-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
No, but the rememberances of Churchill perhaps are.
The British national character today seems to be bult on guilt for Empire, deep suspicion of Europe, and envy of the US.
(Yes, I know that is slightly flippant)
Yes. There is no doubt that the UK’s stance in 1940 is something Brits can feel unambiguously proud of. It presses the buttons of a number of key qualities we tend to emphasise – battling against the odds in isolation, good humour, communal spirit when the chips are down.
Chruchill, and his radio broadcasts symbolise the spirit of the Blitz and that is why he rates so highly in the national consciousness.
Chruchill, and his radio broadcasts symbolise the spirit of the Blitz and that is why he rates so highly in the national consciousness.
Yes, but when "sheer survival" is a spoil of war, its quite a prize at the peace-table.
We all know the reason the Brits love Churchill is because his mother was American, part of the UK's secret teenage crush on all things American.
Seriously, in addition to his wartime leadership I was personally impressed by the dignity with which he conducted himself during his WWI exile from politics. And hHis early assesment of the threat posed by the Soviet Union appears prescient in retrospect.
Seriously, in addition to his wartime leadership I was personally impressed by the dignity with which he conducted himself during his WWI exile from politics. And hHis early assesment of the threat posed by the Soviet Union appears prescient in retrospect.
Churchill was quite an important figure even aside from his first premiership, and although he obviously wasn't as successful in these positions as he was as a war leader, he was hardly the failure that too many modern would-be revisionists make him out to be (Christopher Hitchens' article of a year or so ago, for example, is riddled with errors). His career also spanned a large number of different positions for someone who was primarily a politician (twice a soldier, journalist, historian). Churchill was, of course, most notable and remembered for his performance during WWII and for managing to keep Britain and its Empire in the fight against Nazi Germany when everyone else had been eliminated and ultimately carrying Britain to victory in Europe before being voted out.
When he died at the beginning of 1965, however, I think he had also come to represent an entire era that had now passed away. Born in 1874, he fought in the Sudan and the First World War, made a famous escape from imprisonment as a journalist in the Boer War, and was an important leader in WWI and the leader in WWII. He represented the best of Britain's late Victorian/Edwardian era, and his death the termination of the direct link with the period when Britain could still consider itself the world's foremost power. Furthermore, Churchill himself had been a vociferous defender of the Empire upon which its greatness rested, an Empire that had only just been dismantled (indeed, was still undergoing dismantlement) at his death.
So for many reasons relating to both his actual historical importance and his symbolic importance, Churchill remains immensely popular today.
When he died at the beginning of 1965, however, I think he had also come to represent an entire era that had now passed away. Born in 1874, he fought in the Sudan and the First World War, made a famous escape from imprisonment as a journalist in the Boer War, and was an important leader in WWI and the leader in WWII. He represented the best of Britain's late Victorian/Edwardian era, and his death the termination of the direct link with the period when Britain could still consider itself the world's foremost power. Furthermore, Churchill himself had been a vociferous defender of the Empire upon which its greatness rested, an Empire that had only just been dismantled (indeed, was still undergoing dismantlement) at his death.
So for many reasons relating to both his actual historical importance and his symbolic importance, Churchill remains immensely popular today.
And the Soviets saw Western intervention in the Civil War (very much supported by Churchill) as prove that Marx and Lenin were right: capitalism would do anything to crush communism. In this way actions by both camps just strengthened both sides in their opinions.
Churchill's career was a real paradox. For large segments of his career, he was reviled by almost everyone - just look at his treatment in the First World War. His wartime tenure at the Admiralty was not entirely successful, but he became the scapegoat for every failure & was drummed out of office. He seemed of have the tag of being a young upstart attached to him (he had previously been Lloyd George's sidekick in the new Liberalism before the war), & so I think so many people wanted to smack down the upstart. By the 1930s, his career was in tatters & seemed without future. Yet almost no one remembers that anymore. His role in the Second World War is the central memory of Churchill (who even remembers that he came back to the Premiership in the 1950s?). I think that is one of the keys: Churchill is remembered for the Second World War, & practically nothing else. And Britain won that war. Yes, British arms may not have been constantly crowned with glory and triumph, but at the end, they won, going the distance against the nastiest & toughest enemy the British had ever faced. Victory has a tendency to wipe away the stains on anyone's reputation (look at Abraham Lincoln or FDR).
Something else to remember is the record of post-war Britain. You mentioned that Churchill lost the Empire, but that is not really true. While academics can pinpoint the start of the decline at some point in the distant past, to the public, the British Empire still appeared to be very much a going concern in 1945. It was only in the years and decades later than it became apparent that the Empire would be lost and that Britain would sink to become a second-rate power. India was not lost on Churchill's watch, the African & Caribbean colonies were not lost on his watch, the economic decline did not become apparent until after he was gone. It is not insignificant that the Suez Crisis happened a year after he retired. Churchill left the public scene before the worst of the decline had occurred.
