Lloyd George and Churchill

Lloyd GEORge AND CHURchill David Lloyd George and Winston Churchill were the two most important political figures in twentieth- century British political history, a status that derives substantially but not wholly from their positions as war leaders.1 Comparing their experiences in the First and Second World Wars raises questions which go beyond the matter of who had the greater personal leadership ability. It n Britain, there has already failing to articulate this view them- provides us a lens with been published a flood of books selves. In fact no such consensus Isurrounding the hundredth does exist. Given that fact, the Brit- which to examine anniversary of the war’s outbreak, ish government may well have been and there has been a great deal right to insist that the officially key issues such as state of public discussion. Gary Shef- sponsored centenary events should capacity, civilian– field has claimed: ‘Like all wars, it involve commemoration but not was tragic, but it was certainly not interpretation. military relations, futile.’2 Max Hastings has argued: Nevertheless, it is true that the ‘The [British] Government has not Second World War tends to be the relationship uttered, and apparently does not seen in Britain as ‘the good war’, between parliament plan to utter, a word about the vir- in contrast with the First World tue of Britain’s cause, or the blame War, which, even if it is not viewed and the executive, and that chiefly attaches to Germany exclusively negatively, is certainly for the catastrophe that overtook much more contested. On this the construction of Europe.’3 These historians seem basis it is hardly surprising that, in historical memory. By to suggest that there is a historical Britain, Churchill is viewed over- consensus that the Germans were whelmingly positively whereas Richard Toye. chiefly at fault in 1914 and the gov- Lloyd George fails to benefit from ernment is being pusillanimous in having been ‘The Man Who Won 42 Journal of Liberal History 87 Summer 2015 Lloyd GEORge AND CHURchill AS WAR LEAdeRS the War’. Undoubtedly, First World Lloyd George and Churchill were George’s failure to protect him. War revisionists are correct that the already closely associated with According to the diary of Lord ‘lions led by donkeys’ caricature is one another in the public mind Reading, ‘W. says [he] has always unsatisfactory. Still, there a risk in on account of their political alli- supported L.G. through thick & going too far in the opposite direc- ance that developed after Churchill thin but L.G. has now made his tion. An understanding of the war joined the Liberals from the Con- dispositions in such a way as to based on the works of the poets servative in 1904. To their political bring Winston down’.7 Around this Robert Graves and Wilfred Owen opponents during the Edward- time Churchill wrote to a friend: is obviously insufficient. But a per- ian constitutional crisis, they were ‘Between me & Ll G tout est fini.’8 spective that simply discounts their peas in a pod – dangerous quasi- Another telling comment was viewpoint is obviously wrong too. socialists determined to stir up class made by Churchill in January 1916, It is quite right to point out that hatred for their own political ends. when he was serving on the West- millions of people in 1914 regarded Long after they had gone their dif- ern Front, having temporarily the conflict as a fight for national ferent ways politically, they were withdrawn from politics but hop- honour, but that does not mean that still lumped together by those ing to make a comeback. He wrote we, too, are bound to accept that who distrusted them. Talking pri- to his wife that, although Lloyd verdict, which at any rate oversim- vately in 1937, Stanley Baldwin, George would not be sorry if he, plifies the way the public related the Conservative prime minister, Churchill, were killed, he would to the war. Vocal patriotism could repeated with approval a saying he find it politically inconvenient. combine with subtle acts of resist- had heard: ‘L.G. was born a cad and Therefore, even though her own ance to authority. never forgot it; Winston was born a severe criticisms of Lloyd George’s This article’s comparison of gentleman and never remembered personal disloyalty had much merit, Lloyd George and Churchill as it’. In the same year Neville Cham- she should stay in touch with him war leaders will consider firstly berlain referred to them as ‘These all the same – because he stood to their interactions with one another two pirates’.5 be useful in the future. Yet at other throughout their careers, but par- But in spite of the perception moments the claim that political ticularly during the two