Churchill Makes The Call: An Agonizing Command Decision

In 1940, the Germans burst into France, overwhelming the defenses of that proud but demoralized nation in a scant six weeks. To those on the Allied side old enough to have lived through the First World War, it was a shocking spectacle. To see the roads of the Low Countries and northern France choked with the detritus and charred wreckage of war; to witness the pathetic columns of refugees fleeing the fury of the battle zones; to view the beaten residuum of Allied arms evacuate in disgrace and defeat from the continent at Dunkirk; to see the Wehrmacht’s battle standards hoisted on France’s national monuments: these were the dismaying scenes that no observer could have contemplated in 1939.

The Soviet Union in 1940 was still engaged in the cynical collusion with Germany in the rape of Europe. Even Franklin Roosevelt, though disposed to favor the justice of the Allied cause, believed it was only a matter of time before England was finished. No amount of Churchillian oratory could disguise the fact that England was prostrate, undefended, and alone.

England’s wartime agreement with France imposed the reciprocal obligation on both nations not to seek an armistice with Germany without the consent of the other. But these assurances now counted for very little. The roots of French malaise went deep, stretching back to the 1920s and 1930s; it some ways the nation (like England) had never fully recovered from the First World War. Its excessive loss of blood and treasure in the Great War had left it anemic and pale, a shadow of its former self, and a ready victim of more predatory or vengeful powers.

Its leadership was riven with faction and ideological bickering, and its people had little stomach for a fight that appeared to offer a replay of the bloodletting that had ruined Europe a generation earlier. From Paris’s perspective, a separate peace seemed the only way to preserve the integrity of the nation.


Winston Churchill, England’s new prime minister, did not see it this way. He knew that a Franco-German armistice would be a stepping-stone for an eventual invasion of his country, and placed no faith in the guarantees of the Vichy government, which he considered to be little more than a German quisling. Of primary concern for Churchill was the disposition of the French fleet. France possessed a mighty collection of battleships, cruisers, and destroyers, second in power only to the Royal Navy; these ships, should they fall into the hands of German belligerence, might prove to be a deciding factor in the coming battle for Britain. The French fleet was dispersed throughout the Mediterranean, but its bulk was concentrated at the port of Mers-al-Kébir in Algeria.

The prime minister left no doubt that he would act with resolution and speed in the protection of his nation’s interests. On July 3, 1940, as part of what was called Operation Catapult, British forces seized, after some resistance, several French vessels (including some submarines) moored at Plymouth and Portsmouth. This operation earned England the enmity of many Frenchmen, including Charles de Gaulle, who saw it as unnecessary and deeply insulting. Yet truth and reason rarely find a favorable reception in those burdened by defeat. Wisdom may often condescend to stir the passions of the human heart, but misplaced pride blocks our appreciation of what is wise.

But what to do about the formidable array of French naval power at Mers-el-Kébir? There were located four battleships, a seaplane tender, and six destroyers. Their disposition was uncertain; Churchill was receiving contradictory messages from Paris, perhaps reflecting the paralysis that had overcome the nation in the wake of its collapse.

For Churchill personally it was an agonizing dilemma. Pro-French to the marrow of his bones, he was as shocked as anyone by the swiftness of France’s collapse and the abjectness of her condition; the thought of having to take up arms against his ally was abhorrent to him. Yet he knew the fight must continue, and that he must not be swayed by emotion or sentiment in Britain’s lonely hour of peril. Roosevelt had essentially written England off, Stalin was smug in his own imagined rapprochement with Berlin, and the remaining small nations not controlled by Germany were too cowed to offer anything more than moral support.

Churchill, wanting to give the French an opportunity to avoid a confrontation, ordered an ultimatum to be delivered by a Gibraltar-based naval officer, Admiral James Somerville, to his French counterpart at Mers-el-Kébir. It offered the French three choices: sail the fleet to England and turn over the ships to British control, sail the fleet to a French colonial port away from Europe, or scuttle the fleet to prevent its seizure by the enemy. Should the French commander refuse these “fair offers”—the ultimatum continued—the British would “use whatever force may be necessary” to neutralize the French naval vessels.


And here is where the obscuring smoke of conflict, the vanities of human interaction, and the pathos of war combined to create a tragedy. The British ultimatum was presented by a French-speaking naval officer named Cedric Holland. The French admiral receiving the message, Admiral Marcel-Bruno Gensoul, was piqued that the British had sent him an officer of comparatively low rank, and responded by erecting bureaucratic obstacles to candid discussion.

Gensoul was one of those wooden-headed military types who appear with depressing frequency in the history of armed conflict. His superior, Admiral Francois Darlan, had previously assured Churchill that the French fleet would never be permitted to fall into German hands. Churchill, however, was unwilling to put his faith in such promises.

Darlan was apparently never informed by Gensoul of the full text of the British ultimatum, nor of the fact that one of the ultimatum’s options (sailing the fleet to Martinique) was an option Darlan himself had authorized Gensoul to pursue. For the carnage that was to follow, Gensoul’s obduracy and churlishness shoulder much reproof. And this is the tragedy of war.

In war, much that seems clear or certain in hindsight is not so at the time. Decisions are made, and fates are sealed, with the information that is available to the protagonists in the arena at the time. When to this uncertainty is added the passions and errors of men under duress, one begins to see how tragedy emerges from situations that may seem easily negotiable from the comfortable perspective of one’s living room sofa. So it was at Mers-el-Kébir.

When it became clear that negotiations were going nowhere, the British mined the harbor to prevent the ships’ escape in the event of fighting. Churchill then gave the command to commence action. The British destroyers opened fire in late afternoon on July 3, 1940, against an array of French ships that was largely unprepared. One ship, the Bretagne, exploded after a direct hit on her magazine, sinking with great loss of life. Several ships sought to escape the inferno at port and made out to sea, but these too were pursued. The French made some ineffective counterattacks on the British base at Gibraltar in July and September, but these appear to have been conducted more as a face-saving exercise than anything else.

The results of Operation Catapult were grim. The French lost 1297 men, with about 350 wounded; the British lost two airmen who were killed in the mining of the harbor. The greatest damage done was that to Franco-British relations; a lasting enmity was sown into the hearts of patriotic Frenchmen, which the passage of time did little to diminish. Understandably, the French were extremely bitter at the British attack, believing it to have been unnecessary and unjustified.


This view is not entirely without merit. French ships in Alexandria, Egypt, for example, were simply blockaded on July 3 and then turned over to the British on July 7 without violent incident, under similar conditions to those existing at Mers-el-Kébir. When the Germans attempted to capture the French fleet at Toulon in November 1942, the French did in fact scuttle their ships before the arrival of the Wehrmacht. Admiral Darlan then sent Churchill an aggrieved letter stating that his action in scuttling the fleet in Toulon finally proved that he, Darlan, would have honored his promises made two years earlier about the fleet at Mers-el-Kébir. The British attack, he believed, had been entirely unjustified.

Churchill himself was profoundly distressed by the action he had been forced to undertake against the French fleet. But in cool-headed retrospect, it is clear that the Prime Minister’s decision was the correct one. Assurances made by Darlan to Churchill were dubious at best; Darlan later proved himself to be an opportunistic fixture in the Vichy government. He died by the hand of a French assassin late in the war. And perhaps the surrender of the French fleet at Alexandria had only been made possible by the British military action at Mers-el-Kébir.

The necessity of keeping the French fleet out of German hands was so dire that extreme action was justified in pursuit of this goal. Churchill could not afford to take a wait-and-see approach to developments; the hour of crisis called for speed and resolution in the determination of outcomes. His actions sent a clear message to the rest of the world: England was down, but not out; England would still be in the game, and would fight, if necessary, to the bitter end. Churchill’s ruthlessness signaled to the world that the war would continue, and that there would be no surrender.

In 1940, when France lay in ruins and the tyrant in Berlin bestrode the continent, Churchill found himself chided by weaker spirits than his own, men who believed England’s future lay in some sort of detente with the German tyranny which had engulfed Europe. Lord Halifax attempted to usurp control of Churchill’s cabinet and convince them to make peace with Germany. Brushing him aside, Churchill delivered a passionate speech to his 25-member cabinet, urging them to fight on no matter the cost.  In these words he expressed the soul of a fighter, and a spirit that would not be cowed into subservience:

Nations which went down fighting rose again, but those which surrendered tamely were finished…If this long island story of ours is to end at last, let it end only when each of us lies choking in his own blood upon the ground.

Even after all these years, these words still command a stillness in the soul, an awe that induces a becoming submission, and removes all prevarication from the heart.

Read More: The Lives Of Great Men As Moral Instruction

123 thoughts on “Churchill Makes The Call: An Agonizing Command Decision”

  1. A leader’s first duty is to protect his country from invasion no matter what the cost. Thank God people like Winston Churchill had balls of steel and were not afraid of making the right choices, even if they were the hard ones.

  2. Well this article is complete bullshit. Hitler issued no less than 9 peace offers to Churchill both before and after he flanked the british and french forces pushing through Belgium. Being an honorable fellow, he told the Wehrmacht to stand down and gave the opposing forces 3 days to complete their evacuation from Dunkirk. He probably hoped that it would be seen as a generous olive branch extended to his soundly defeated foes.
    ROK take this lying faggot propaganda down immediately.

    1. Not only that, England clearly started WW2. (More precisely: The BANK of England started WW2). The propagandists love to start with the Blitzkrieg, as if Germany just up and invaded her neighbors without provocation. Like… surprise! It’s a war!
      The fact that people believe that is just amazing.
      Churchill (in his own words) “brought this war to Germany”. Europe completely crushed Germany economically, cutting them off completely from trading with their neighbors — and then acted surprised when Germany got tired of all the bullshit, turned around and kicked Europe’s ass.
      History, as they say, is written by the winners. But historians remember exactly how the shit went down. If Germany hadn’t gone completely batshit crazy with the ethnic cleansing bullshit, they’d have been successful in setting the record straight in the decades that followed.

      1. The attempts to hang “genocide” on Germany has been the only thing keeping the whole “evil Hitler” story afloat. However, even in spite o the fact that jews owned 99% of German banks and the American Jewish Council called for a boycott on all things German, Hitler STILL tried to ship them to Israel, or anywhere that would have them, WITH their money! There have been NO mass graves, NO plausible accounts of mass murders, andd NO physical evidence of gassings. There HAVE however been proven accounts of frauds ranging from court testimony of physically impossible mass murder stories, to fabricated physical evidence (soap and lampshades), and even a completely falsified documentary by none other than Steven Speilberg called the Final Days.
        Bottom line, WWII was about a small group of people keeping the whole world in line, and the “Greatest Generation” (of suckers) helped crush the only group of people willing to fight it.

        1. Because decent honorable men shove entire swaths of the population they govern into internment camps. I cut Roosevelt no slack either, he was a bad man as well. Stop trying to whitewash history and trying desperately to reinvent your dictator strongman into something other than what he was.
          Tyrants gonna tyrant.

        2. As I recall, Japanese-Americans weren’t given the option to relocate back to Japan at gov’t expense. Hitler brought Germany from completely crushed to top-shelf in 3 years by giving the boot to hebrew bankers, just like 70+ countries have had to do since Ancient Egypt…but tell me more about how we’re so much better of now…

        3. As I recall, any man who shoves boatloads of civilians into internment camps is a tyrant and a monster. Roosevelt, Stalin, your strongman, all of them, bad people. Worship tyrants as you wish, I’ll have none of it nor the whitewashing of a monster.
          You have yourself a zippdy do da day, chief.

