It will be interesting to see whether anyone could continue to hold a serious academic or journalistic position in 10 years' time and come out with the view that Churchill was some kind of national saviour.
50 years after saying goodbye to him, we are finally saying goodbye to the cult of him. A cult that seems only to have begun once he was dead, or at least so old as to be politically as good as dead. It never translated into votes.
But then, the cult of the War in general is a creation of the 1960s. Dad's Army did not begin its original run until 1968, and it did not conclude that run until into my own lifetime.
Far from being sentimental about it, most people, and especially most men, of my father's generation probably took the view, even if they expressed it mostly among themselves, that the War had ruined the best years of their lives.
Clive Dunn himself always referred to his wartime experiences as "foul" and maintained that that was the norm. Well, how could it not have been?
My father, who had been one of Montgomery's men in North Africa, was also known to opine from his 1980s pulpit that everything to do with the Swinging Sixties had begun during the War. His contemporaries in the congregation fulsomely agreed. Certainly, venereal disease reached epidemic levels under cover of the blackout.
My father, who had been one of Montgomery's men in North Africa, was also known to opine from his 1980s pulpit that everything to do with the Swinging Sixties had begun during the War. His contemporaries in the congregation fulsomely agreed. Certainly, venereal disease reached epidemic levels under cover of the blackout.
Churchill's class did not really contribute awfully much to the War effort, as was widely understood at the time. The newspapers published the sight of revellers at the bombed Café Royal having their wounds bathed in champagne, and much else in similar vein. The popular reaction was as one would have expected.
No wonder that those revellers looked back on it all so very differently from everyone else.
No wonder that those revellers looked back on it all so very differently from everyone else.
It amazes me when people don't know this and the other things you write about Churchill.
ReplyDeleteEven his own party never took to him, and got rid of him like a tiresome servant in the end. Like someone else 35 or so years later.
Never mind, more young people now recognise the insurance dog than him, and Churchill Insurance is the first thing that comes up on Google in Britain if you search for Churchill. Try it, you'll see that's what happens.
Most people below a certain age will never believe in the existence of a national hero who was a Tory toff. That age is now quite high.
We are getting there.