Why is Churchill so popular in Britain?

[unmerged(502)]

It was always a mystery to me why Winston Churchill was regarded as one of the greatest (if not THE greatest) Briton in history. Why is that? If you look realistically at his achievements as a prime-minister you can see what a total failure he was: his rule saw the beginning of an end of the British Empire. He was a great public speaker and had a great sense of humour - I'll give him that - but that is not enough to be remembered by your compatriots in such a positive light. He was a prime minister during a war that Britain won, but how much of it is his personal achievement? His WW2 foreign policy clearly showed how little influence he had on world affairs (at least as far as Soviet and US policies were concerned). One of the results of WW2 was the end of British empire and that shouldn't be remembered fondly by a significant portion of Britons. So, how did Churchill attain his outstanding reputation?

 

[unmerged(6964)]

Hmm. It's a fair question, but you've added a lot if historical inaccuracy to it. First off, the British Empire was in decline before Churchill. Second of all up to and including 1943, Britain exercised significant leverage over the Americans at a strategic level (which rapidly went downhill after 1943). That they were able to do so was in no small part due to Churchill's chutzpah. The decline in influence was not Churchill's fault, it was symptomatic of declining British power and rising American power, which was also not Churchill's fault.


So it's a fair question (the idea of him as the greatest Briton ever is certainly overblown I dare say) but you've based it around historical inaccuracy.

 

[unmerged(9531)]

churchill is also IMHO the one who really resist to hitler. If he had been not there, i'm not sure england would have resist. may'be another man would have made a peace treaty with hitler.
and churchill loved france (and he was the only one in the allied side, except for french of course )

 

[unmerged(502)]

I know full well that British empire's decline began before Churchill came to power, but just like Gorbachev is largely seen as the main culprit of SU breakaway, it would make at least some sense for the Britons to blame the loss of British greatness on Churchill (however unfair that is). Yet, he is almost universaly regarded as the greatest Briton ever. Why is that? What are his lasting achievements that make it so?

 

[unmerged(502)]

Originally posted by KriegHund

and churchill loved france (and he was the only one in the allied side, except for french of course )

that doesn't make him the greatest Briton ever, does it?

 

[unmerged(6964)]

His wartime leadership mostly.

 

[unmerged(502)]

Originally posted by Top Cat
His wartime leadership mostly.

true, but the spoils of war were not that significant for Britain (it actually ended up losing much more than it gained by their victory) - this should be taken into account as well.

 

[unmerged(6964)]

Well then... sorted.

 

[Arkestra]

Well if you're going to blame him for the fall of the empire, consider that the price of keeping the empire was making peace with Germany in 1940 and being in effect a weakening sattelite to a Germany that is ever increasing in power. It wouldn't be a victory, it would be a coward's peace, and the empire would be dismantled anyway, it was not making economic sense, and let's not forget there would still be the Japanese to contend with, whose inevitable gains in the Far East would give impetus to the independance movements after the war.

Remember, the empire was not some be all and end all that had to be preserved at all costs... the interests of the actual home nation took priority, and if the cost of defeating Germany on the continent was bankruptcy, American hegemony and the fall of the empire (which didn't really occur until at least the 50s/60s, if you ignore India), then how can you blame Churchill?

 

[unmerged(502)]

Originally posted by Arkestra
Well if you're going to blame him for the fall of the empire, consider that the price of keeping the empire was making peace with Germany in 1940 and being in effect a weakening sattelite to a Germany that is ever increasing in power. It wouldn't be a victory, it would be a coward's peace, and the empire would be dismantled anyway, it was not making economic sense, and let's not forget there would still be the Japanese to contend with, whose inevitable gains in the Far East would give impetus to the independance movements after the war.

Remember, the empire was not some be all and end all that had to be preserved at all costs... the interests of the actual home nation took priority, and if the cost of defeating Germany on the continent was bankruptcy, American hegemony and the fall of the empire (which didn't really occur until at least the 50s/60s, if you ignore India), then how can you blame Churchill?

fair enough. But as we all know politicians that are forced to make such decisions between bad and worse are usually not fondly remembered by their compatriots.

 

[Arkestra]

Very true, let's not forget that Churchill was voted out before the war was even over.

 

[unmerged(9531)]

Originally posted by webbrave
that doesn't make him the greatest Briton ever, does it?

it makes him a very unusual briton

 

[unmerged(502)]

Originally posted by Arkestra
Very true, let's not forget that Churchill was voted out before the war was even over.

hence my question still stands. Why is he popular in Britain today?

 

[w_mullender]

Originally posted by webbrave
hence my question still stands. Why is he popular in Britain today?

IMO the main reason he remains popular is that he was able to write history in his memoirs (which are very good to read), in which he only gives his version of events and paints himself as the only one who saw the danger of Hitler, which is contradicted btw by actual fact.

 

[unmerged(6964)]

It's rather more complicated than that.

 

[w_mullender]

Originally posted by Top Cat
It's rather more complicated than that.

Of course it is, but Churchill always reminds me of Ceasar who was also able to write his own history and therefore able to bend some facts (or blur).

 

[unmerged(502)]

Originally posted by w_mullender
Of course it is, but Churchill always reminds me of Ceasar who was also able to write his own history and therefore able to bend some facts (or blur).

interestingly, Caesar is another historical personality whose claim to fame is contradictory to say the least

 

[unmerged(14689)]

IMHO it's the fact that Chrurchill led the country during the war and the way in which he did this. He visited bombed parts of London (just like the Queen Mom, who was also very popular because of this), stood firm even in times of near defeat (Dunkirk, Battle of Britain, the "loss" of Greece, Rommel advancing in Egypt, the loss of Singapore) and thus gave the British the courage needed to fight on against what seemed to be overwhelming odds.

As webbrave mentioned Gorbachev as a comparison to Churchill, I would like to make another "Russian connection": Stalin. Clearly, his negative influence on his country far exceeds anything bad Churchill may have done to Britain, but still many (I admit, often elderly) people in Russia still see him as the main figure in the brutal struggle for survival against the Nazis. Stalin, like Churchill, became a symbol of a nation under siege. And when you've become a symbol (like Prince ), a reputation is difficult to destroy by those pesky little thing historians call facts.

 

[stnylan]

webbrave

I was recently reading a book about 1940, and one thing that came through very clearly was that, in that summer, Chuchill made a nation that was nervous and uncertain confident of eventual victory and the rightness of his task. I do not think it is too great a claim a claim to say that without Churchill Hitler would have had his way in Europe - or if not Hitler, then Stalin.

The other part of it is that Churchill made the British feel special. In a way not dissimilar to how Hitler made the Germans feel special in the 1930s I would wager.

Writing his memoirs helped, but I think the memoirs of plenty of other people, and the memories of most of the population of wartime Britain help more than just a little. Maybe time will add perspective, but on one level I hope not.

 

[unmerged(5678)]

While Churchill’s rhetoric and confidence were very important in steeling nerves, he does get far to great a share of the credit for Britain’s performance in the early days of the war.

Several members of his war cabinet did some very impressive organisational work which is largely forgotten.

Apart from 1940-41 (and even then in a limited capacity as cheerleader, motivator and symbol) Churchill was pretty poor.

I wouldn’t blame him for the collapse of the Empire, though you could make a reasonable case that his extremely reactionary opposition to home rule in India worsened considerably relations between Britain and its major colony.