What do you think?
Rate this book
Churchill: The Greatest Briton Unmasked
In his brand new assessment of Winston Churchill's political career, Nigel Knight challenges the sentimental image of the great wartime leader and argues that Churchill's impact on Great Britain was, in fact, consistently disastrous. The author backs up his arguments with rigorous academic research to provide a fresh insight into Churchill's entire career.This book covers Churchill's time as pre-war Chancellor and his contradictory economic policies. It also looks at his time as Prime Minister and his wartime blunders, as well as the post-war period when he failed to rectify his past errors. It features 16 pages of fascinating archive photographs.
- GenresHistory
384 pages, Hardcover
First published September 12, 2008
11 people are currently reading
42 people want to read
About the author
Nigel Knight
4 booksNigel Knight (born 1956) is a British economist, author and political scientist. He has written books entitled Governing Britain since 1945 and Churchill: The Greatest Briton Unmasked. Knight is a Fellow and Director of Studies in Economics at Churchill College, University of Cambridge, and he lectures in the Faculty of Economics and Politics.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews
July 18, 2021
Of all the books I've read over the years that were either about Winston Churchill or made reference to the contributions he made to Britain and the world during his lifetime, this is the one that I feel perfectly encapsulates what Winston Churchill was as a political leader and statesman.
Since his death in January 1965, age 90, Churchill's stature has grown to mythic proportions. So much so that anyone coming to any of the numerous biographies and histories in which he is mentioned, would be inclined to think that the man had no significant flaws in terms of character and leadership abilities. NOT SO.
In "CHURCHILL: The Greatest Briton Unmasked", Knight skillfully sets out to show that, throughout Churchill's long and varied political career, he had significant shortcomings. Shortcomings that did not redound to Britain's benefit, nor that of the peoples around the world who were impacted by Churchill's decisions.
For example, there was Churchill's brainchild during World War I, when as First Lord of the Admiralty, he seized upon the idea of launching a seaborne invasion in early 1915 of Gallipoli in the Dardanelles in Turkey as a way of breaking the stalemate that had settled over the Western Front in late 1914. Churchill thought that by forcing an opening in the Dardanelles that it would lead to the defeat of Germany's ally, Turkey, and perhaps make Germany itself rethink its position in the war and sue for peace. Gallipoli proved to be a complete and unmitigated failure. Indeed, as Knight points out, "[g]iven the logistical problems of supplying [Gallipoli], compared with those of supplying the Western Front, it sapped a disproportionate amount of Allied resources from the one front where victory over the Central Powers was to be achieved. This would have been bad enough had the campaign achieved any measure of success, but its failure was inevitable and the misallocation of resources had the effect of lengthening the war."
As a result of Gallipoli's failure, Churchill resigned his position in the Admiralty and, as a reserve officer in the British Army, went over to France in 1916, where he spent 4 months on the Western Front as a battalion commander. Afterwards, he would return to Britain, where he would be offered a ministerial position in 1917, and in that capacity finish out the war.
Knight also highlights that Churchill's policy errors were not confined to both World Wars. [Churchill's} "creation of Iraq and division of Ireland [following the civil war there] created problems that have lasted to this day. His economic policies before and after World War I were deeply ill-conceived, as the greatest economist of the the era, John Maynard Keynes, pointed out at the time."
Churchill was named Chancellor of the Exchequer (a position equivalent to the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board here in the U.S.) in 1925 (by which time he had left the Liberal Party and rejoined the Conservative Party). He really was out of his depth in this position, putting Britain back on the gold standard, and pursuing classical macroeconomic policy which did not answer to the needs of the British people. "The economy was thus weakened significantly in the 1920s, with British businesses becoming less competitive and unemployment higher than otherwise would have been the case. This caused the General Strike in 1926, the only national strike Britain has ever endured. The economy was weakened at a crucial time - just prior to the Wall Street Crash and subsequent global Depression in the 1930s. Churchill's economic policies thus caused Britain's economic privations to be more severe than they would have been with more enlightened policies.."
The 1930s were the wilderness years for Churchill as a back bencher in Parliament. But with the outbreak of World War II in September 1939, his stock went on the rise again. Though I will readily concede that Churchill's inspirational value once when he became Prime Minister in May 1940 helped to keep Britain in the war despite the seemingly insuperable odds it faced at the time - had he been allowed to continue providing support to France in its losing battle against Germany during May and June of 1940 by sending it more Royal Air Force (RAF) fighter squadrons from the UK to bases in France, where the RAF's Advanced Air Striking Force (AASF) had already been decimated -- it is very likely that Britain would have not had enough fighter squadrons in the UK with which to defend itself when Germany was able to unleash its full military might against Britain. The Battle of Britain that took place within a month of France's defeat would then, in all likelihood, have resulted in a German victory.