        4. if you think into it logically, the Jewish camps, which were certainly bad….. only became a nightmare in the winter of 1944 with supplies cut off, and Germany collapsing…. the prisoners in vast number starved and the best way to deal with the bodies was to burn them….. it was a fallout of war, much more than a deliberate genocide…. it’s just logical……

        5. In 1500’s Europe, an average man could work a “job” for around 2 months and have enough money to cover his expenses for the year. In 1950’s America, any working man with a high school diploma could buy a house and support a family. But today….
          So now riddle me this, you think because you’re not behind bars that you’re not in a cage right now? You think you’re “free”? You think that’s “your” land? Think you might leave the country if it gets sticky? Guess again.
          You’re gonna stay, you’re gonna pay, the juice is always running, and if you think you’re gonna fight it, you’re getting rolled. I know this because I spent a long time as one of the guys who woulda rolled you. “We just need to talk, ask you a few questions, make sure you understand ‘your obligations’.”
          There’s a class of people that control most of your existence because they govern the value and the availability of the only means you have of staying alive: the money in your pocket.
          And I’ll have whatever kind of day I want, stop talking like such a cunt.

        6. Oh dear. Please riddle me this. Why did not one nazi, on trial for their lives after the war, deny the holocaust? They denied their direct involvement, they pleaded ignorance, they said that they were only following orders, but not a single soul said “it never happened.”

        7. Because “The Holocaust” wasn’t an issue of debate, and they weren’t on “trial”. The deal was already done and testimony about lampshades and physically impossible mass murders were just window dressing.
          In Patton’s words the Nuremburg hearings were “not cricket, and highly Semitic.”

        8. Are you saying that, if you were on trial for your life, you would not even attempt to bring every piece of evidence possible to the court because “it wasn’t an issue of debate”? It wasn’t that they tried and were ignored: they didn’t even try. On the contrary, a number of them confirmed it through their “only following orders” defence. Are you suggesting that these men on trial were also part of your proposed fake holocaust conspiracy?

        9. No plausible accounts of mass murders? Are you high?
          I’ll go so far as to say that Germany was well within their rights to make war on Europe. But there’s not a question of doubt that they practiced ethnic cleansing.
          And btw… Germany has a long and well-established history of ethnic cleansing that goes way, *way* back before WW2. So there’s not much that isn’t “plausible” when it comes to Germany killing jews (and gays, and gypsies for the record).
          But to your point: The “genocide” aspect of WW2 is what prevents historians from seeing the war clearly. People fail to see today that England v Germany was a great battle of empires. There were no “good guys” on the playing field. Germany was intentionally crushed economically by Britain, in an effort to expand the hegemony of the Bank of England. Germany said, “fuck off”. England sanctioned Germany cutting Germany off from her historic trading partners. And the rest is history. Except historians today like to start with the second chapter, where Germany goes to war.

        10. Yeah and England and France didn’t commit organized genocide…yeah right. Just to paraphrase Niall Ferguson in his book the “Pity the War”, compared to England and America, Germany was a peaceful nation so I don´t where do you get the extensive genocidal history of Germany line…

      2. it seems more like WW2 was started to contain the soviet communist threat, which was originally put in place to take control from the Tsar, but Lenin and Stalin pushed out the inside man Trotsky and suddenly the beast turned on it’s creator….. Hitler was setup as a counter weight to an experiment already turned sour… talk about fight fire with fire….. both turned on their creators…..

    2. What you’ve just said here about the Dunkirk evacuation has absolutely nothing to do with my article. You’ve missed the point entirely. (Of course Hitler offered “peace” to England in 1940. The point is that England rejected it. And they were right do do so).
      As for Hitler being an “honorable fellow”: to that comment I can only smile in amusement.

      1. I’m sure the Soviets thought Hitler was an honorable fellow too… as did Neville Chamberlain.

      2. ..sure, England resists hegemonic rule. I believe Nathan Rothschild had a different opinion.

      3. Your article is good Quintus but Dodson is still right.
        Britain, backed by international bankers, was the bad guy in WWII, not Germany!

