Okay, let's unpack this. Welcome to the Deep
Dives. Today, well, we're tackling a giant, a
figure whose shadow, you could say, stretches
right across the 20th century, Sir Winston Leonard
Spencer Churchill. It's quite the undertaking.
I mean, his political life alone spanned, what,
62 years? Just astonishing. Two terms as prime
minister, countless cabinet roles, military service.
And he somehow found time to be this incredibly
prolific writer, won a Nobel Prize for it even.
Yeah, the source deck for this one is. So our
mission today really isn't just to walk through
his life year by year. No, that would take weeks.
Exactly. It's more about distilling this huge,
complex life down to its core themes. We want
to spotlight those unexpected moments, those
pivots like, you know, switching parties not
once but effectively twice. And the contradictions,
too, the ideas that drove him. Right. So for
you, the learner, this is hope for the shortcut.
Getting under the skin of the man, not just the
myth. And what's really fascinating when you
dig into the sources is how Churchill's career
seems driven by these two often opposing forces.
On one hand, he's a deep believer in classical
economic liberalism, especially free trade, like
fundamentally. But on the other hand, he's this
absolutely staunch, unwavering imperialist, believer
in the British Empire through and through. So
those two things, liberalism and imperialism,
sometimes they pull in the same direction, sometimes
not so much. Precisely. And we'll see how that
tension plays out, how it pushes him across party
lines, fuels his greatest triumphs, and arguably
leads to some of his biggest missteps as well.
It's quite the ideological tightrope he walked.
So let's start at the beginning. Blenheim Palace,
1874. Born right into the heart of the aristocracy,
the Spencer family, direct descendant of the
first Duke of Marlborough. You know, the famous
general. Absolutely. Lineage mattered. His father,
Lord Randolph Churchill, was a big name in conservative
politics himself. And his mother, Jenny Jerome,
the American socialite, well, she was a force
of nature in her own right. Connections everywhere.
So born with a silver spoon, you might say. But
the early school years, they weren't exactly
covered in glory, were they? Not at all. The
sources are pretty clear. He really struggled
academically. Places like St. George's, Harrow.
He just didn't thrive in that structured environment.
And his father, Lord Randolph, basically saw
the writing on the wall. Academics weren't his
son's forte. So the military seemed the next
logical step. Maybe the only step in his father's
eyes. So he gets pushed toward Sandhurst, the
Royal Military College. Right, but even that
wasn't easy. It took him three attempts to get
into the cavalry branch, finally making it in
1893. You get this sense early on of someone
who has to constantly strive, constantly overcome
these perceived shortcomings. It definitely built
a powerful drive and ambition. And that ambition,
it seems, didn't point towards a quiet life in
the barracks. As soon as he's commissioned in
the 4th Queen's Own Hussars, he's looking for
action. And truthfully, looking to write about
it. Yeah, this is a really key moment, kind of
an aha moment for him. He figures out pretty
quickly that the path to influence, maybe even
political power, isn't just about being a soldier.
It's about being seen being a soldier and writing
about it. Using journalism to build his profile.
And maybe pay the bills. Exactly. He leveraged
his mother's connections quite ruthlessly, actually,
to get himself posted where the action was. Conflict
zones. He wangled his way to Cuba to observe
their war of independence, sending back reports
for the Daily Graphic. So even then. The writer
and the soldier were intertwined. Absolutely.
Then it was off to British India, Bangalore,
the northwest frontier, which was pretty volatile.
Then later Sudan for a modest war. He wasn't
just passively serving. He was actively seeking
out experience he could turn into copy. And while
he was in India, in Bangalore specifically, wasn't
that when he really buckled down with self -education?
Yes, that's right. Around the late 1890s, he
felt intellectually behind his peers who'd gone
through university. So he sets himself this incredibly
rigorous reading program. Like what? But what
was he reading? Oh, the classics. Plato, Darwin,
Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
Macaulay's Histories. Heavy stuff. He was consciously
trying to build that intellectual foundation
he felt he lacked. And feeding that directly
into his writing, presumably. Immediately. His
first book, The Story of the Malacan Field Force,
comes out of his experiences in India. It launches
his writing career. But the writing wasn't just
for ambition or money. It was deeper than that.
You mean the black dog? Exactly. He suffered
from recurring bouts of severe depression, what
he famously called his black dog, and writing
that intense creative effort was his primary
way of keeping it at bay. It was a psychological
necessity as much as a career move. Fascinating.
So his active military service kind of culminates
in the Sudan campaign. Yeah, he participated
in one of the very last major cavalry charges
of the British Army at the Battle of Omdurman
in 1898. Very dramatic stuff. But then he doesn't
just bask in the glory, does he? He actually
criticizes his own commander. Right, which is
quite telling. He resigns from the army not long
after Omdurman. And he publicly criticizes General
Kitchener, the commander, for the harsh treatment
of wounded enemy fighters and very controversially
for desecrating the tomb of the Mahdi, Mohammed
Ahmad. That takes some guts for a young officer.
It does. It shows this willingness even early
on to speak out based on principle, even if it
ruffled feathers, maybe even because it ruffled
feathers. It certainly got him noticed. And that
leads him straight into politics. His first attempt,
though. Not a success. No, his first run for
parliament was as a conservative in Oldham, a
by -election in 1899. He lost, but only narrowly.
He campaigned as a conservative and a Tory Democrat,
trying to blend traditionalism with some reformist
ideas. But then fate, or rather war, intervenes
again. The Second Boer War breaks out. Perfect
timing for him, in a strange way. He heads straight
to South Africa, not as a soldier this time,
but as a war correspondent for the Morning Post.