The book goes on into considerable detail about Churchill's wartime leadership, the failure of some of his policies (e.g. in Singapore and in India, where a famine took place in Bengal in 1943 owing to Churchill shifting the bulk of foodstuffs and resources to support -- at the expense of the Indians themselves -- British forces in India), his relationships with his military chiefs, President Roosevelt, the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Stalin.
The book also provides a comprehensive perspective on Churchill's second go-round as Prime Minister (1951-55) which was hardly a distinguished one. Churchill was ill-suited for the postwar world in which Britain's stature on the world stage was much diminished, for it had come out of the war broke and heavily dependent on U.S. economic aid to help it recover.
Furthermore, Britain could no longer afford its empire, something in which Churchill (who had been an Army officer in the 1890s) had taken considerable pride. Decolonization was the order of the day. In truth, by virtue of economic necessity and change in fortunes, Britain was becoming a de facto supplicant of the U.S., who was now (along with the Soviet Union) the world's preeminent economic and military power.
Nigel Knight has done a very exhaustive and thorough job (as his Endnotes and Bibliography will attest) of showing the full measure of what Winston Churchill really was as a leader in war and peace. This book is a keeper and one that I'll keep for future reference.
Since his death in January 1965, age 90, Churchill's stature has grown to mythic proportions. So much so that anyone coming to any of the numerous biographies and histories in which he is mentioned, would be inclined to think that the man had no significant flaws in terms of character and leadership abilities. NOT SO.
In "CHURCHILL: The Greatest Briton Unmasked", Knight skillfully sets out to show that, throughout Churchill's long and varied political career, he had significant shortcomings. Shortcomings that did not redound to Britain's benefit, nor that of the peoples around the world who were impacted by Churchill's decisions.
For example, there was Churchill's brainchild during World War I, when as First Lord of the Admiralty, he seized upon the idea of launching a seaborne invasion in early 1915 of Gallipoli in the Dardanelles in Turkey as a way of breaking the stalemate that had settled over the Western Front in late 1914. Churchill thought that by forcing an opening in the Dardanelles that it would lead to the defeat of Germany's ally, Turkey, and perhaps make Germany itself rethink its position in the war and sue for peace. Gallipoli proved to be a complete and unmitigated failure. Indeed, as Knight points out, "[g]iven the logistical problems of supplying [Gallipoli], compared with those of supplying the Western Front, it sapped a disproportionate amount of Allied resources from the one front where victory over the Central Powers was to be achieved. This would have been bad enough had the campaign achieved any measure of success, but its failure was inevitable and the misallocation of resources had the effect of lengthening the war."
As a result of Gallipoli's failure, Churchill resigned his position in the Admiralty and, as a reserve officer in the British Army, went over to France in 1916, where he spent 4 months on the Western Front as a battalion commander. Afterwards, he would return to Britain, where he would be offered a ministerial position in 1917, and in that capacity finish out the war.
Knight also highlights that Churchill's policy errors were not confined to both World Wars. [Churchill's} "creation of Iraq and division of Ireland [following the civil war there] created problems that have lasted to this day. His economic policies before and after World War I were deeply ill-conceived, as the greatest economist of the the era, John Maynard Keynes, pointed out at the time."
Churchill was named Chancellor of the Exchequer (a position equivalent to the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board here in the U.S.) in 1925 (by which time he had left the Liberal Party and rejoined the Conservative Party). He really was out of his depth in this position, putting Britain back on the gold standard, and pursuing classical macroeconomic policy which did not answer to the needs of the British people. "The economy was thus weakened significantly in the 1920s, with British businesses becoming less competitive and unemployment higher than otherwise would have been the case. This caused the General Strike in 1926, the only national strike Britain has ever endured. The economy was weakened at a crucial time - just prior to the Wall Street Crash and subsequent global Depression in the 1930s. Churchill's economic policies thus caused Britain's economic privations to be more severe than they would have been with more enlightened policies.."
The 1930s were the wilderness years for Churchill as a back bencher in Parliament. But with the outbreak of World War II in September 1939, his stock went on the rise again. Though I will readily concede that Churchill's inspirational value once when he became Prime Minister in May 1940 helped to keep Britain in the war despite the seemingly insuperable odds it faced at the time - had he been allowed to continue providing support to France in its losing battle against Germany during May and June of 1940 by sending it more Royal Air Force (RAF) fighter squadrons from the UK to bases in France, where the RAF's Advanced Air Striking Force (AASF) had already been decimated -- it is very likely that Britain would have not had enough fighter squadrons in the UK with which to defend itself when Germany was able to unleash its full military might against Britain. The Battle of Britain that took place within a month of France's defeat would then, in all likelihood, have resulted in a German victory.