      4. Your pro-English bias is understandable but England only resisted a “Europe dominated by one hegemonic power” because she was that hegemonic power. No other could be allowed to exist, only as a Lapdog (France). Such folly and arrogance lead directly to the bloodshed of the WWI, turning what could have been a very localised conflict (Austria-Hungary vs Serbia) into a continental wide war that ended the lives of countless men only to create the environment for an even worse war that would definitely drive the nail in the coffin of European hegemony and civilization…

    3. His order to stand down had everything to do with being an incompetent and overbearing commander and nothing to do with “being an honorable fellow.” Which is perhaps the most inane comment I have ever seen on ROK.

      1. See my comment below / above. The order wasn’t entirely incompetent and it wasn’t originally given by Hitler.

    4. After all the Holocau$t Appreciation Weeks I had to sit thru in AmeRikan public schooling, I never thought I’d say it, but based on everything I’ve read, I can only conclude that Hitler’s biggest fault was being TOO decent to groups that want White people exterminated.
      There can be no pacts between lions and men.

      1. You got a point there. Nazi Germany being the “Aryan Lions” that they were, it’s no wonder there was no pact until Germany was obliterated, and even then, they were TOO decent with Germany. Germany’s ethnic german population is higher than before WW2.

    5. I’m sorry, Andrew, you are simply mistaken. It’s not your fault, you are repeating a common misconception, which is a favourite of neo-nazis and other such misguided souls.
      Hitler’s motives are of course impossible to know with absolute certainty, but it is safe to say that they had little to do with honour.
      The German tanks were within striking distance of the beaches, yes, but the ground troops were still catching up. German supply lines were stretched, the men were tired and not all the tanks had enough fuel. Goring was confident that the Luftwaffe could kill most of the allied soldiers on the beach in the time that he thought it would take for them to escape.
      There never was any order to stop fighting. The Germans were using all of their long range weapons to bombard the beach, they strafed and bombed it from the air and, where they had enough relatively fresh ground troops to support the tanks, they slowly advanced though the soggy terrain.
      The order was for the army to consolidate and refuel before attacking in proper order. It didn’t come from Hitler, either, it came from General von Rundstedt.
      As it turned out, the evacuation happened faster than the Germans expected, the RAF performed brilliantly (while the Luftwaffe were hampered by cloudy weather on their side of the action) and thousands of Allied soldiers sacrificed themselves in suicidal rear-guard actions in the rough terrain around the beaches Dunkirk.
      I hope that clears it up for you and that you consider apologising to Quintus.

    1. I gave it the time of day. It shows it’s mendacity at 07:37 : “Although most historians see this as a gesture of peace, others still insist it was a military blunder.”
      The first claim is utterly false, unless by “most historians” they mean “most historians who also think that the holocaust never happened”.

    2. There is only one thing worse than a feminist or a SJW: a Neo Nazi. White guys who cant make it in the world so they start blaming the jews, blacks and Catholics. Biggest losers of them all.

      1. I am non-white, non-neo nazi and I approve of that documentary.
        It should indeed be required viewing!

    1. Dunno if it was you or another guy, but someone complained (correctly) about how it cannot be closed, but if you turn your phone sideways, it can be. Agree that it is irritating, though.

    2. You can close it by turning your phone on its side so you see the screen from the widest view. Then click on the “x” in the upper right part of the popup. I had the same problem and this worked in fixing it.

  3. Look at the state of England now, a sickly socialist welfare state overrun by hostile foreigners; it was all for nothing.

    1. …depends on how you look at it. If your last name is Rothschild, and your plan is to piggy-back off an empire’s economy until it becomes too big to control, and then crush its economy under fractional reserve debt and shiftless immigrants before moving on to the next victim (America -what?), then the plan worked perfectly.

