called a flip floper. I found very little consistency in his views and didn't dare take a guess on what side he would take. Granted, part of this is ignorance of the British Empire and how England's political system works. If you know these things and are already acquainted with this period of British history, you may find this an original and scholarly work. I will be stunned if any reviewer calls this book "fun".
February 14, 2021
This book provides an unusual perspective on Winston Churchill, perhaps the twentieth century's greatest statesman. It is not flattering, but even his admirers should find much to consider.
Rigorously keeping to the theme of its title, it explores his thoughts, words, policies and deeds regarding the British Empire throughout his career, from the late 19th century to the 1950s--tracing the end of the empire about which he felt so strongly. Toye explores his relations in this connection with other Britons (Lord Elgin, Leo Amery), to Afghanistan, India (Gandhi, Nehru, Jinnah), Egypt, the Irish (de Valera), Canada (Mackenzie King), Palestine, the Caribbean colonies, Australia (RG Menzies), New Zealand, South Africa (Smuts), ending with Kenya's Mau Mau rebellion in the 1950s.
Besides all else, Toye's research shows that Churchill was a racist; perhaps not in his own mind but certainly by current definitions. He'd claim that a 'race' is closer for him to a 'people' than to a colour, breed or genetic stock, and cultural primitivism or inferiority could be overcome for him by exposure to civilization, or education broadly meant. So his view that the British were superior to their colonials was at least tempered by avowing that the principle of human equality he upheld could be reached, and was not intrinsic or genetic. Still, such reasoning was often used by apartheid apologists; there's not much point trying to excuse Churchill. He was known to speak of "kaffirs" and "coolies" and Indians who "bred like rabbits," and could be as condescending as this language suggests. Under the apparent influence of the 19th century social Darwinist Winwood Reade, Winston once wrote:
"I believe that as civilized nations become more powerful they will get more ruthless, and the time will come when the world will impatiently bear the existence of great barbaric nations who may at any time arm themselves and menace civilized nations... The Aryan stock is bound to triumph." (cited on p. 81)
This chilling passage could so easily have been taken from 'Mein Kampf.' Whatever its context or any of his likely rationalizations, it shows the misguided baggage afflicting the Victorian elites, and not just the English kind, which held sway prior to the egalitarian ethos that currently guides us.
Churchill staunchly upheld the continuance of the British Empire, and his language shows him fighting tooth and nail against pressures for its dissolution. These views were in genuine tension with egalitarian principles that he also held very high.
It is ingenuous to maintain, as the Amazon write-up for this book does, that while Churchill was "...hailed as one of the greatest men of the twentieth century ...it is a historical irony that he was very much a product and representative of the nineteenth century." No irony at all: we are all the products of our upbringing, and mostly reflect breeding and ideas harking to our early years; this is a simple fact of life. Anyone who considers Winston unusual with regard to race, or to the domination of 'savages' by privileged classes, ignores how our parents and grandparents behaved, thought and spoke well past the 1950s. It is telling that Winwood Reade also impressed Orwell and HG Wells--not to mention that brutal practices in 'eugenic science,' presumably to assist with 'racial progress,' happened early in the 20th century not just in Nazi Germany, but in Sweden, the US, and elsewhere.
Toye's research shows, to the contrary, that as much as Churchill reflected his background, he gradually faced the bankruptcy of much of that inheritance, albeit with some reluctance, and the failure of its tenets to stand up to scrutiny. This is so not simply regarding his views on race, but about his attachment to an Empire assembled by force. For all his flaws, Churchill was remarkably (or, as some said, objectionably) resilient and adaptable. The book does not overtly make this point, but it is not too far a stretch to suggest that the rise of Hitler, and staunch opposition to the barbaric imperialism he stood for, helped bring on this realization--in him and thereby for us, as a people.