The book goes on into considerable detail about Churchill's wartime leadership, the failure of some of his policies (e.g. in Singapore and in India, where a famine took place in Bengal in 1943 owing to Churchill shifting the bulk of foodstuffs and resources to support -- at the expense of the Indians themselves -- British forces in India), his relationships with his military chiefs, President Roosevelt, the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Stalin.
The book also provides a comprehensive perspective on Churchill's second go-round as Prime Minister (1951-55) which was hardly a distinguished one. Churchill was ill-suited for the postwar world in which Britain's stature on the world stage was much diminished, for it had come out of the war broke and heavily dependent on U.S. economic aid to help it recover.
Furthermore, Britain could no longer afford its empire, something in which Churchill (who had been an Army officer in the 1890s) had taken considerable pride. Decolonization was the order of the day. In truth, by virtue of economic necessity and change in fortunes, Britain was becoming a de facto supplicant of the U.S., who was now (along with the Soviet Union) the world's preeminent economic and military power.
Nigel Knight has done a very exhaustive and thorough job (as his Endnotes and Bibliography will attest) of showing the full measure of what Winston Churchill really was as a leader in war and peace. This book is a keeper and one that I'll keep for future reference.
October 7, 2021
Knight condemns Churchill as a prevaricator whose disperionist military strategy and inability to ideologically adapt cost too many lives and opportunities for him to be granted the title hero; a man of great oratory and little else positive. Scathing in its entirety, Churchill: The Greatest Briton Unmasked provides a comprehensive, counter-cultural perspective that certainly revised my impression of Churchill's national heroic legacy. The work focuses on Churchill’s micromanagement during his premiership from the navy, home office, treasury, and finally as a war-time Prime Minister. Aside from momentary lacklustre complements to Churchill’s dedication to social reforms in the 1920s, Knight all too quickly orientates to ungenerous albeit justified criticism. From Gallipoli and Churchill’s maniacal obsession with Norway, Italy, and Turkey to his reintroduction of the Gold Standard and revisionist efforts of his history make Churchill: The Greatest Briton Unmasked essential reading for those who view Winston Churchill as anything other than negative.
November 18, 2017
An interesting overview of the military and political carrer of this history character from the Boer war to his last goverment in the 1950's. He was the most over rated leader. Ok he didn,t deal with Hitler and held the kingdom helm in the dark day of 1940-41 but in all the other battles the british lost(Norway and France in June 1940 and Greece in April 1941). His dispersionist strategy added another year at world war two.
A must have book that shed light on this individual.
A must have book that shed light on this individual.
March 31, 2015
Nigel Knight provides a very balanced portrayal of the man. An enjoyable while informative analysis. A very well structured book. A refreshingly objective and truthful examination. I would recommend anyone interested in the subject read this book and visit his old home, Chartwell in Kent, England. Well worth a visit to aid understanding of his character.
July 12, 2014
no idea if the author is correct about everything, but a different and very interesting view on Churchill
April 15, 2019
Nigel Knight takes Sir Winston down more than a few pegs. The book concentrates, reasonably enough, on World War II. Churchill’s promotion of an attack on the “soft underbelly of Europe” is shown to have been both futile and wasteful of men and supplies. He couldn’t keep from interfering with the conduct of the war and infuriating his subordinates.
The book starts its critique with the Gallipoli disaster in World War I. The author also covers Churchill’s wrong-headed economic policies as Chancellor of the Exchequer in the 1920’s. Unfortunately, there is nothing on Churchill’s time as Home Secretary before the Great War, so “The Siege of Sydney Street” and the Tonypandy strike are not reviewed.
An easy read, but somewhat dry. The author’s aim is to critique Churchill. Therefore, he only offers hints of the qualities, such as humor, determination and command of language, which made so many admire and love Churchill.
The book starts its critique with the Gallipoli disaster in World War I. The author also covers Churchill’s wrong-headed economic policies as Chancellor of the Exchequer in the 1920’s. Unfortunately, there is nothing on Churchill’s time as Home Secretary before the Great War, so “The Siege of Sydney Street” and the Tonypandy strike are not reviewed.
An easy read, but somewhat dry. The author’s aim is to critique Churchill. Therefore, he only offers hints of the qualities, such as humor, determination and command of language, which made so many admire and love Churchill.