      1. Government’s have the legislative power to control central banks, though they choose not to.

      1. Most of England’s red-blooded men died in the First World War, charging into automatic weapon fire.

    2. Yeah. We should have let the genocidal german warmachine run its course. After all, who gives a shit about jews, slavs and other non-germans? Hell, maybe if everyone was lucky, we’d all be “germanized” by now
      In all seriousness, germany got what it asked for. That doesn’t mean that afterwards the socialist welfare state overrun by hostile foreigners is a desirable state of affairs; but that’s irrelevant. That has nothing to do with Germany’s defeat, and more to do with the decadence of the west.

      1. You have a lot to learn my friend……
        Try starting with asking yourself why the UK and France started WW2 by declaring war on Germany and not the USSR when the two countries invaded Poland?
        The USSR was already a truly despicable regime which had genocided millions of Ukrainians in the holodomor and killed countless more millions in the gulags – there has never been a more despicable regime….
        In comparison, at that time Germany was squeaky clean…..
        And yet we allied with the USSR?
        Because of our actions the USSR won WW2 and took over half of Europe, leaving hundreds of millions of people in the worst kind of depraved slavery you can imagine….
        Just like WW1, WW2 had nothing to do with fighting for freedom or supposed holocausts….that’s just for the movies….

        1. “In comparison, at that time Germany was squeaky clean”
          Only if you think their own camps were insignificant.

        2. In 1939 they were insignificant……what’s more we knew nothing about them, if we had we would have used them as justification for war…..there was never a mention until far latter in the war…………

        3. Any internment of any group of people by the government is significant. Especially when it is along ethnic lines. Were they insignificant in 1945? The US, Germany, and Russia were all guilty of that but the US wasn’t killing millions of their own people either like the latter two. I would imagine that the camps were not discovered until much ‘later’ when Allied forces were occupying Germany.

        4. That’s my point…..In 1939 we decided to become allies with the USSR even though the fact that the USSR had genocided millions of Ukrainians and killed tens of millions more in gulags was well known.
          On the other hand, Germany (at that time) had done nothing and even if it had we knew nothing about it.
          My point is that we deliberately allied ourselves with an insanely evil empire. As a result, the USSR took over half of Europe. Our motivations for engaging in WW2 had nothing to do with fighting evil or saving the free world.

        5. Germany on the international front by 1939 had issued its war plans, taken Czechoslavakia and Poland, signed a pact with Italy and Japan, and been declared at war with Britain (and their territories) and France. A lot more than “nothing.” Our motivations were reactionary to Pearl Harbor. Was the US supposed to do nothing in response to that?

        6. The USSR was indeed an incredibly evil Marxist hellhole.Just look for the mad dog Josef Stalin’s diabolical atrocities in YouTube. What was supposed to be a Communist paradise turned into bloodbath for millions of peasants. Further solid proof of the Marxist fallacy!

        7. How was it clean? They killed millions more.
          And you complain for Soviets defeating the Nazis? Oh, I’m sorry, I didn’t think you would prefer the concentration camps instead.

        8. At the start of the war Germany hadn’t engaged in anything like that whereas the Soviets had been killing tens of millions of their own civilians for decades……..
          It was only in 1944 and 1945 that rumors of German atrocities started to be heard
          We decided to be allies with the Soviets, who were by far the most evil regime to have ever existed at that time and who also invaded Poland (supposedly WW2 started because Germany invaded Poland even though the Soviets did also at the same time)…..
          Obviously I wouldn’t want to live under Soviet or Nazi rule, but if did have to choose I would have chosen Nazi rule everything single time……the Marxist USSR regime was truly hideous, even to its own people, by contrast the Germans loved the Nazi regime, while the Nazis were creating guaranteed employment and giving families housing and holiday camps, the Soviets were killing tens of millions in gulags…..
          Ultimately, my point is that WW2 had nothing to do with fighting evil and saving the free world, if it was we would never have allied with the USSR and sent half of Europe into slavery………

        9. SovietUnion is still better than modern America. My parents lived in both and told me this.
          Not to mention that Hitler clearly outlined his genocidal plans before the war in speeches and his book.

        10. John, I think what Barzini is hinting at is that Russia had more concentration camps than Germany at that time, but there had to be a villain and it wasn’t going to be Stalin.
          I’m beginning to wonder if history past WWI is nothing more than spin doctor propaganda.

