Churchill en guerra

"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.

The letters and speeches by Churchill are interesting. But crowbarring in actors and scripted segments takes away from this series. Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but if I want to watch a fictionalized movie/play about Churchill, I can do that. But I don't want a supposed documentary to include fictionalized scenes (especially badly acted ones).

There is so much to learn about Churchill and his motives from his speeches, letters, notes, etc, but it's completely worthless if you are including acted conversations based on a bad screenplay. I just don't understand why that is necessary.

Just give me the facts in an interesting way and make a bad movie with the other parts.

Heavy on awkward recreations with actors but regrettably light on interesting historical detail. The main draw of this series is mainly some newly refreshed and colourized archival footage.

The four episodes lean heavily on British and American political figures, including an Obama speech writer, President George W Bush and Prime Minister Boris Johnson - rather than on historical experts. Of course, this is consistent with the tone of an "approachable" and "greatest hits" approach to history documents. It's a decent introduction to Churchill and the period, but there's little to chew on.

In just one example, the series correctly focuses on Churchill's obsessive quest to get the "New World" - America - fighting in the war. However, after showing Pearl Harbour, there's no mention that Herr Hitler foolishly declared war on the United States first - a key footnote that enabled Roosevelt to bypass Congressional wrangling.

All too typically, with a laser focus on FDR and America, the series doesn't even mention the valuable support of Canada, Australia, India and other Commonwealth countries in helping keep the British Isles afloat.

Also, it would have been fascinating to see some of Churchill's military interactions with his senior generals and commanders - and the kind of expectations he had on them - but this is out of the scope of this series.

So while watchable, and crediting star Christian McKay for a solid job recreating Churchill's oratory, this offers a rather lightweight overview of what can be a very meaty subject.

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.

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.