February 26, 2012
I never finished the book and have no intention. while it provides a good look at the man and his faults, the detail was just too overdone to wade through. those who are WWII afficionados and Churchill fans would like it.
April 6, 2017
To state the obvious, people admire Churchill. He is regarded by many as a national hero and as one of the greatest leaders of the free world. He is eulogised in place-names across Britain and is firmly woven into society's recollection as the man who guided the British (and the then Empire) through some of the darkest days of the previous century. His image is a symbol of Britishness, people recall his speeches and mimic his oratory with glee. Ironically his ideas for both an unbowed aloof Britain apart from Europe and a Britain as a central part of a united Europe provided a bizarre and contradictory ideological battle for his legacy during the EU referendum. Post-Brexit, his little gurning baby face now adorns the Bank of England £5 note, so even the pockets of the nation aren't safe from his visage.
I was interested in this book because A) every bookshop shelf groans under the weight of sycophantic Churchill biographies and B) his decisions have had a massive and lasting impact on the world. The book primarily looks at his time as PM during WWII, the period in which he was transformed from a politically outcast former cabinet minister to a name synonymous with British victory. How successful was Churchill? How beneficial were his decisions? Does he deserve the title of "Great Briton" alongside Nelson or Wellington?
History is always written by the victors and that is exactly what Churchill did after the war between 1948-1953 in "The Second World War". The books earned him a Nobel Prize for Literature, but this book does much to unpick some of the statements which show a clear derivation from actual events corroborated through personal diaries and extensive correspondence. The first point always made about Churchill is this: he knew the war was coming and wanted Britain to arm immediately. He was a John the Baptist type figure, one crying in the wilderness warning others of things to come. Details of Churchill's actual record as a minister during the 1920's are produced to bring to light that he actually reduced military spending when he was war minister, discounted Japan as an aggressive threat and placed blind faith in antiquated technologies despite clear evidence that the nature of warfare had changed. It was actually Neville Chamberlain, the Prime Minister blamed by Churchill for not arming Britain, who invested in the Spitfire and Hurricane fighters that helped win the Battle of Britain (which is still recognised as Churchill's victory alone). Chamberlain's legacy is now synonymous with indecision and hand-wringing appeasement.
The book catalogues a chain of bad decisions made by Churchill during wartime. Diary excerpt by military top brass, notably Sir Hugh Dowding and Sir Alan Brooke, give contemporary reference to Churchill's decisions and psyche at that time. He was impatient and diverted materiel away from vital offences to fruitless ones. He refused to see allied efforts as a worldwide offensive and instead viewed it as a series of theatres. He was headstrong, single-minded, obstinate and arrogant. One thing that is not in dispute about Churchill's behaviour is that he was driven and hard-working, unfortunately when the direction is the wrong one, the amount of toil is irrelevant, and greatness cannot be achieved quickly from rash all-out offensives on non-strategic locations and opening up the front in several locations which were doomed (such as Norway and Greece). He resisted for years the opening up of a second front in France (which would culminate in D-Day) and there is a compelling argument to be made that if he had assented to this earlier, victory in Europe could have been achieved sooner. The record of his conduct in WWII is neatly rounded up with his interactions with Stalin in the latter stages of the war. Churchill argued so firmly (and justly) against the Soviet/Nazi carving up of Europe in 1939 but went on to agree "spheres of influence" over Europe with Stalin in 1945. After the fighting, Germany was promptly carved up and many nations in eastern Europe (such as Poland) who had hoped to have belong in a free Europe were betrayed and turned over to the USSR.
My critique of this critique is that there are omissions of his activities. The narrative starts in the 1920s but some of Churchill's most ignominious decisions took place before then such as in Wales and Scotland where he had no qualms in deploying troops into Tonypandy in 1910 and tanks into Glasgow in 1919 against labourers striking for a fair wage and decent working hours. The book is also light on Churchill's role in Ireland where he sanctioned appalling violence against civilians during the Irish war of Independence following WWI. I would have also like to have seen more about the offensive in the Dardanelles (culminating in Gallipoli) which Churchill was responsible during WWI. It constituted a reprehensible loss of British and ANZAC troops for little gain. Churchill's imperial fanaticism is also mentioned but not expanded upon. Churchill delighted in his so-called "English-speaking peoples" he defined as making up the empire but he retained a belief that self-determination is something to be resisted. His attitude was that Ireland or India could never be able to administer themselves successfully because Westminster knows best.