Hugely lucrative contract, by the way. And this
is where the story becomes legendary. The train
ambush, the capture. Yes, the whole POW camp
episode in Pretoria. It's almost unbelievable.
His train gets ambushed by the Boers, he's captured,
imprisoned. But he doesn't stay long. Not Winston.
The escape. It reads like something out of a
novel. Scaling the wall. Hiding out. Hopping
freight trains, hiding in a coal mine for days,
finally making his way hundreds of miles across
enemy territory to Portuguese East Africa and
freedom. And publicity back home must have been
immense. Off the charts. Instant national hero.
This daring young aristocrat giving the Boers
the slip. It was exactly the kind of story the
public craved. He was made. And he knew exactly
how to leverage that fame. Oh, absolutely. He
comes back, briefly rejoins the army for a bit
of mopping up. There's this. Rather theatrical
incident where he and his cousin demand the surrender
of 52 Boer prison guards. Just the two of them.
Well, they had backup eventually, but yeah, initially.
Then he immediately converts his fame and his
war dispatches into cash via a hugely successful
lecture tour. Britain, America. He even met Mark
Twain and President McKinley. Didn't hit it off
with Theodore Roosevelt, apparently. Two strong
personalities there. You can imagine. But the
money from the lectures and the writing, that's
what bankrolled his next political campaign.
And this time, Oldham works out. It does. October
1900, he's elected conservative MP for Oldham.
He's just 25 years old. And it's crucial to remember
he funded this himself, not family money primarily,
but earnings from his pen and his adventures.
Quite remarkable, really. OK, so he arrives in
Parliament, 1901, a young conservative hero.
But this is where things get really interesting
ideologically. He doesn't stay conservative for
long, does he? No, barely four years. He takes
his seat and almost immediately you see him starting
to. Well, drift. He starts criticizing his own
party spending, particularly on the military,
which is ironic given his background. And he
starts hanging out with liberals. Yes, particularly
the liberal imperialists figures who believed
in the empire, but also in progressive policies
at home. He felt more aligned with them intellectually
on certain key issues. And the big breaking point,
the thing that actually makes him cross the floor
in 1904. Yeah. It's about trade. It's fundamentally
about protectionism. This is absolutely key to
understanding Churchill's first big political
shift. The Conservative Party, under the influence
of Joseph Chamberlain, starts pushing for tariffs
taxes on imported goods to protect British industries.
And Churchill's having none of it. Absolutely
none. For Churchill, free trade wasn't just an
economic policy. It was like the lifeblood of
the British Empire. He believed it kept the empire
connected, prosperous, and benefited ordinary
people by keeping food prices low. So tariffs
were anti -empire in his view. Exactly. He saw
protectionism as economically damaging and crucially
bad for the empire's unity. So he co -founds
this group called the Free Food League to campaign
against tariffs. And then very dramatically,
in May 1904, he walks across the floor of the
House of Commons and sits with the liberals.
A huge political gamble. And it wasn't just economics,
right? The sources mentioned he opposed the aliens
bill around the same time. That's right. The
1905 aliens bill, which was aimed primarily at
restricting Jewish immigration from Eastern Europe.
Churchill spoke out quite strongly against it,
arguing for Britain's old, tolerant and generous
practice of free entry and asylum. It shows his
liberalism wasn't purely economic. There was
a social dimension, too, at least early on. So
he quickly makes a name for himself as a sort
of radical liberal. Yeah. He aligns himself with
figures like John Morley and significantly David
Lloyd George, who would be. his great partner
in social reform. His first government role with
the liberals is undersecretary for the colonies
in 1905. Back dealing with the empire. Right
back into it. He's involved in drafting the constitution
for the Transvaal, post -Boer War South Africa,
trying to create some kind of workable relationship
between the British and the Boers. And the sources
mention his reaction to the Bombatha Rebellion.
Yes, a Zulu uprising in Natal. Churchill privately
expressed his horror at what he called the disgusting
butchery of the natives by the colonial forces.
It shows an early, perhaps paternalistic, but
nonetheless present concern about the excesses
of colonial rule. Then he gets his big promotion
into the cabinet as president of the Board of
Trade in 1908, youngest cabinet member in decades.
Yeah, since 1866, I think. And this is where
he really makes his mark as a social reformer,
working very closely with Lloyd George. Their
goal, quite explicitly, was to create a network
of state intervention and regulation, looking
at models like Bismarck's Germany. So what kind
of specific reforms are we talking about here?
Foundational stuff, really. Things we take for
granted now, the mines eight hours bill limiting
how long miners could work underground, the trade
boards bill, which is huge. It established minimum
wages in certain industries, the so -called sweated
trades and regulated things like meal breaks.
Setting a precedent for state intervention in
wages. Absolutely. Then there was the labor exchange
bill, basically creating job centers to help
the unemployed find work. And arguably the biggest
one, the National Insurance Act of 1911, which
he drafted with Lloyd George. This laid the groundwork
for state -provided sickness and unemployment
benefits. It's quite a record for someone often
remembered just for war. It really is. He was,
in this period, genuinely driving progressive
social change. A paternalist? Sure, he wasn't
a socialist by any stretch. But he believed the
state had a duty to provide a basic safety net.
His next big job is Home Secretary, 1910 -1911.