A signal moment towards ending the Empire was Britain's agreement in 1941 to the Atlantic Charter, pledging that the US and Britain would "...respect the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live..." Churchill agreed to this principle of self-determination to secure closer ties with the US for war-torn, isolated Britain, even if he did so with some trepidation about its upshot for the Empire. Despite his protestations, and his often casuistic reasoning, this endorsement "...unleashed expectations" across the Empire that Churchill "...could not control." (p. 216)
Similar hopes were also sparked during wartime for the likes of a young Nelson Mandela, who huddled around a radio with friends to derive encouragement from Winston's broadcasts extolling human liberty. (p. 204) The establishment of the United Nations after the war--a further step along paths mapped out by the Atlantic Charter--drove home even further how untenable it had become to support any empire created by force.
These were hard tensions for Churchill, and Toye also shows that it was no black-and-white struggle between a reactionary Britain versus a progressive United States. When Roosevelt sought to chide British double standards by recalling that the 1841 acquisition of Hong Kong "was not by purchase," his interlocutor, British Colonial Secretary Oliver Stanley, immediately answered: "Let me see, Mr President, that was about the time of the Mexican War..." (p. 247)
Churchill's post-war speech about "an iron curtain" having fallen across Europe after the war, dividing the world into two camps, also called for establishing "a special relationship between the British Commonwealth and Empire and the United States of America." (p. 267) Wishful thinking on his part, as the latter's interests would always naturally trump backing any country, even Britain--particularly while it remained an empire.
After the war, while Churchill sat in Opposition (1946-1951), independence movements surged while Britain's leaders felt pressed to focus on recovering from the war's devastation. They had to borrow from the United States while also needing to repay for the Lend Lease arrangements that assisted Britain while it stood alone against the Nazis. Meantime, the Empire was beginning to shrink under various pressures, and an impoverished Britain was becoming an island of much-reduced significance. And, although Winston had vowed from his early years that he would not "preside over the liquidation of the British Empire," in the end he "...presided, in fact, over the inauguration of the American empire"--even if it was an empire of a rather different order (p. 310).
India figured large in Churchill's Empire, as it does in this study. One of the great what-ifs regarding the Second World War has revolved around Britain's slow rearmament during the 1930s. Dire consequences could have resulted for Hitler had they rearmed more speedily, but few in Parliament heeded Churchill's warnings since he was so busy making himself enemies over India. As the jewel in the Empire's crown, he adamantly refused to allow it increased autonomy. But later, while he was in Opposition, outright independence is what Britain had no choice but to grant India in 1947-48, with the bloody consequences of the hasty Partition.
Toye has authored a well-documented, readable yet nuanced book about a seldom flattering aspiration of Churchill's: to retain the Empire his ancestors had helped to create, and which he saw as essential to the glory of Britain.
This book provides fresh insight to admirers of the statesman, as well as to those curious to grasp what was at the heart of his greatness, and what was not.
Rigorously keeping to the theme of its title, it explores his thoughts, words, policies and deeds regarding the British Empire throughout his career, from the late 19th century to the 1950s--tracing the end of the empire about which he felt so strongly. Toye explores his relations in this connection with other Britons (Lord Elgin, Leo Amery), to Afghanistan, India (Gandhi, Nehru, Jinnah), Egypt, the Irish (de Valera), Canada (Mackenzie King), Palestine, the Caribbean colonies, Australia (RG Menzies), New Zealand, South Africa (Smuts), ending with Kenya's Mau Mau rebellion in the 1950s.
