Question for Brits on here: Is it common knowledge in the U.K. that Churchill lost miserably in the 1945 general elections, and that he was widely despised by the British working class?

submitted by PeddaKondappa from (self.debatealtright)

A lot of popular history surrounding WWII is fake and gay, but the myth of Churchill might take the cake. Churchill, contrary to popular opinion, was extremely unpopular (especially among the British working class) and had a miserable showing in the July 1945 general elections, losing to Clement Attlee and the Labor party by a huge margin despite the recent "victory" in the war. Is this common knowledge in the UK? If so, what are the reasons that are commonly brought up for his failure?

all 4 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

No it's not, he's been retconned into being a hero. Why did he become prime minister again afterwards though if he was unpopular? Never bothered to look into this but found it weird when I found out.

Check out these lulz by the way, this is a cope from the BBC:

>Politicians are often rejected by voters because they have failed in office. But one of the reasons why Churchill lost the general election in 1945 was because he had succeeded in completing the almost superhuman task he had taken on in 1940, and in a way this made him redundant.

The reason he lost in a landslide in 1945 is because he was so popular and loved for the war that the people decided they would give him a rest or something.

[–]NeoRail 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Why did he become prime minister again afterwards though if he was unpopular? Never bothered to look into this but found it weird when I found out.

Some people claim that Churchill was still popular in the postwar period, but that the awful policies and campaign of the Conservative party was the reason Labour swept them away in 1945. Attlee and his top guys were also involved in the war coalition so they had a solid track record, but in addition to that they also had an innovative and compelling political vision and proposed the establishment of the welfare state, whereas all the Conservatives could offer was American style libertarianism with slightly more equality of opportunity. I am not sure how accurate this version of the events is, though. It's not like you need to be popular to be the prime minister either, you just need the endorsement of the winning party, so it's perfectly possible that Churchill's popularity may have been minimal.

[–]masterclass 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

British involvement in WW2 was so bizarre and self defeating. Never did a nation fight so long and hard and sacrifice so much in a war they could have easily avoided, against a nation that initially never directly threatened them and continually tried to negotiate a peace, all for which the British achieved no tangible benefit and in fact dramatically weakened their power, wealth, and global position despite "winning" the war.

I'm curious what modern day Brits think of this? Do any of them honestly think they in any way benefitted from their involvement in ww2, or was all the sacrifice written down as some moral crusade of good against evil?

[–]JuliusCaesar225Nationalist + Socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Nowhere is the WW2 narrative more dumb than Britain. It was a disaster for them. They fought an aggressive war against Germany supposedly to protect Poland which was given over to the USSR along with the rest of Eastern Europe. They lost their empire and became a vassal state to the USA.