Churchill in WWII

Whatever arguments we might make about Ireland in the Second World War, they will help us better to understand the dynamics of today’s relationships between the great powers.

G.C.B Dodds, a private secretary in 1944, recalls Churchill’s energy, fearlessness and pugnacity, and an uncomfortable moment over de Gaulle.

Nora Henty, last survivor from Churchill’s wartime staff, had vivid memories of those “dark days and darker nights” when Britain stood alone.

“The splitting up of the campaign in the Mediterranean into two operations, neither of which can do anything decisive, is, in my humble and respectful opinion, the first major strategic and political error for which we two have to be responsible.” - Churchill to Roosevelt

The Hillsdale College Churchill Project is privileged to receive photos and memorabilia that add to our Churchill collection. Laura Crosby of Summerville, South Carolina, sent us the historic photos shown here, from the collection of her parents, Eugene and Kathleen Sloan. They round out our picture of Churchill’s June 1942 visit to America, and his first encounter with U.S. troops at Fort Jackson, South Carolina.

Issues of peace and war: Dewey protested Herbert Hoover’s “peripheral” defense strategy in 1950, only to fall back on it, to Churchill’s displeasure, two years later.

Late in 1945, Winston Churchill had the splendid and characteristically generous idea of commemorating his 1940-45 Coalition Government—which had only broken up six months previously—by striking a large bronze medallion. In early 1946 he presented one to every member of that government, as well as to others. In all, there were 136 of these magnificent, four-inch diameter objects, each weighing 8.7 ounces. They were cast at Churchill’s own expense by the foremost manufacturer of such things, Spink & Son, a company founded in 1666.

From the time he became Prime Minister it was manifest that Churchill’s safety was of paramount importance. So looking after him was regarded as a military operation, called “Operation Elephant,” the elephant being the PM himself.

Daniel Wybo requested this essay on King Leopold and Churchill’s remarks about the May 1940 Belgian surrender. Mr. Wybo’s interest is through his father, who fought in the battle to defend the canal at Ghent-Terneuzen. Taken prisoner by the Germans, the elder Wybo escaped and became part of the Belgian underground. “My father was always bitter about how our King was treated,” Mr. Wybo writes. “He was distressed by the great lies propagated about his actions.” Churchill, it will be seen, tried to correct the worst of those lies.

It’s not unusual for leaders with powerful egos and passionate views to prefer the company and advice of close and trusted friends over that of professional advisors or experienced experts. This can have positive results, perhaps shaking up a moribund bureaucracy or forcing radical new approaches to issues mired in the mud of conventional thinking. But it can also lead to disillusion or disaster. Fateful Questions, September 1943 to April 1944, volume 19 in Hillsdale’s series of The Churchill Documents, provides many examples of how Churchill’s decision-making was favorably influenced by close advisors.

A popular weekly half hour podcast, Revisionist History takes aim at shibboleths, real and imagined. This episode is Churchill’s turn in the barrel. The villain, aside from Sir Winston, is his scientific adviser, Frederick Lindemann, later Lord Cherwell, aka “The Prof.” You’ve probably never heard of him, says narrator Malcolm Gladwell. You should have. It was Lindemann who made Churchill bomb innocent German civilians and starve the Bengalis. Accompanied by background music, uplifting or ominous as required, Mr. Gladwell unfolds his case. He claims to have read six books on Lord Cherwell (whose title he mispronounces). But his only two quoted sources are the British scientist C.P. Snow (very selectively; Snow admired Churchill); and Madhusree Mukerjee, author of a widely criticized book on the Bengal Famine. There are no contrary opinions or evidence.

Dunkirk, produced by Christopher Nolan, sets out to portray the 1940 rescue of the Allied armies from the clutches of Hitler’s Wehrmacht in terms of courage, heroism, survival, and a few examples of cowardice. In that he succeeds admirably. In terms of context—in conveying an understanding of what Dunkirk was about—he fails utterly.