Besides all else, Toye's research shows that Churchill was a racist; perhaps not in his own mind but certainly by current definitions. He'd claim that a 'race' is closer for him to a 'people' than to a colour, breed or genetic stock, and cultural primitivism or inferiority could be overcome for him by exposure to civilization, or education broadly meant. So his view that the British were superior to their colonials was at least tempered by avowing that the principle of human equality he upheld could be reached, and was not intrinsic or genetic. Still, such reasoning was often used by apartheid apologists; there's not much point trying to excuse Churchill. He was known to speak of "kaffirs" and "coolies" and Indians who "bred like rabbits," and could be as condescending as this language suggests. Under the apparent influence of the 19th century social Darwinist Winwood Reade, Winston once wrote:
"I believe that as civilized nations become more powerful they will get more ruthless, and the time will come when the world will impatiently bear the existence of great barbaric nations who may at any time arm themselves and menace civilized nations... The Aryan stock is bound to triumph." (cited on p. 81)
This chilling passage could so easily have been taken from 'Mein Kampf.' Whatever its context or any of his likely rationalizations, it shows the misguided baggage afflicting the Victorian elites, and not just the English kind, which held sway prior to the egalitarian ethos that currently guides us.
Churchill staunchly upheld the continuance of the British Empire, and his language shows him fighting tooth and nail against pressures for its dissolution. These views were in genuine tension with egalitarian principles that he also held very high.
It is ingenuous to maintain, as the Amazon write-up for this book does, that while Churchill was "...hailed as one of the greatest men of the twentieth century ...it is a historical irony that he was very much a product and representative of the nineteenth century." No irony at all: we are all the products of our upbringing, and mostly reflect breeding and ideas harking to our early years; this is a simple fact of life. Anyone who considers Winston unusual with regard to race, or to the domination of 'savages' by privileged classes, ignores how our parents and grandparents behaved, thought and spoke well past the 1950s. It is telling that Winwood Reade also impressed Orwell and HG Wells--not to mention that brutal practices in 'eugenic science,' presumably to assist with 'racial progress,' happened early in the 20th century not just in Nazi Germany, but in Sweden, the US, and elsewhere.
Toye's research shows, to the contrary, that as much as Churchill reflected his background, he gradually faced the bankruptcy of much of that inheritance, albeit with some reluctance, and the failure of its tenets to stand up to scrutiny. This is so not simply regarding his views on race, but about his attachment to an Empire assembled by force. For all his flaws, Churchill was remarkably (or, as some said, objectionably) resilient and adaptable. The book does not overtly make this point, but it is not too far a stretch to suggest that the rise of Hitler, and staunch opposition to the barbaric imperialism he stood for, helped bring on this realization--in him and thereby for us, as a people.
A signal moment towards ending the Empire was Britain's agreement in 1941 to the Atlantic Charter, pledging that the US and Britain would "...respect the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live..." Churchill agreed to this principle of self-determination to secure closer ties with the US for war-torn, isolated Britain, even if he did so with some trepidation about its upshot for the Empire. Despite his protestations, and his often casuistic reasoning, this endorsement "...unleashed expectations" across the Empire that Churchill "...could not control." (p. 216)
Similar hopes were also sparked during wartime for the likes of a young Nelson Mandela, who huddled around a radio with friends to derive encouragement from Winston's broadcasts extolling human liberty. (p. 204) The establishment of the United Nations after the war--a further step along paths mapped out by the Atlantic Charter--drove home even further how untenable it had become to support any empire created by force.
These were hard tensions for Churchill, and Toye also shows that it was no black-and-white struggle between a reactionary Britain versus a progressive United States. When Roosevelt sought to chide British double standards by recalling that the 1841 acquisition of Hong Kong "was not by purchase," his interlocutor, British Colonial Secretary Oliver Stanley, immediately answered: "Let me see, Mr President, that was about the time of the Mexican War..." (p. 247)
Churchill's post-war speech about "an iron curtain" having fallen across Europe after the war, dividing the world into two camps, also called for establishing "a special relationship between the British Commonwealth and Empire and the United States of America." (p. 267) Wishful thinking on his part, as the latter's interests would always naturally trump backing any country, even Britain--particularly while it remained an empire.