As a negative review of Churchill, you cannot expect to finish reading and treat it as anything but one sided. I would advise reading a positive biography as well and balancing the two to decide his legacy (something I have done with Eamon De Valera) because in truth there are lots of shades of grey (which is a book I don't recommend you read). Personally on balance I think Churchill was not the man most people think he was. He was a politician, not a general and spun the war effectively to complement his legacy (something his old boss, David Lloyd George had done with the First World War). Sadly the greatest legacy of Churchill is the duping of the nation of an unimpeachable record of wartime greatness whilst those individual acts of heroism by those who fought and died is eclipsed by the shadows he has cast.
I was interested in this book because A) every bookshop shelf groans under the weight of sycophantic Churchill biographies and B) his decisions have had a massive and lasting impact on the world. The book primarily looks at his time as PM during WWII, the period in which he was transformed from a politically outcast former cabinet minister to a name synonymous with British victory. How successful was Churchill? How beneficial were his decisions? Does he deserve the title of "Great Briton" alongside Nelson or Wellington?
History is always written by the victors and that is exactly what Churchill did after the war between 1948-1953 in "The Second World War". The books earned him a Nobel Prize for Literature, but this book does much to unpick some of the statements which show a clear derivation from actual events corroborated through personal diaries and extensive correspondence. The first point always made about Churchill is this: he knew the war was coming and wanted Britain to arm immediately. He was a John the Baptist type figure, one crying in the wilderness warning others of things to come. Details of Churchill's actual record as a minister during the 1920's are produced to bring to light that he actually reduced military spending when he was war minister, discounted Japan as an aggressive threat and placed blind faith in antiquated technologies despite clear evidence that the nature of warfare had changed. It was actually Neville Chamberlain, the Prime Minister blamed by Churchill for not arming Britain, who invested in the Spitfire and Hurricane fighters that helped win the Battle of Britain (which is still recognised as Churchill's victory alone). Chamberlain's legacy is now synonymous with indecision and hand-wringing appeasement.
The book catalogues a chain of bad decisions made by Churchill during wartime. Diary excerpt by military top brass, notably Sir Hugh Dowding and Sir Alan Brooke, give contemporary reference to Churchill's decisions and psyche at that time. He was impatient and diverted materiel away from vital offences to fruitless ones. He refused to see allied efforts as a worldwide offensive and instead viewed it as a series of theatres. He was headstrong, single-minded, obstinate and arrogant. One thing that is not in dispute about Churchill's behaviour is that he was driven and hard-working, unfortunately when the direction is the wrong one, the amount of toil is irrelevant, and greatness cannot be achieved quickly from rash all-out offensives on non-strategic locations and opening up the front in several locations which were doomed (such as Norway and Greece). He resisted for years the opening up of a second front in France (which would culminate in D-Day) and there is a compelling argument to be made that if he had assented to this earlier, victory in Europe could have been achieved sooner. The record of his conduct in WWII is neatly rounded up with his interactions with Stalin in the latter stages of the war. Churchill argued so firmly (and justly) against the Soviet/Nazi carving up of Europe in 1939 but went on to agree "spheres of influence" over Europe with Stalin in 1945. After the fighting, Germany was promptly carved up and many nations in eastern Europe (such as Poland) who had hoped to have belong in a free Europe were betrayed and turned over to the USSR.
My critique of this critique is that there are omissions of his activities. The narrative starts in the 1920s but some of Churchill's most ignominious decisions took place before then such as in Wales and Scotland where he had no qualms in deploying troops into Tonypandy in 1910 and tanks into Glasgow in 1919 against labourers striking for a fair wage and decent working hours. The book is also light on Churchill's role in Ireland where he sanctioned appalling violence against civilians during the Irish war of Independence following WWI. I would have also like to have seen more about the offensive in the Dardanelles (culminating in Gallipoli) which Churchill was responsible during WWI. It constituted a reprehensible loss of British and ANZAC troops for little gain. Churchill's imperial fanaticism is also mentioned but not expanded upon. Churchill delighted in his so-called "English-speaking peoples" he defined as making up the empire but he retained a belief that self-determination is something to be resisted. His attitude was that Ireland or India could never be able to administer themselves successfully because Westminster knows best.
As a negative review of Churchill, you cannot expect to finish reading and treat it as anything but one sided. I would advise reading a positive biography as well and balancing the two to decide his legacy (something I have done with Eamon De Valera) because in truth there are lots of shades of grey (which is a book I don't recommend you read). Personally on balance I think Churchill was not the man most people think he was. He was a politician, not a general and spun the war effectively to complement his legacy (something his old boss, David Lloyd George had done with the First World War). Sadly the greatest legacy of Churchill is the duping of the nation of an unimpeachable record of wartime greatness whilst those individual acts of heroism by those who fought and died is eclipsed by the shadows he has cast.
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews