Churchill at War

"In the war time truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies" "In war, resolution. In defeat, defiance. In victory, magnanimity. In peace, Goodwill." "What was gunpowder, trivial. What was the electricity, meaningless. This atomic bomb is the second coming in wrath!"

• Churchill

Before diving into my review of the docuseries Churchill at War, I would like to summarize the key points and highlight a few notable incidents.

Winston Churchill was famous for crossing the floor, changing parties, and taking bold stances. His leadership during World War II was instrumental in stopping Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany. Churchill's military career was marked by adventures in Cuba, India, Sudan, and South Africa, where he was captured by enemy forces during the Second Boer War.

Churchill's role in World War II was pivotal, particularly during the Greek tragedy, where the British Royal Navy attacked and sank the French Navy. The Eagle Day Attacks on London, also known as the Blitz, began on September 15, 1940, with 57 consecutive nights of bombing, resulting in 20,000 deaths. Churchill, instead of taking shelter, stayed on the roof and watched the destruction.

Churchill's relationship with America was complex, with the country initially staying neutral but eventually providing support through the Lend-Lease Act. Churchill said that America's terms were "flaying them to the bone," but he was able to convince President Franklin D. Roosevelt's advisor, Harry Hopkins, to provide help. The Tom Brook Falls earned Churchill the sympathy he had wanted from FDR.

Roosevelt decided to take the North African route, suggested by Churchill, instead of the direct route to defeat Germany. It is said that to defeat Germany, Britain gave time, America gave money, and Russia gave blood. Even before Albert Einstein envisioned a nuclear bomb, Churchill wrote articles about how a single bomb could devastate an entire city.

Montgomery, a teetotaler, once told Churchill, "I do not smoke and I do not drink, and I'm 100% fit." Churchill, not to be outdone, replied, "I both smoke and drink, and I'm 200% fit!!!"

In 1944, Churchill traveled to Russia to meet with Stalin without any American counterparts. This meeting resulted in the creation of the "naughty document," a verbal agreement between Stalin and Churchill on who would get what after the war. This agreement would have significant implications for post-war Europe.

Churchill also proposed Operation Unthinkable, a plan to use the defeated German army to fight the Russians and stop them from entering Eastern Europe. This plan was never implemented, but it highlights the complex and often contradictory nature of Churchill's leadership during World War II.

Churchill's legacy is also marked by controversy, particularly regarding the Bengal famine. Britain refused to send wheat or rice to India, and Churchill could have prevented the famine by redistributing surplus food from elsewhere. Instead, he stopped the shipment of wheat from Canada to India, prioritizing the interests of those fighting to protect the empire. This decision led to over 3 million deaths in Bengal.

Despite these controversies, Churchill remains a complex and fascinating figure in history. His leadership during World War II, his powerful oratory skills, and his ability to inspire and motivate others continue to be studied and admired by historians and scholars today.

The docuseries Churchill at War is a gripping and thought-provoking portrayal of Winston Churchill's leadership during World War II. It masterfully weaves together archival footage, interviews and dramatized scenes to create an immersive experience.

The series sheds light on Churchill's unwavering resolve, his mastery of language and his unshakeable conviction in the face of overwhelming adversity. It is fascinating to see how he rallied the British people during the darkest days of the war, how his leadership played a crucial role in shaping the course of the conflict...

What struck me most was the nuanced portrayal of Churchill's complexities in this series. While it commendably explores his flaws, controversies, his mistakes - including the Bengal famine and complicated relationships with other world leaders - it surprisingly omits his contradictory stance on India's independence. Despite being a strong advocate for freedom and democracy, Churchill's imperialist upbringing and biased views toward Indian culture and people are not fully examined. Specifically, his perceived view of India as a backward and primitive country is not adequately highlighted, leaving a gap in the narrative.

The production quality of the docuseries is exceptional with crisp and clear visuals that bring the archival footage to life. The interviews featured in the series provide valuable insights from historians and scholars adding depth and context to the narrative. The dramatized scenes are also well-executed, helping to recreate the tension and drama of Churchill's wartime leadership. It is a compelling and informative docuseries that offers a fresh perspective on one of history's most iconic leaders. Definitely a worth watching. Watch Churchill at War, available on Netflix.

Until the line "UK gave time, USA gave money, Russia gave blood," I was quite fond of the series. The timeline of events was very new to me, and it's a very insightful way to think about such historical events.

In the documentary "Churchill at War," Russia is used interchangeably with the Soviet Union; it's equivalent to the other 14 republics.

It's 2024, and people who ignore 14 other republics and their sacrifices should not make documentaries.

Look at their Wikipedia numbers - World War II casualties of the Soviet Union, 16.3% of the Ukrainian population, 25.3% of Belarus - these are not Russian sacrifices, and joining them under the "Russia" umbrella is similar to declaring that New York State won civil war.

This is a brisk and thoroughly enjoyable summary of Churchill's achievements and failings, principally from the late 1930s to the end of the Second World War. The series doesn't shy away from Churchill's disastrous Gallipoli campaign, his enduring belief in the importance of the British Empire, his sidelining by Stalin and FDR and his controversial tactical decisions around the French naval fleet, but the overriding gist of the series is just how important the man was at a crucial point in world history.

We are left under no doubt about how different, were it not for Churchill's tenacity [stubbornness?], sense of duty and extraordinary level of self-belief, the outcome of the war might have been. A failure on the part of the UK to withstand the Nazi invasion of Europe, could have led to permanent widespread European fascism. The talking heads who focus on Churchill's racism, never manage to outweigh the arguments for the good that he did.

The format follows that of the BBC's superb (and superior) "The Rise of the Nazis", with a combination of reenactment and expert opinion. There are observations by a few big names like David Petraeus and George W Bush (...and Boris, obvs.), but where "The Rise of the Nazis" had insightful contributions by some of the world's leading academic experts on the subject, "Churchill at War" has generic telly-historian Dan Snow making points that could be picked up in a GCSE history book. We should be glad it wasn't Tony Robinson, I suppose.

One of the strangest aspects of the series is the use of AI to generate Churchill's written comments into his spoken voice. I'm still undecided how convincing I found this.

A shout-out really needs to go to actor Christian McKay, for playing Churchill in the reenactments; a perfectly judged performance mimicking the sound and behaviour of Churchill, without ever stepping over into pastiche.

I enjoyed the series while also recognising that it isn't everything that it could have been.

In terms of narrative, it faithfully hits all the major plot points of the Second World War. Though the pundits and 'live action recreations' are sometimes a hit, sometimes a miss.

The recolourised archival footage is truly spectacular. It brings the war from the myth of history to a lived human experience.

This is particularly relevant now. Democratic decline is a rising tide. One that we are only beginning to wrestle with (even outside obvious examples). Appeasement in the face of imperialist aggression is spoken of as the lesser evil. These are dangerous waters and they are not new. History must be understood if it is not to be repeated.

This is why I forgive the show for it's inclusion of politicians. Even those who probably have no right to be there.

The link that it makes from the past to the present (aided through colour footage) is enough for me to view their inclusion as having value.

Is the show a masterpiece? No. Did I enjoy it as someone with an interest in history. I did indeed.

This is a Netflix documentary so we get that treatment; talking heads and experts and, more unpalatable to me, staged re-enactments with actors on 'probable' scenes. It's high budget cable television.

The prewar portion may be the most informative in how it shapes the famous wartime Winston. Bullish, spectacular escape fueled by drive to tell the story about it in his South African adventure. Doggedly independent as he switches parties.

The wartime Churchill of valiant speeches, Dunkirk, and the Blitz, is well covered in inumerable films and TV. He really was the man of the hour, a bullish man insisting on a story of resistance against all odds. Fancied himself a strategist but bangled Gallipolli, Sicily was a mistake, and storytelling was really his strong suit.

We also do see several of his faults. His prewar defence of empire at all costs. Even in passing, his disastrous indifference to Bengal and the famine. And his ensuing sidelining, post Casablanca, as bigger men on the room took charge of the war.

It is very much a cinematic life he lived. Adept at both re-invention and stubborn independence. And of course a natural storyteller. He could have been a great filmmaker, and I can imagine him a figure like Welles or Hitchcock around set (and vice versa, Welles and Hitchcock may have been great wartime prime mnisters).

It was a matter of the world outside aligning with the man's story of who he views himself to be, to create the sense of destiny, and that was true of both FDR and Hitler.