After the war, while Churchill sat in Opposition (1946-1951), independence movements surged while Britain's leaders felt pressed to focus on recovering from the war's devastation. They had to borrow from the United States while also needing to repay for the Lend Lease arrangements that assisted Britain while it stood alone against the Nazis. Meantime, the Empire was beginning to shrink under various pressures, and an impoverished Britain was becoming an island of much-reduced significance. And, although Winston had vowed from his early years that he would not "preside over the liquidation of the British Empire," in the end he "...presided, in fact, over the inauguration of the American empire"--even if it was an empire of a rather different order (p. 310).
India figured large in Churchill's Empire, as it does in this study. One of the great what-ifs regarding the Second World War has revolved around Britain's slow rearmament during the 1930s. Dire consequences could have resulted for Hitler had they rearmed more speedily, but few in Parliament heeded Churchill's warnings since he was so busy making himself enemies over India. As the jewel in the Empire's crown, he adamantly refused to allow it increased autonomy. But later, while he was in Opposition, outright independence is what Britain had no choice but to grant India in 1947-48, with the bloody consequences of the hasty Partition.
Toye has authored a well-documented, readable yet nuanced book about a seldom flattering aspiration of Churchill's: to retain the Empire his ancestors had helped to create, and which he saw as essential to the glory of Britain.
This book provides fresh insight to admirers of the statesman, as well as to those curious to grasp what was at the heart of his greatness, and what was not.
Read
November 29, 2010This new book on Churchill pulls together all the evidence about his attitudes about empire, race, and political liberty, producing a highly complex picture. On the one hand, Churchill was a virulent racist who believed to the end of his life that Indians and Africans were incapable of self-government, and who derided Gandhi in terms as full of opprobrium as those he used to denigrate Hitler. On the other hand, he had a sincere attachment to political liberty and liberal institutions that motivated his courageous and admirable resistance to both fascism and communism. Moreover, his attitudes on all these matters were not stable, but shifted, sometimes unpredictably. So the first contribution of the book is to help us understand one of recent history's most influential and controversial figures. Its second is more general: Toye's book reminds us that political leaders are not simple heroes or villains, but children of parents (in this case, an indifferent father and an egocentric mother), who, as a result of such human matters as a fear of abandonment and a longing for love, develop complicated personalities that shape their intellectual convictions. Its third contribution, as we live in an era of postcolonial historiography, in which the ideas of liberalism are often seen as tainted by their association with empire, is to remind us that people committed to domination can also sincerely advocate admirable ideals, and that these ideals are not themselves tarnished by their association with an all-too-human obtuseness. - Martha C. Nussbaum
February 11, 2011
Richard Toye's inciteful, interesting and unique look at Winston Churchill's career makes for fascinating reading. Toye provides the first indepth and comprehensive examination and analysis of Churchill's relationship with the whole question of "Empire." Reading this fine biography, you will immediately be intrigued by the number of cultural and ethical conflicts that ran throughout Winston Churchill's career as a statesman. I think this is the first book I have read that examines Churchill's own statements and the actions he took around the whole issue of sovereignty in a manner that reconciles what often appears to be decision making contradictions or dichotomies. In the years since his death, Churchill has remained an iconic figure. US President's repeatedly invoke his name in support of their own goals. But in calling upon Churchill's memory, the imperial aspect of his career often is overlooked or left out of the picture. His battles against Nazism are usually what is highlighted and remembered. Reading Richard Toye's fine biography, you realize that the decline of the British Empire, much as Churchill himself regretted it, can be seen as a tribute to the power and beliefs he himself prized so dearly.
June 12, 2011
This book examined Churchill's relationship to the British Empire over the course of his career. Was he for holding on to empire until the end or was he pragmatic? Was he progressive or was he racist? Did he support decolonization or not? Did he become more conservative or more liberal over time?
The author thoroughly reviews the historical and documentary record and concludes that Churchill was a complex individual who presented multiple faces to multiple situations. He made racist statements but was respected by many commonwealth politicians. He thought there should be no barriers to entry for "civilized" people but was conveniently vague on what it meant to be civilized. He did not want to preside over the dismantling of the British Empire, but did what was needed after WWII and paved the way for that unraveling. Overall, he was principled and a pragmatist; conservative and progressive; Imperial and British. This is a satisfying result that you would have expected about such a titanic figure as Churchill. One dimensional actors don't get to dominate an entire era as Churchill did his era. It is a fine book, which is best undertaken with some historical background, but is still excellent and an excellent read.
The author thoroughly reviews the historical and documentary record and concludes that Churchill was a complex individual who presented multiple faces to multiple situations. He made racist statements but was respected by many commonwealth politicians. He thought there should be no barriers to entry for "civilized" people but was conveniently vague on what it meant to be civilized. He did not want to preside over the dismantling of the British Empire, but did what was needed after WWII and paved the way for that unraveling. Overall, he was principled and a pragmatist; conservative and progressive; Imperial and British. This is a satisfying result that you would have expected about such a titanic figure as Churchill. One dimensional actors don't get to dominate an entire era as Churchill did his era. It is a fine book, which is best undertaken with some historical background, but is still excellent and an excellent read.
October 3, 2015
I was surprised at the way the book portrays Churchill. Most books about him highlight his success. This book covers it all- the good, bad and the ugly. I enjoyed reading about a different view of Churchill. However, I disagree with some of the authors' analysis and views. Many of Churchill's policies and ideas are described in a misleading way. His imperial ideas, his dislike of foreign cultures and his behavior would be better understood if these were given a stronger background, like depicting social attitudes of the time, not just political or individual ones and giving more non-British international depth to the narrative.
Overall I'm impressed by the historical support this book utilizes. It's obvious that the book is built on solid research and a deep understanding of the British empire.
Overall I'm impressed by the historical support this book utilizes. It's obvious that the book is built on solid research and a deep understanding of the British empire.
May 9, 2013
The three stars might be more reflective of how well I read (listened to) this rather than a reflection of the book itself. A lot of it was over my head because I know almost nothing about Churchill or the history of the British Empire. Many details just kind of floated there and I had no real way of grasping them and evaluating them critically. However, I did gain a deeper appreciation of just how vast the Empire was and found myself fascinated as I became aware of events that were unfolding more or less simultaneously in the various lands of the empire. I found it to be easier and easier to listen to as the book moved beyond WW2, perhaps because that is the time period most familiar to me.
April 5, 2013
I have really mixed opinions on this book. Some parts were very interesting and I felt like I learnt a lot about Churchill - his attitudes to race, his upbringing, his career post World War II, his comments against Gandhi (!) but I found some parts a bit dry and laborious. Probably a great read for those interested in politics.
Please see my full review at http://www.bibliobeth.wordpress.com
Please see my full review at http://www.bibliobeth.wordpress.com
wish-list
January 26, 2015Toye is the lead educator on 'Empire' from Exeter University
April 18, 2018
It was ok. It could have less to do with Churchill’s career outside of Africa which is considerable. For someone new to Churchill I can understand having that in the book.
Where I really appreciated it was the book did approach Churchill’s views in the way I see Churchill, nuanced. He was clearly a
Man of his times and held the racial attitudes as such but he also seemed to instinctually understand that progress can com. His second premiership is more fascinating in regards to the book’s theme. Churchill didn’t become the die hard imperialist.
The book was an interesting tale on a different side of Churchill. I see this as more like 3 1/2 stars.
Where I really appreciated it was the book did approach Churchill’s views in the way I see Churchill, nuanced. He was clearly a
Man of his times and held the racial attitudes as such but he also seemed to instinctually understand that progress can com. His second premiership is more fascinating in regards to the book’s theme. Churchill didn’t become the die hard imperialist.
The book was an interesting tale on a different side of Churchill. I see this as more like 3 1/2 stars.
December 9, 2021
There are hundreds of books about Churchill (many written by him), but this one focuses on his relationship with the British Empire during his lifetime. He certainly believed that the lives of people in the empire--especially those of darker skin--were improved by becoming British. However, he was inconsistent in his views--being practical in cases where self-government would benefit Britain. He also waffled--thinking independence was good in earlier years, and then thinking the territory was not ready for it later. This is an interesting look at Churchill and the Empire, which was falling apart even as he tried to keep it together.
November 23, 2020
Comprehensive, even-handed (to the point of sometimes bending over backwards to be fair to Churchill, which is arguably appropriate if he wants to reach an audience of WWII dads). I wish it dealt in more detail with Churchill’s culpability in the Bengal famine; that’s the most catastrophic incident in his imperial history in terms of actual lives lost. But this is a goldmine of Churchill quotes and anecdotes, and about as comprehensive a documentation one could ask for that Churchill was a polite white supremacist who strongly disagreed with the idea of full suffrage for non-European peoples.
September 4, 2023
This book reads as a textbook. There is no feeling, no emotion, dates and times as though ai were keeping the meeting minutes of someone’s career.
In fairness I stopped half way through and will attempt “The splendid and the vile.”
In fairness I stopped half way through and will attempt “The splendid and the vile.”
July 7, 2018
learned a lot - interesting read
June 22, 2020
Good overview of the history of the British Empire within the context of Churchill's role. Ideal of you're unfamiliar with the empires history.
February 24, 2022
Insightful
September 22, 2024
A well-written, well-argued and nuanced book exploring the complexities around Churchill's relationship to the British Empire across his long life. Well worth reading
December 22, 2010
Like most Americans (I would think), I never knew much about Winston Churchill. I knew he kept Europe from falling to Germany before America finally decided to get involved. I knew the speech from after the Battle of Dunkirk. And I've seen pictures of him with his fingers forming a V.
That was really about it. But I knew he was an important figure in modern history. And his life is on the long list of things I really needed to learn more about before I can really consider myself "educated".
Well, Churchill's Empire is both a great and a terrible place to start learning about the man.
It's great because it's a well-written and engrossing read. At times, the prose seems almost novel-like and the author's selection of quotations from letters and diaries and recollections are well-chosen to spice up a dry historical account with dry British witticism instead. For the most part, Toye avoids a boring clinical account of history and instead focuses on the personalities who were involved and making tough decisions at the time. Ultimately, my praise here focuses on the fact that this is an eminently readable history book for someone like me who has never been a huge fan of history.
But it's also a terrible book to use to initially learn anything about Churchill because it focuses in on him through the lens of the British Empire. This is hardly a fault, really. After all, the book's cover uses big yellow letters to tell you that it will be doing just that. And it does a superb job of it. But with only this book about him under my belt, I feel like I don't have a wide-enough picture of the man. It's my fault and not the author's.
Further, by telling Churchill's story as it revolved around the Empire, the book has no choice but to focus rather strongly on Churchill's racism. Of course, many great statesmen throughout the centuries have been strong racists. But, Toye puts Churchill's in sharp relieve with many of his contemporaries whose ideas were evolving and changing with the times while Churchill's own views of skin color stayed solidly Victorian.
Especially towards the end of his life and carrer in the late 1950s, his intense dislike for people with black and brown skins becomes incredibly distasteful as he should clearly be able to see that he is on the wrong side of history but refuses to release those prejudices. It's enough to make me not want to read anymore about him, so I feel my conceptions of Churchill will start and end with the way he was shaped by the Empire.
And again, this is no fault of the book or of its author. This is an honest look at the man, well told and (judging by the fact that 40% of the book is notes) well researched. It satisfies its topic and title well and admirably and it's only fault might be the it wasn't the book I needed to read.
But, still, I'm happy to have read it. It's an excellent example of what dry history books can be and other writers should aspire to its heights.
That was really about it. But I knew he was an important figure in modern history. And his life is on the long list of things I really needed to learn more about before I can really consider myself "educated".
Well, Churchill's Empire is both a great and a terrible place to start learning about the man.
It's great because it's a well-written and engrossing read. At times, the prose seems almost novel-like and the author's selection of quotations from letters and diaries and recollections are well-chosen to spice up a dry historical account with dry British witticism instead. For the most part, Toye avoids a boring clinical account of history and instead focuses on the personalities who were involved and making tough decisions at the time. Ultimately, my praise here focuses on the fact that this is an eminently readable history book for someone like me who has never been a huge fan of history.
But it's also a terrible book to use to initially learn anything about Churchill because it focuses in on him through the lens of the British Empire. This is hardly a fault, really. After all, the book's cover uses big yellow letters to tell you that it will be doing just that. And it does a superb job of it. But with only this book about him under my belt, I feel like I don't have a wide-enough picture of the man. It's my fault and not the author's.
Further, by telling Churchill's story as it revolved around the Empire, the book has no choice but to focus rather strongly on Churchill's racism. Of course, many great statesmen throughout the centuries have been strong racists. But, Toye puts Churchill's in sharp relieve with many of his contemporaries whose ideas were evolving and changing with the times while Churchill's own views of skin color stayed solidly Victorian.
Especially towards the end of his life and carrer in the late 1950s, his intense dislike for people with black and brown skins becomes incredibly distasteful as he should clearly be able to see that he is on the wrong side of history but refuses to release those prejudices. It's enough to make me not want to read anymore about him, so I feel my conceptions of Churchill will start and end with the way he was shaped by the Empire.
And again, this is no fault of the book or of its author. This is an honest look at the man, well told and (judging by the fact that 40% of the book is notes) well researched. It satisfies its topic and title well and admirably and it's only fault might be the it wasn't the book I needed to read.
But, still, I'm happy to have read it. It's an excellent example of what dry history books can be and other writers should aspire to its heights.
Read
May 11, 2011Toye's history focuses on Winston Churchill's acts, writing, speeches, and attitudes toward the British Empire and the widely varied people it encompassed. The author assumes the reader is reasonably familiar with the history and issues that presented themselves to the British from the late 19th century through the 1950's. Without that background, it would be easy for a reader to get lost.
Teasing out Churchill's core beliefs is a tricky task. There are contradictions, differences between public statements and private beliefs, inconsistencies, emotional statements countering well-thought analysis, high principles that don't match pragmatic and prejudiced attitudes toward colonial people. For example, he warns against self government for India, saying Hindus and Muslims will start killing each other without British control, then suggesting playing them off against each other to stay in control in India.
After reading this book, it's difficult to see the British Empire as monolithic. Instead, it appears as a patchwork quilt of competing interests imperfectly and marginally controlled from London, where the British government tried to apply consistent policies to wildly varied conditions or, alternately, tried to explain the inconsistent policies to those who would have benefited from them, for example, voting and self-determination.
To Churchill, the Empire was both a real-world collection of actual places and an idealized, romanticized concept where civilized, English-speaking white men brought the benefits of civilization to savages with bizarre personal and religious beliefs, and would bring them to full equality within the Empire at some undetermined point in the future. Of course, it was fair for the white man to reap a reward for all of his work helping the savages, the criteria for civilization was that they acted, dressed, lived like, and spoke English like the English. The white men would determine whether they were ready for self-government.
Both of these Empires came apart after World War II, when a weakened and financially strapped England was faced with areas and populations that were unwilling to allow their fate to be decided by a people of a different race and culture thousands of miles away.
Twenty-twenty hindsight makes Churchill's vision seem unrealistic. Yet, the Common Market seems to be surviving. It may be an unresolvable human problem, the advantages of combining into a large political and economic unit eventually breaking down as small, cohesive groups come to believe their needs aren't being met and breaking away.
3 stars, because it's of narrow interest and requires considerable background knowledge. Recommended.
Teasing out Churchill's core beliefs is a tricky task. There are contradictions, differences between public statements and private beliefs, inconsistencies, emotional statements countering well-thought analysis, high principles that don't match pragmatic and prejudiced attitudes toward colonial people. For example, he warns against self government for India, saying Hindus and Muslims will start killing each other without British control, then suggesting playing them off against each other to stay in control in India.
After reading this book, it's difficult to see the British Empire as monolithic. Instead, it appears as a patchwork quilt of competing interests imperfectly and marginally controlled from London, where the British government tried to apply consistent policies to wildly varied conditions or, alternately, tried to explain the inconsistent policies to those who would have benefited from them, for example, voting and self-determination.
To Churchill, the Empire was both a real-world collection of actual places and an idealized, romanticized concept where civilized, English-speaking white men brought the benefits of civilization to savages with bizarre personal and religious beliefs, and would bring them to full equality within the Empire at some undetermined point in the future. Of course, it was fair for the white man to reap a reward for all of his work helping the savages, the criteria for civilization was that they acted, dressed, lived like, and spoke English like the English. The white men would determine whether they were ready for self-government.
Both of these Empires came apart after World War II, when a weakened and financially strapped England was faced with areas and populations that were unwilling to allow their fate to be decided by a people of a different race and culture thousands of miles away.
Twenty-twenty hindsight makes Churchill's vision seem unrealistic. Yet, the Common Market seems to be surviving. It may be an unresolvable human problem, the advantages of combining into a large political and economic unit eventually breaking down as small, cohesive groups come to believe their needs aren't being met and breaking away.
3 stars, because it's of narrow interest and requires considerable background knowledge. Recommended.
October 2, 2014
A good overview of the variety of dealings Sir Winston Churchill had with the vast British Empire from its heyday during the Victorian period when he was a young, ambitious man right through to the Cold War and decolonization which dominated his second term as Prime Minister of the ?United Kingdom until his retirement in 1955. The book is free of bias but is largely a recount of facts; some more context, analysis and discussion would have been useful in allowing the reader to make a judgement as to whether Churchill was a racist imperialist or a kind-hearted colonialist. Toye has done a good job, however, through his neutral stance in shattering many aspects of the racist imperialist school of thought and in turn increased my already considerable respect for the man.
Want to read
August 16, 2010Raises the question of Churchill's record of being pro-humanitarian, while apparently being quite racist when it came to Black Africans. Churchill is attributed with quotes such as: "the Ayran stock is bound to triumph" and "I am strongly in favor of using poisoned gas against uncivilized tribes" among others. President Obama's grandfather was one of Churchill's targets, having been sent to "Britain's gulag".
August 17, 2011
This book traces Winston Churchill's involvement with the British Empire from his days as a soldier in India, a reporter on the Boer War, his cabinet posts before and during World War I, his prime ministership during World War II and his role in opposition and in government in the disolution of the Empire after the War. A well written book, it holds the reasder's interest to the end. It is a must for any fan of Churchill or British history one desiring a deep understanding of the World Wars.
October 24, 2010
This is a detailed look at Churchills attitude toward British colonies - he was for them - and those colonized - he thought them too 'uncivilized' to rule themselves, unless they were white skinned, of course.
There is a LOT of detail here, so be prepared!
Underlying the authors story is the process of a parlimentery system which I found equally interesting.
There is a LOT of detail here, so be prepared!
Underlying the authors story is the process of a parlimentery system which I found equally interesting.
August 15, 2013
Having a really hard time enjoying this one. It should be such interesting material and it is turning into the worst biography I have read. And it is making me not like Churchill, he's portrayed as a little s**t! Losing respect for a great wartime leader based on his early career?....Strange bio, I'm tellin ya.
So glad I am finished. Was not an enjoyable read and didn't really learn too much.
So glad I am finished. Was not an enjoyable read and didn't really learn too much.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 43 reviews