world that they were thick as thieves, the conflict had never descended into wars, and secondly their capaci- relationship between the two men personal acrimony was politically ties as military strategists and their was not always warm and com- convenient for both Lloyd George attempts to enforce civilian control fortable. They themselves created and Churchill; hence, in part, their of the military. a powerful mythology that sug- displays of comradeship and protes- ‘L.G. was gested that, as Lloyd George put tations of mutual devotion. it in 1936, ‘in spite of the fact that This does not mean that we The personalities of Lloyd born a cad we have fought against each other should treat their relationship cyni- George and Churchill on many occasions there has never cally. Rather, we must be alive to We may begin by noting that the and never been an occasion when I could not its paradoxes. After Lloyd George two men had very different per- call Mr. Winston Churchill my succeeded Asquith as prime min- sonalities. Lord Hankey, the most forgot it; friend and I think that he could do ister in 1916, he brought Church- influential civil servant of the age, Winston the same’.6 In fact, Lloyd George ill into his coalition government summarised the difference between and Churchill did not always feel as soon as he judged it politically Lloyd George and Churchill as fol- was born a affection towards one another, and safe to do so. As minister of muni- lows: ‘Imagine the subject of bal- at crucial moments the relation- tions, he may not have shown as loons crops up. Winston, without gentleman ship broke down. One such crucial much originality and flair as Lloyd a blink, will give you a brilliant moment came when Churchill’s George had previously done in hour-long lecture on balloons. and never career hit the rocks in 1915 as the the same role. But Churchill did L.G., even if he has never seen you Gallipoli disaster unfolded. After demonstrate both efficiency and before, will spend an hour finding remembered Asquith demoted Churchill from creativity and, furthermore, he out anything you know or think his position at the Admiralty, the demonstrated a growing political about them.’4 When war broke out, it’. latter complained bitterly at Lloyd maturity. He largely kept his head Journal of Liberal History 87 Summer 2015 43 lloyd geoRge And chURchill AS WAR leAdeRS down and got on with the job at problem in the summer of 1940 itself to save the world’. In contrast, hand, and there were fewer flare- was the upsurge of popular anti- he makes a persuasive case that in ups with Lloyd George than there Chamberlainite feeling, but when fact Britain was ‘a first-class power’ had been previously. Still, Church- he wanted to – as a quid pro quo for with impressive technical and sci- ill resented his exclusion from the getting Chamberlain’s agreement to entific capacity and a position as ‘an war cabinet, and during the four Lloyd George entering the war cabi- industrial giant which remained years of the post-war coalition the net – he could pull strings to get the at the heart of the world’s trade’ relationship again showed its char- press campaign stopped, ‘like turn- – the idea that she was pacificistic acteristic alternation between con- ing off a tap’.10 and poorly prepared was a myth. flict and cooperation. Key issues To a much greater extent than He also makes a convincing effort included the Russian civil war, the Churchill, Lloyd George was to show why it was that the opti- conflict in Ireland, British policy obliged to improvise his own mistic narratives that accompanied in the Middle East, and the 1922 machinery of government. The the end of the war were in time Chanak crisis (which triggered Ministry of Munitions has already supplanted by ‘declinist’ ones that Lloyd George’s fall from power). been mentioned. After Lloyd suggested that Britain had at best After the collapse of the coali- George entered 10 Downing Street muddled through against its more tion the two men’s paths diverged there was a further wave of inno- technically sophisticated German politically and, during the 1930s, vations. These included the intro- opponents.13 Lloyd George was of consider- duction of a prime ministerial Here we may digress for a ably less political relevance than secretariat, a small executive war moment to reflect on two diary Churchill was, even though cabinet, and an array of new min- descriptions, one of Lloyd George both were ‘in the wilderness’. As istries under ‘men of push and go’ in the First World War, and one of Churchill campaigned against the such as Sir Joseph Maclay, the ship- Churchill during the Second World dangers of Nazism, Lloyd George ‘Lloyd George ping controller.

Load more