Does the reforming continue? It does, particularly
in the prison system. He pushes for reforms like
setting up prison libraries, easing rules on
solitary confinement. He made a point of distinguishing
between political prisoners like suffragettes
and common criminals. And he was quite active
in reviewing death sentences, commuting a significant
number, 21 out of 43, I believe. But this period
also brings some major controversies that stick
with him. Totopandy, for instance. Yes, the Tony
Pandy riots in South Wales, 1910, striking coal
miners clashed with police. Churchill, as Home
Secretary, authorized sending in Metropolitan
Police from London, crucially, without firearms
rather than deploying the army immediately. Which
he argued was actually a de -escalation. That
was his defense, yes. That sending police was
less provocative than sending soldiers. But for
the miners and the burgeoning labor movement,
it looked like the state. personified by this
aristocratic home secretary coming down hard
on striking workers it created this lasting image
of him as being anti -labor which haunted him
for years even though he was pushing through
pro -worker legislation elsewhere. The irony
is profound, isn't it? And then there's the almost
theatrical siege of Sippy Street in 1911. Right,
where he actually shows up at the scene. He does.
These Latvian anarchists, armed burglars, are
cornered in a house in London's East End. There's
a gunfight. The house catches fire. Churchill
arrives, gets photographed seemingly directing
operations, and he makes this controversial call
to let the house burn down rather than risk police
lives trying to save the men inside. The press
must have had a field day. Oh, absolutely. Absolutely.
The image of the Home Secretary at an active
siege, it was sensational. Added to this perception
of him being perhaps a bit too involved, a bit
too dramatic. But then the global situation shifts
things dramatically. The Agadir crisis in 1911.
Yes, a naval standoff between Germany and France
over Morocco. It really ramps up tensions and
focuses minds in London on the German naval threat.
For Churchill, it seems to have been a wake -up
call. His focus pivots almost overnight. from
domestic reform to naval preparedness. And that
leads directly to his appointment as first Lord
of the Admiralty later that year. Exactly. October
1911, he throws himself into the role with characteristic
energy. His main goal, ensure the Royal Navy
is ready for a potential war with Germany. How
does he go about that? He pushes for a massive
shipbuilding program, famously vowing to build
two British dreadnoughts for every one the Germans
laid down. He establishes a proper naval war
staff to improve strategic planning. He boosts
sailors' pay. And, crucially, he champions naval
aviation. The air arm. That seems quite forward
-thinking for 1911. It really was. He basically
creates the Royal Naval Air Service from scratch.
He learned to fly himself briefly. He even supposedly
coined the word seaplane. He ordered 100 aircraft,
recognizing the potential of air power in naval
warfare early on. And then there's the oil decision.
That seems strategically vital. Hugely important,
Churchill realized the Navy's future was oil
-powered ships, not coal. But Britain had no
secure oil supplies. So in June 1914, just before
the war, he persuades the government to do something
unprecedented. by majority stake, 51 % in the
Anglo -Persian oil company. The government taking
control of a private company for strategic reasons.
Precisely. It was a massive move ensuring the
Royal Navy had access to vital Persian Gulf oil
for decades to come, arguably one of his most
farsighted decisions. He also supported Irish
home rule during this time, but opposed partition.
Yes, he supported the Liberal government's push
for home rule for Ireland, but he was against
splitting off Ulster, famously saying, half a
province cannot impose a permanent veto on...
the nation, another complex balancing act. So
war breaks out in August 1914. He's overseeing
the Navy's initial actions, the blockade of Germany.
And interestingly, he uses admiralty funds, kind
of off the books initially, to support the development
of a secret weapon, the Armored Tracked Vehicle
Project, which eventually becomes the tank. He
saw its potential early. But despite all this
energy and foresight, his time at the admiralty
ends in disaster. Gallipoli. Yes, the Dardanelles
Campaign of 1915. It was Churchill's brainchild,
really. The idea was to force the Dardanelles
Street with naval power, knock Ottoman Turkey
out of the war, open a supply route to Russia,
and bypass the stalemate on the Western Front.
A bold strategic gamble. It's extremely bold,
but the naval attack failed disastrously. It
was repulsed with heavy losses, and that led
to the equally disastrous Gallipoli Land Campaign,
trying to achieve by land what the Navy... he
couldn't. Huge casualties, total failure. And
Churchill got the blame. He became the scapegoat.
The conservatives who joined the coalition government
formed in May 1915 distrusted his judgment after
Gallipoli and demanded his removal from the Admiralty.
So he's demoted. Demoted to a powerless sinecure,
Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. Utterly
humiliating for him. By November 1915, he resigns
from the government altogether. His meteoric
rise is suddenly brutally halted. Gallipoli becomes
this albatross around his neck for years. So,
out of government. Disgraced over Gallipoli.
What does Churchill do? He doesn't just fade
away, does he? No, that wasn't his style. He
does something quite remarkable, really. He rejoins
the army and arranges to serve on the Western
Front. Really? Back to active duty. Yes. He gets
command of a battalion, the 6th Royal Scots Fusiliers,
as a lieutenant colonel in early 1916. And this
wasn't some token posting miles from the fighting.
He was in the trenches, sharing the risks with
his men. He had several close calls, nearly killed
by shrapnel. That must have gone some way to
restoring his reputation. Showing personal courage.
It certainly helped. It showed he wasn't just
a politician playing at soldiers. He was willing
to put his life on the line. And it allowed him
to return to politics, albeit gradually. Lloyd
George brought him back into government in 1917.
As Minister of Munitions. Right. A critical role
overseeing war production. He was apparently
very effective, boosting output significantly.
He also wasn't afraid to be tough. Famously ended
a munitions worker's strike by threatening to
conscript the stripers into the army. After the
war ends, he becomes Secretary of State for War
and Air in 1919. Big job overseeing demobilization.
Yes, and it's here that his strong anti -communist
views really come to the fore. He's dealing with
the aftermath of the Russian Revolution. And
he's wary of punishing Germany too harshly. He
is, which might seem surprising. But his reasoning
was strategic. He argued that a completely broken
Germany might leave a vacuum. or worse, fall
to Bolshevism itself. He saw Germany, even a
defeated Germany, as a potential future bulwark
against Soviet Russia. The famous cordon sanitaire
idea. Exactly. That phrase comes from this period.