Also, Dark Knight made an important observation. By his death, Churchill had become a symbol of a glorious and proud age that was clearly in the past and not to be revived. He had come to symbolize all the greatness that Britain had once been, and would not be again. The importance of symbols is not to be underestimated.
Finally, also don't underestimate the importance of 1940. People often forget just how dark that summer was. I would suggest taking a look at John Lukac's "Five Days in May." It describes a brief period after the fall of France had become apparent but before the BEF was rescued from the beaches when there was a push by some politicians to replace Churchill with Halifax & use the still-neutral Mussolini as an intermediary with Hitler to negotiate a peace. This was a legitmate attempt, and the role of Churchill in suppressing it cannot be overstated. The fact that the war continued past the fall of Paris can be attributed mainly to Churchill himself. That, in and of itself, warrants the fond remembrance of Churchill.
Something else to remember is the record of post-war Britain. You mentioned that Churchill lost the Empire, but that is not really true. While academics can pinpoint the start of the decline at some point in the distant past, to the public, the British Empire still appeared to be very much a going concern in 1945. It was only in the years and decades later than it became apparent that the Empire would be lost and that Britain would sink to become a second-rate power. India was not lost on Churchill's watch, the African & Caribbean colonies were not lost on his watch, the economic decline did not become apparent until after he was gone. It is not insignificant that the Suez Crisis happened a year after he retired. Churchill left the public scene before the worst of the decline had occurred.
Also, Dark Knight made an important observation. By his death, Churchill had become a symbol of a glorious and proud age that was clearly in the past and not to be revived. He had come to symbolize all the greatness that Britain had once been, and would not be again. The importance of symbols is not to be underestimated.
Finally, also don't underestimate the importance of 1940. People often forget just how dark that summer was. I would suggest taking a look at John Lukac's "Five Days in May." It describes a brief period after the fall of France had become apparent but before the BEF was rescued from the beaches when there was a push by some politicians to replace Churchill with Halifax & use the still-neutral Mussolini as an intermediary with Hitler to negotiate a peace. This was a legitmate attempt, and the role of Churchill in suppressing it cannot be overstated. The fact that the war continued past the fall of Paris can be attributed mainly to Churchill himself. That, in and of itself, warrants the fond remembrance of Churchill.
Last edited:
Strongly disagree with this analysis of Churchill’s 1951 premiership.
First, you talk if India being “lost”. It wasn’t lost, it was given independence by a Labour party which had campaigned for such an event for several decades and in compliance with a manifesto pledge. It’s true that Churchill, had he been re-elected would have tried to keep India as a colony. This would have been a terrible mistake from Britain’s point o view and would ultimately have been unsuccessful.
Ditto the African and Caribbean colonies. You make it sound like a good thing that Churchill retained the Empire, that people continued to be taxed without any choice in their government.
And it is quite untrue that Churchill somehow managed to hold up Britain’s economic decline. I’d argue that Britain’s decline started in the early 1950s, when Europe was beginning to recover from the war. Britain had a wonderful opportunity to dominate Europe economically and failed to take it (the 1950 Labour government is equally to blame for this). The 1951 government’s failure to do anything other than argue about whether the steel industry should be industrialised was a gross dereliction of duty. The post-war period in Britain was about managing decline. Churchill’s government simply ignored it and one of the reasons was that for most of the 4 years, it simply did not have a leader. Churchill was utterly incapable of doing anything. He was either absent ill for long periods of time or a treated his cabinets as theatre audiences for his monologues. The government was entirely directionless and therefore simply retained the status quo as created by Attlee.
Churchill clung to power, partly for its own sake and partly to keep Crown Prince Eden out of the role. But at the same time he refused to take steps to promote an alternative (such as Butler). As you must surely know, Suez was entirely of Eden’s making and it seems extraordinary to insinuate that it is to WSC’s credit that it had not occurred before.
You somewhat misunderstand what I was trying to say. I apologize if I was unclear. My point was not that what I said was the reality of the post-war situation, but rather that this was the popular perception of the post-war situation. You are, of course, right that India was not lost, but granted independence. However, the perception was that whatever the merits of granting independence (and there were many, including the simple fact that the British were no longer capable of governing it), the independence of India was the most significant signal that the Empire was coming to an end. My point was that this event was not linked in the mind of the people with Churchill, especially, as you point out, considering the fact that he had long argued against it.
Again, I would agree that Churchill's last Premiership was not quite an outstanding success, but the problems that began to arise in that period did not become obvious until after Churchill has left the political scene. The point I was trying to make is that the problems of the post-war era are not associated with Churchill, since whatever his responsibility for these problems, they did not become apparent until the late 1950s & 1960s.