His idea was to create this barrier, this quarantine
line, of independent states around Soviet Russia
to contain the spread of communism westward.
His anti -Bolshevism was visceral, intense, and
it shaped his foreign policy thinking for decades.
He's also heavily involved in reshaping the post
-war world, particularly in Ireland and the Middle
East. Yes. As colonial secretary from 1921, he
plays a key role in negotiating the Anglo -Irish
Treaty, which creates the Irish Free State, a
very complex and controversial process. And the
Middle East. Yeah. Creating new countries out
of the old Ottoman Empire. Right. He was central
to the Cairo Conference in 1921, which essentially
drew many of the modern borders. He was involved
in installing King Faisal in Iraq and Abdullah
in Transjordan, basically creating kingdoms to
manage British interests. And his views on Zionism.
He remained supportive, consistent with his earlier
stance. He supported the idea of a Jewish national
home in Palestine and, as colonial secretary,
refused petitions from Palestinian Arabs asking
to prohibit Jewish immigration. But then his
political fortunes take another nosedive. 1922.
A real crash this time. The Lloyd George coalition
government collapses, partly over foreign policy
crises like Chenak, there's a general election,
and Churchill, who's actually in hospital having
his appendix removed during the campaign. Bad
timing. Terrible timing. He loses his seat in
Dundee to, of all people, a prohibitionist candidate
who campaigned on an anti -alcohol platform.
Ouch. So he finds himself completely out. Completely.
He famously described his situation with bleak
humor. In the twinkling of an eye, I found myself
without an office, without a seat, without a
party, and without an appendix. A real low point.
So, now, back to writing. Back to writing. It's
his refuge, his income, and his way of battling
the black dog again. He starts publishing his
monumental history of the First World War, the
world crisis. Hugely successful, critically and
commercially. And he starts plotting his political
comeback. But not necessarily with the liberals.
No, he feels the liberal party is declining.
He starts moving back towards the conservatives.
He runs in 1924 for the Epping seat, initially
as a constitutionalist, kind of bridging the
gap in wins. A year later, he formally rejoins
the conservative party. The prodigal son returns.
And astonishingly, the conservative prime minister,
Stanley Baldwin, immediately makes him chancellor
of the Exchequer. It's one of the most surprising
appointments in modern British history. Churchill
had zero financial background. He'd spent years
attacking conservative economic policy. Baldwin
apparently said he did it to neutralize Churchill,
better to have him inside the tent causing trouble
than outside. So how did Chancellor Churchill
do? The sources seem critical. Deeply critical.
His tenure as chancellor, 1924 -1929, is dominated
by one hugely controversial and many argue disastrous
decision, returning Britain to the gold standard
in 1925. OK, explain the gold standard issue.
Why was it so bad? Well, Britain had left the
gold standard during the war. Returning meant
fixing the value of the pound sterling to a specific
amount of gold. The problem was the rate Churchill
chose the pre -war parity of $4 .86 to the pound.
And that rate was too high. Way too high by 1925.
The pound was effectively overvalued by about
10%, the immediate consequence. British exports
instantly became 10 % more expensive for foreign
buyers. Crippling for industries that rely on
exports. Absolutely devastating, especially for
the coal industry, which was already struggling.
It led to demands for wage cuts, massive industrial
strife, and directly contributed to the conditions
that caused the 1926 general strike. And Keynes
warned him against it. John Maynard Keynes wrote
a famous pamphlet, The Economic Consequences
of Mr. Churchill, savaging the decision. He argued
it would cause deflation, unemployment and industrial
unrest. And he was right. It's seen as a major
policy blunder that significantly hampered the
British economy in the late 1920s. And during
the general strike itself. Churchill took a very
hard line. Extremely hard line. He edited the
government's strike -breaking newspaper, the
British Gazette, which was very provocative and
propagandistic. Although, interestingly, after
the strike, he did argue for introducing a legally
binding minimum wage, showing that complex mix
of attitudes again. But the damage with the labor
movement was done. Oh, yes. The perception from
Tony Pandy, reinforced by the general strike
and the gold standard's impact on workers, it
cemented his image in many working class communities
as an enemy for a very long time. The conservatives
lose the 1929 election and Churchill enters what
become known as his wilderness years. Ten long
years out of government office from 1929 right
up to the outbreak of war in 1939. He's on the
back benches increasingly isolated even within
his own party. What occupies him during this
decade? More writing. A huge amount of writing.
Again, it's his income and his therapy. He writes
the massive biography of his ancestor, Marlborough,
his life and times. He writes his autobiography,
My Early Life. He writes countless articles.
He has to earn a living. And politically, he
takes a stand that isolates him further. On India.
Yes, the India question. The big debate in the
early 1930s was about granting India dominion
status, a step towards self -government within
the empire. Churchill fiercely opposed this.
Why? Back to his imperialism. Absolutely. He
saw it as the first step towards dismantling
the British empire, which he believed in passionately,
almost mystically. He resigned from the conservative
shadow cabinet in 1931 over this issue. His rhetoric
was incredibly strong, famously calling Gandhi
a seditious middle temple lawyer, now posing
as a fakir. Wow. That's quite something. It alienated
a lot of people, even within his own party. He
seemed like a man out of time, clinging to an
imperial past. But this isolation, this position
on the fringes, it paradoxically gives him a
unique platform for his other great cause of
the 1930s. Precisely. His warnings about Nazi
Germany. Because he wasn't bound by government
responsibility or cabinet loyalty, he could speak
his mind freely and loudly. And he starts warning
about German rearmament very early. From 1933
onwards, as soon as Hitler comes to power, he
becomes the leading voice advocating for British
rearmament, especially air power. He had sources,
possibly clandestine, feeding him information
about the buildup of the Luftwaffe. the German
Air Force. And he's using this information in
Parliament. Constantly. Warning against complacency,
arguing against cuts to Britain's Air Force budget.
He denounced the nature of the Nazi regime itself,
its cruelty and intolerance. He saw the danger
clearly when many others preferred not to. He
was famously critical of Chamberlain's appeasement
policy. Vehemently so. He saw the Munich Agreement
in 1938, where Chamberlain gave Hitler parts
of Czechoslovakia as a total disaster. He called
it a total and unmitigated defeat. His prescription
wasn't negotiation. It was deterrence, the accumulation
of deterrence against the aggressor. Build up
strength to prevent war or be ready to fight
it. He also got involved in the abdication crisis
in 1936. Yes, he supported King Edward VIII's
desire to marry Wallis Simpson, which put him
at odds with Baldwin and the establishment view.
It was another instance of him seeming out of
step, perhaps overly loyal or romantic. He later
felt the abdication was rushed and unnecessary.
So the wilderness years. Politically frustrating,
personally difficult with a black dog, but ultimately
they positioned him perfectly. When war finally
came, the man who had been warning about it for
years was the obvious choice to lead the fight.
The outsider became indispensable. So September
1939, Britain declares war on Germany. And almost
immediately, Churchill is back. Instantly, the
call goes out. He's reappointed first lord of
the admiralty. The same post he held at the start
of World War I. There's that famous signal sent
to the fleet. Winston is back, a huge morale
boost right away. And even during the phony war,
that quiet initial period, he starts rebuilding
his reputation. Yeah, things start happening
at sea. The Battle of the River Plate, where
British cruisers corner and effectively force
the scuttling of the German pocket battleship
Graf Spee. It's a big early victory. Then the
Altmark incident in February 1940, where a Royal
Navy destroyer boards a German supply ship in
neutral Norwegian waters to rescue hundreds of
British prisoners. That was controversial, but
seen as decisive. Very much so. It contrasted
sharply with the perceived inaction elsewhere.
Churchill seemed like the only one actually doing
things. He was projecting dynamism. And then
the disaster of the Norway campaign in spring
1940 changes everything. Completely. The failed
Allied attempt to counter the German invasion
of Norway leads to the crucial Norway debate
in Parliament in May 1940. Chamberlain's government
is savage. His majority collapses. And he has
to go. But Churchill isn't the obvious successor
initially. Lord Halifax is considered. Halifax
was the foreign secretary, widely respected,
favored by the king and many conservatives. But
there were two problems. One, Halifax was reluctant.
Two, and crucially, he was in the House of Lords.
Which makes leading a wartime government difficult.
Very difficult. You need the prime minister in
the House of Commons answering questions, leading
debates. Also, the Labor Party, whose support
was essential for a national unity government,
made it clear they would serve under Churchill,
but probably not under Halifax. But Churchill
gets the call from the king on May 10th, 1940,
the very day Hitler launches his invasion of
France and the Low Countries. Incredible timing.
He forms his national government, bringing in
labor and liberal leaders, and he immediately
creates this new powerful position for himself.
Minister of Defense, alongside being Prime Minister.
Giving him direct control over the military strategy.
Total control. He wanted his hands on the levers
of the entire war machine. He famously wrote
later that he felt his whole life had been a
preparation for this moment, for this hour, and
for this trial. And almost immediately. His words
become as important as weapons. His speeches.
Absolutely crucial. France is collapsing. Britain
faces invasion. Morale is everything. And Churchill,
despite that slight lisp, the difficulty with
sounds which he somehow weaponized, making Nazi
sound even more contemptuous as Narsi, he finds
the words the nation needs to hear. The blood,
toil, tears, and sweat speech. His first is PM.
Setting the tone, no false promises, just grim
determination. But behind the scenes, there's
a moment of real crisis in the War Cabinet, isn't
there? Late May 1940. Yes, the War Cabinet crisis.
As a British army is being pushed back to Dunkirk,
Lord Halifax raises the possibility of exploring
peace terms, perhaps through Mussolini acting
as an intermediary with Hitler. Seriously considering
negotiation. How did he win that argument? That
resolve is then broadcast. to the world dunkirk
happens operation dynamo the evacuation of over
330 000 allied soldiers from the beaches churchill
calls it a miracle of deliverance but warns parliament
wars are not won by evacuations and then comes
the we shall fight on the beaches speech june
4th 1940 an incredible piece of oratory defiance
determination but also a clear signal to the
united states that britain needed help followed
shortly after by the this was their finest hour
speech as the battle He's not just talking, though.
He's acting, setting up new organizations. And
during the Battle of Britain itself? That summer
in Ottawa of 1940, he coins another immortal
phrase for the RAF pilots. Never in the field
of human conflict was so much owed by so many
to so few. Perfect encapsulation of the sacrifice
and the stakes. Strategically, his absolute top
priority becomes securing American aid. Absolutely
critical. Britain couldn't win alone. He cultivates
this incredibly close personal relationship with
President Roosevelt. First comes the destroyers
for bases deal in September 1940. Britain gets
50. old U .S. destroyers desperately needed for
convoy protection in exchange for giving the
U .S. long leases on British bases in the Atlantic
and Caribbean. A smart trade, though maybe unequal.
Pragmatic. Churchill knew he needed those ships
now. Then comes the real game changer. Lend -lease,
formally enacted in March 1941, the U .S. would
supply Britain with arms, food, raw materials,
essentially on credit. with repayment deferred
until after the war. How was repayment defined?
That was the genius. It wasn't just about money.
The U .S. accepted that Britain's defense was
America's defense. So repayment could be in kind
through things like intelligence sharing and
ultimately just by Britain surviving and fighting.
It was Roosevelt's way of helping Britain short
of actually entering the war. Then Hitler makes
a strategic blunder, invading the Soviet Union
in June 1941. Operation Barbarossa. And Churchill,
the arch anti -communist, doesn't hesitate for
a second. He immediately pledges British support
to Stalin. That's when he makes that famous quip.
If Hitler invaded hell, I would at least make
a favorable reference to the devil in the House
of Commons. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
For now, absolutely. Defeating Hitler trumped
everything. This leads to the first meeting with
Roosevelt off the coast of Newfoundland in August
1941, where they agree the Atlantic Charter.
Which outlines post -war aims. Yes, principles
like self -determination, free trade, freedom
of the seas, disarmament. It's essentially the
foundation stone for the United Nations. a statement
of shared values against Nazi tyranny. Then Pearl
Harbor, December 7th, 1941. The U .S. is in the
war. Churchill reportedly slept soundly for the
first time in years. He immediately travels to
Washington for the Arcadia Conference. Crucially,
they agree on the Europe first strategy. Prioritize
defeating Hitler before focusing fully on Japan.
And the first joint military operation is decided.
Operation Torch, the Allied invasion of North
Africa, planned for late 1942. Churchill also
agrees to appoint an American, Dwight D. Eisenhower,
as the supreme commander for the eventual invasion
of Europe. Building that alliance was paramount.
But the middle war years bring setbacks and personal
challenges for Churchill, too. His health. Yes.
He suffers a heart attack while in Washington
in late 41 or early 42, then pneumonia later.
He's working at an incredible pace, under immense
stress, and he's not young. The doctor's order
rests, but he largely ignores them. He insists
on traveling, making speeches like the famous
some chicken, some neck speech to the Canadian
parliament after his recovery. And militarily,
1942 is a rough year initially. Very rough. The
fall of Singapore to the Japanese in February
1942 is a devastating blow to British prestige
and morale. Churchill calls it the worst disaster
in British military history. Then the German
battleships Starnhorst and Nysenau make their
audacious channel dash right under the noses
of the RAF and Royal Navy. His morale apparently
hit rock bottom. But things start to turn later
that year. Yes. The autumn of 1942 is pivotal.
Montgomery's victory at El Alamein in North Africa
and the Soviets holding firm at Stalingrad. That's
when Churchill delivers that other famous line.
Now, this is not the end. It is not even the
beginning of the end, but it is perhaps the end
of the beginning. Cautious optimism. And he pushes
hard for the Mediterranean strategy, invading
Italy. He did. He argued strongly to Roosevelt
that after clearing North Africa, the next logical
step was Sicily, then Italy, the soft underbelly
of Axis Europe, as he famously put it. The Americans
were more focused on a direct cross -channel
invasion, but Churchill persuaded them. Though
Italy turned out to be anything but soft. No,
the Italian campaign became a long, hard slog.
Churchill himself later acknowledged the difficulties,
referring to the stalled Anzio beachhead as being
like a stranded whale. The relationship with
Stalin and Roosevelt deepens with the big conferences.
Tehran in 1943. Yes, the first meeting of the
big three leaders. Key decisions are made. agreement
that Germany must be forced into unconditional
surrender and would be divided into occupation
zones. And crucially, Roosevelt and Stalin really
pressed Churchill to commit firmly to a date
for Operation Overlords, the invasion of France,
for 1944. Churchill was still hesitant about
overlords. He still favored peripheral operations,
hitting Germany from the edges, but he was essentially
outvoted. The Americans and Soviets insisted
on the second front in France. This period also
sees the terrible Bengal famine in 1943. What
was Churchill's government's role or lack of
role there? It's deeply controversial. Millions
died. The causes were complex. Japanese occupation
of Burma cut off rice supplies. There were crop
failures, national disasters and poor local administration.
But Churchill's government in London is heavily
criticized for its slow response. Why the delay
in sending aid? The official reason given was
a critical shortage of shipping due to the war
in the Atlantic and elsewhere. Every ship was
needed for the war effort. Requests for large
amounts of grain relief were initially refused
on those grounds. But aid was eventually sent.
Yes, eventually Churchill did order grain shipments,
but critics argue it was too little, too late.
The controversy was massively inflamed by reports
of derogatory comments Churchill allegedly made
privately about Indians, suggesting they were
somehow responsible for the famine by breeding
like rabbits. Whether he said exactly that is
debated, but it reflected a callous attitude
that damaged his reputation severely, especially
in India. Moving towards the endgame. D -Day,
June 6th, 1944. Churchill's heavily involved
in planning overlords. Absolutely thrown himself
into it by this point, despite his earlier reservations.
He wanted to personally witness the landing,
sail with the fleet, but King George VI apparently
forbade him from taking the risk. Then the Yalta
Conference, February 1945. Roosevelt, Churchill,
Stalin meeting again as victory seems near. Yalta
makes progress on the structure of the United
Nations, but it's deeply controversial for the
agreements reached about post -war Poland, which
essentially conceded dominant Soviet influence
there. Churchill faced a lot of criticism back
home for selling out Poland. Yalta also had consequences
for displaced people. Operation Keelhaul. Yes,
this was a secret agreement made at Yalta, though
implemented afterwards. It involved the forced
repatriation of millions of Soviet citizens who
were in allied occupied zones back to the Soviet
Union, regardless of their wishes. This included
prisoners of war, forced laborers, but also anti
-communist Russians and people from Eastern European
nations annexed by the USSR. And they faced persecution
back home. Many faced execution or imprisonment
in the gulags. It was a brutal act of political
expediency done to appease Stalin and maintain
the alliance in the final phase of the war against
Japan. It remains a very dark chapter. And the
bombing campaign against Germany? The firebombing
of Dresden in February 1945 caused immense civilian
casualties estimates very wildly, but certainly
tens of thousands. Coming so late in the war,
its military value was questioned. Afterwards,
Churchill himself seemed to have second thoughts.
He wrote a memo questioning the strategy of area
bombing purely for terror and wanton destruction
and urged focusing back on specific military
and industrial targets. VE Day finally arrives
May 8th, 1945. Churchill broadcast to the nation.
Moment of supreme triumph. But even then, there's
that anecdote about him on the balcony at Buckingham
Palace. He insists that Ernest Bevin, the labor
minister who'd served loyally in the war cabinet,
share the applause. Bevin supposedly replies,
no, Winston, this is your day. A sign of the
respect he commanded, even across party lines
at that moment. But that unity dissolves almost
instantly. The coalition ends. Churchill leads
a caretaker government into a general election.
And he seems... Out of touch with the public
mood. His performance at the Potsdam conference
with Truman and Stalin just before the election
result was apparently poor. Eden described him
as unfocused, easily manipulated by Stalin. And
the election campaign itself. A disaster for
him. He misjudged the public desire for post
-war change, for social reform. People wanted
the implementation of the beverage report, the
blueprint for the welfare state, including the
National Health Service. Labor promised that.
Churchill seemed focused on past glories and
future imperial concerns. And he made that famous
gaffe about labor needing a Gestapo. Yes, suggesting
labor would need secret police to implement their
socialist policies. It backfired badly, seemed
absurd and offensive after a war fought against
the Gestapo. The result, in July 1945, was a
landslide victory for Clement Attlee's Labor
Party. Despite Churchill's immense personal popularity
as the war leader. Astonishing, but true. The
public admired him hugely for winning the war,
but they didn't trust him to win the peace, or
rather, to build the kind of peace they wanted.
His wife Clementine tried to console him, saying
defeat might be a blessing in disguise. His reply
was classic Churchill. At the moment, it seems
very effectively disguised. He was utterly devastated.
So kicked out of office right at his moment of
victory. But Churchill doesn't just retire. He
stays on as leader of the conservative party,
leader of the opposition. And he finds a new
enemy, or rather refocuses on an old one. Soviet
communism. Immediately. His attention shifts
fully to the emerging Cold War. And less than
a year after the election defeat. In March 1946,
he travels to Fulton, Missouri, in the U .S.,
and delivers probably his most famous post -war
speech. The Iron Curtain speech. Exactly. He
warns starkly about Soviet expansionism in Eastern
Europe, declaring that an iron curtain has descended
across the continent. It's a powerful, defining
image of the Cold War divide. And in that speech,
he also calls for something else significant.
Yes, he explicitly calls for a special relationship
between the British Commonwealth and the United
States. He sees this Anglo -American alliance
as the essential bedrock for defending democracy
against the Soviet threat. He's really trying
to formalize and cement that wartime partnership.
He also talks about European unity around this
time. He does. He becomes quite a vocal proponent
of pan -Europeanism in the late 1940s. He gives
speeches calling for a United States of Europe,
arguing that Franco -German reconciliation is
vital for peace. But with a catch right for Britain.
Always a crucial caveat. He envisioned Britain
as a supporter, a sponsor, even a partner of
a united Europe, but never part of it in a federal
sense. Britain, in his view, had its destiny
tied to the Commonwealth and the special relationship
with America. Its global status was separate.
Joining a European federation was unthinkable.
Back to that imperial mindset in a way. He eventually
gets back into power, wins the 1951 general election.
Just scrapes back in, actually. Labour won more
votes overall, but the Conservatives won. more
seats, so he becomes prime minister again at
the age of nearly 77. And his health is starting
to fail by this point. Increasingly so. He suffers
several minor strokes, and then a quite serious
one in 1953, which incapacitates him for a while.
Remarkably, the severity of this stroke was kept
secret from the public and even most of the cabinet
at the time. So this second premiership, 1951
-1955, what are the priorities? Is it still the
Cold War and the Empire? Very much so. foreign
affairs dominate his thinking maintaining the
anglo -american relationship is key trying often
vainly to manage the decline of the british empire
the u .s under eisenhower was actually much less
supportive of british imperial ambitions than
churchill hoped they were often quietly encouraging
decolonization which frustrated him what about
domestic policy any major initiatives Not really
his focus anymore. The one area where his government
did make significant progress was housing. They
achieved their manifesto pledge, overseen by
Harold McMillan, of building 300 ,000 new houses
a year, which was badly needed after the war.
But social reform, economic policy, that was
largely left to his ministers like Butler. And
internationally, he's dealing with challenges
like Egypt and Kenya. Yes. He reluctantly agrees
to a phased withdrawal of British troops from
the Suez Canal zone in Egypt in 1954, under pressure.
But elsewhere, he maintains a firm imperial stance,
continuing military operations against the communist
insurgency in the Malayan emergency and overseeing
the often brutal response to the Mau Mau uprising
in Kenya, still clinging to the idea of empire.
He tried to engage with the Soviets after Stalin
died. He did. After Stalin's death in 1953, Churchill
saw a potential opening, a chance for detente.
He pushed for a summit meeting with the new Soviet
leaders. But President Eisenhower was deeply
skeptical, feeling it would just be a Soviet
propaganda exercise, and essentially blocked
the idea. That must have been frustrating for
Churchill. Immensely. He felt the world was missing
a crucial opportunity. He also developed a significant
distrust for Eisenhower's Secretary of State,
John Foster Dulles, whom he saw as rigid and
confrontational. You see the U .S. and U .K.
strategic views diverging more clearly in this
period. He finally retires as Prime Minister
in 1955. Yes, hands over to Anthony Eden. He
accepts a knighthood from the Queen in 1953,
becoming Sir Winston, and accepts the Order of
the Garter. britain's highest order of chivalry
didn't he turn down being made a duke he did
apparently the queen offered to create him duke
of london a very rare honor but churchill declined
supposedly because his son Randolph, who hoped
to follow him into politics, wouldn't inherit
the title under the rules at the time and won't
be disadvantaged. He remains an MP for several
more years. Until the 1964 general election,
yes, though his appearances in Parliament become
increasingly rare. A moment of recognition comes
in 1963 when President Kennedy makes him an honorary
citizen of the United States. And he passes away
in 1965. January 24th, 1965, at the age of 90,
he was given a magnificent state funeral, a rare
honor for a non -royal broadcast around the world.
Huge crowds lined the streets of London, a testament
to the enormous impact he'd had. Beyond the politics
and the wars, we need to touch on the other facets
of his persona, the writer, the artist. Absolutely.
The writing is central. He won the Nobel Prize
in Literature in 1953, not for fiction, but for
his historical and biographical works, his speeches,
his mastery, as the citation said. And he had
to use the name Winston S. Churchill on his books
to avoid being confused with an American novelist
of the same name. And the painting, that was
more than just a hobby. It seems to have been
deeply important to him, another way to cope
with the Black Dog. He started painting relatively
late in life, around 40, but became incredibly
prolific, producing hundreds of canvases, mostly
landscapes. He often painted under the pseudonym
Charles Morin. He was actually quite accomplished.
He also had other, maybe more surprising interests.
Bricklaying. Ha, yes. He took up bricklaying
at his country home, Chartwell, became quite
skilled at it. He even briefly joined the amalgamated
union of building trade workers, though they
apparently kicked him out when he rejoined the
conservatives. And animals. He was famously fond
of animals. Loved them. Kept numerous pets. Cats,
dogs, pigs, swans, even butterflies he bred.
There's that wonderful quote attributed to him.
Dogs look up to you, cats look down on you, give
me a pig. He looks you in the eye and treats
you as an equal. Tells you something about his
personality, perhaps. Which brings us to the
really complex part. His legacy. How do the sources
characterize his fundamental ideology? It seems
all over the place. It's incredibly hard to pin
down. Our sources describe him variously as fundamentally
conservative, yet also liberal in outlook and
someone never circumscribed by party affiliation.
He championed trade unions early on, delivered
major social reforms, but was fiercely anti -socialist,
a paternalist reformer, perhaps. But then you
have the immovable object. his imperialism. Right.
This raises that huge question. How do you reconcile
the wartime hero, the savior of democracy in
1940, with this lifelong, deeply ingrained belief
in the British Empire? It's the central contradiction.
He held this romanticized view of empire, genuinely
believing it was a force for good, maintaining
the welfare of its subjects, even as history
was clearly moving in the opposite direction.
This belief underpins so many of his controversial
actions and statements. Including some very disturbing
views on race and eugenics, even for his time.
Yes. While he was pushing liberal reforms as
Home Secretary, the sources show he also supported
ideas like the forced sterilization of the feeble
-minded, as they were termed then. He wrote about
the growth of the feeble -minded and insane classes,
constituting a national and race danger. It's
shocking to read now, and it shows a dark underside
to his worldview, rooted in Edwardian ideas about
social hierarchy and racial purity. And his comments
about non -white people. The Bengal famine context
again. He was certainly prone to derogatory remarks
about various ethnicities, which were common
among his class and time, but still jarring.
Yet paradoxically, he consistently opposed anti
-Semitism, speaking out against it back in 1904.
But even that was complicated. Zionism versus
conspiracy theories. Exactly. He supported Zionism,
the creation of a Jewish national home. But at
other times, particularly when railing against
communism, he echoed anti -Semitic tropes, suggesting
Bolshevism was driven by an international Jewish
conspiracy. It's deeply contradictory and reflects
the complex, sometimes ugly intellectual currents
of his era. So we've traced this incredible journey.
From escaping that POW camp, switching parties,
driving reforms, warning of war, leading a nation
through its darkest hour, losing the peace, becoming
an elder statesman. It's just monumental. The
sheer scope is staggering. His ability to operate
at the highest level in politics, military strategy
and be a Nobel winning writer. It's almost unparalleled.
And the rhetoric, the power of his words to shape
events is undeniable. But as you said, defined
by contradiction. Absolutely. The liberal reformer
whose flagship economic policy as chancellor
arguably damaged the economy. The fierce imperialist
who unleashes the SOE to stir up anti -imperial
resistance against the Nazis. The wartime genius
who couldn't grasp the public's desire for peacetime
domestic reform. So the final question for you,
the listener, when you assess a figure this colossal,
who are you actually judging? Is it the heroic
symbol, the bulldog spirit? Who defied Hitler?
Or is it the man deeply committed to an ideology
imperialism that history was already leaving
behind? And maybe add this to your thinking.
We've mentioned the black dog several times.
Churchill himself said his achievements would
have been impossible without it, that the drive
to escape depression fueled his immense activity.
How does knowing about that lifelong struggle
perhaps contextualize the sheer, relentless volume
of his work, his writing, his political battles,
his triumphs, and his failures? Something to
mull over. Go forth and explore the layers.