In terms of explaining Churchill's popularity (as with other historical leaders), perceptions are far more important than reality.
Well you have to give Churchill credit for defying Hitler. At that point, it looked like Stalin and Hitler were dividing up Europe. France had fallen and the US wasn't exactly jumping at the chance to help. I'm not saying we should depict him as flying with the RAF putting himself in personnal danger, but it can't be denied that weaker men would have been broken in his position. From a practicall viewpoint, he also helped the Allies win WW1. He was actually key in developing the tank with Robert Swinton. As for why he is put so highly, I think it's the lack of recognizable British heroes. That and the great pictures of him with a cigar and his fingers in his V for victory symbol.
While I generally agree with last 4-5 posts, I think you exaggerate Churchill's popularity Webrave, it tends to be upper/upper-middle class based (possibly because they remember him as a symbol of empire), rather than universal - other sections of society remember the less successful parts of his career (observe post-war labour's election victories).
Gorbachev is a good analogy, he is lionised in the rest of the world (for widely varying reasons) but the view of him "back home" is very different.
Not saying Churchill isn't an interesting and important figure, but I suspect Lukacs wrote the (surprisingly boring) book to bolster his reputation. So what if the British had made peace in 1940? It's not like continuing the war saved the concentration camp victims. Barbarossa would still have been a defeat for the Germans, and perfidious albion has a tradition of flexible morality on issues like "should we break our peace treaty and rejoin the war?"
Gorbachev is a good analogy, he is lionised in the rest of the world (for widely varying reasons) but the view of him "back home" is very different.
Not saying Churchill isn't an interesting and important figure, but I suspect Lukacs wrote the (surprisingly boring) book to bolster his reputation. So what if the British had made peace in 1940? It's not like continuing the war saved the concentration camp victims. Barbarossa would still have been a defeat for the Germans, and perfidious albion has a tradition of flexible morality on issues like "should we break our peace treaty and rejoin the war?"
While I think Churchill is overrated, there’s o doubt that he is extremely popular in Britain. The BBC organised a “Great Britons” poll last year and he won (the fact that Princess Diana came third shows the quality of the judgement of the British people, but there you go…).
I haven’t read 5 Days in May, so maybe I ought to suspend judgement until I have, but I just dislike the way WSC gets all the praise at the expense of his cabinet colleagues who did their share of the work and did it bloody well. It’s rather like the Queen Mum getting praise for bravery for doing a walkabout in the East End during the blitz. What about the poor sods who had to live there?
I haven’t read 5 Days in May, so maybe I ought to suspend judgement until I have, but I just dislike the way WSC gets all the praise at the expense of his cabinet colleagues who did their share of the work and did it bloody well. It’s rather like the Queen Mum getting praise for bravery for doing a walkabout in the East End during the blitz. What about the poor sods who had to live there?
The thing about the Queen Mum is that she could have been evacuated had she wanted to. A nice, peaceful life somewhere in the country. She didn't do this.
Of course, she wasn't bombed herself, but that was just luck. Precision bombing was non-existent in those days. Even if the Germans didn't target Buckingham Palace (I don't know if they tried), it always risked being hit by bombs. This makes her decision a brave one, boosting morale among Londoners.
Of course, she wasn't bombed herself, but that was just luck. Precision bombing was non-existent in those days. Even if the Germans didn't target Buckingham Palace (I don't know if they tried), it always risked being hit by bombs. This makes her decision a brave one, boosting morale among Londoners.
Actually Buckingham Palace did get hit - though it was a while later.
The appeal of WSC is pretty universal and does these days cut across class lines (time does that) - but it is more prevalent among older people who still remember.
I agree that Churchill does eclipse other members of the Cabinet - but that is simply because he was in charge. He gets the credit just like he had the responsibility. After all, had he mucked up he would have gotten the greatest portion of the blame.
The appeal of WSC is pretty universal and does these days cut across class lines (time does that) - but it is more prevalent among older people who still remember.
I agree that Churchill does eclipse other members of the Cabinet - but that is simply because he was in charge. He gets the credit just like he had the responsibility. After all, had he mucked up he would have gotten the greatest portion of the blame.
Hi,
If that poll is conducted in twenty years, I would bet that Churchill will still come in first. But Princess Diana will go way down on the poll results.
Respectfully,
Sulla
An excellent observation. I've often thought one of the real measures of an individual's importance is whether or not he is still famous a century after his death. I would suspect that Churchill will still be.
This is a very questionable statement. I understand the The Red Army did the Lion's share of work in destroying the Third Reich, but if the USSR is the only enemy Germany faces in 1941, Zhukov doesn't reach Berlin in 1945...or 1955.
That is precisly why Churchill, despites his questionable wartime strategies in both wars, is highly esteemed and rightly so I think.