        11. I don’t doubt that Stalin was every bit as malevolent as Hitler. However, he wasn’t specifically directly targeting demographic groups along genetic lines. And yes, I realize his political opposition was often identifiably flimsy at best, but it is still more reconcilable compared to genetic purification. Furthermore, when you factor in that Stalin wasn’t pontificating about being part of a master race that was destined to rule the world and wasn’t directly threatening to US allies and the US actions become more justifiable.

        12. John, the funny thing about this particular debate is the genocide is flimsy at best. There was evidence that there were active synagogues in Germany during the war, and gas chambers that were spewing cyanide gas into open air (which,mind you, would kill outside residents due it’s potency) and had simple wooden doors which would put officers outside at risk. This can be found on YouTube.
          We’ll never know the true story. Before propaganda hit, Churchill was an advocate of Germany. There is speculation that the Rothschilds did make him as ultimatum. One route would determine him a drunken failure and another would render him an oratory genius remembered generations after his death.
          We’ve seen the power of the press, with its devastating power and ability to make villains of anyone they so deem, and the mindless masses that unquestioningly believe. Are we not living in a time very similar, where men are being painted as villains simply by trying to keep their rights intact and questioning feminist double standards infringing on our human behavior?

        13. There is a reason the term ‘feminazis’ came about. It is because they exercise a number of similar characteristics to the German Nazis. They definitely exhibit the same amount of irrational hatred against men that the German Nazis did against the Jews. I think if western Feminazis could, they would prosecute white men just like Germans did the Jews. Before you know it, we will have to be microchipped and considered second-class citizens.

        14. God, I don’t think the Nazis were THAT bad as to bastardize their name by grafting it to feminism to describe a faction determined to enslave men.
          The Nazis invented a tank that could go 80mph, firearms that are the standard still to this day. And they dressed well.
          Feminazis are usually heinously ugly, with bizarre hairstyles in equally bizarre colors, whose only innovation is the manipulating of the law or media to further encumber men’s ability to navigate in society without being labeled a misogynist, while absolving themselves of any culpability from their own list of improprieties.

        15. Old people typically remember the past as being better for a simple reason: they were young and had their lives ahead of them. The cosiest dotage is still a poor option compared to facing hardship with the full vigour of youth.

    3. Maybe, but that generation were fighting so they didn’t end up conquered and ethnically cleansed, the problem was pretty immediate.

  4. It’s always astounded me that after everything he did for Britain, Churchill lost the election in 1945. The dynamics for this to happen following the war are interesting to consider and worthy of an article here.

    1. I’ve just finished Max Hasting’s book on Churchill at war (1940-1945). Very good. He explains why Churchill was voted out of office. It had much to do with the electorate being tired, worn out, and anxious for a change. Churchill was known as representative of the old guard. The British recognized his achievements as a war leader, but felt he was not the man to lead the country in peacetime.

      1. I recommend reading William Manchester’s 3 volume biography of Churchill entitled “The Last Lion”. Unhappily, Manchester died before the 3rd volume was complete, so it was finished by Paul Reid. The first two volumes are solid gold.
        Manchester also wrote “Goodbye, Darkness” about his experience as a Marine in the Warpath Across the Pacific.
        À bientôt,

      2. “Cheer For Churchill, Vote For Labour.”
        AJP Taylor has an absolutely epic footnote on Churchill in his _A History of Britain: 1914-45_. Concludes with “the savior of his country.”

      3. Thanks for the article…..
        I suggest reading David Irving’s book on Churchill to get an alternative perspective….

  5. Heh. You know, I’m reading about Winston’s ancestor, the Duke of Marlborough from whom his last name is derived (and who he wrote about in great depth), and he too was at a crossroads in 1704: submit to the meddling Dutch deputies, or let Louis XIV assume an essentially unassailable position in Europe by knocking the Holy Roman Emperor out of the war.
    I’ll do an article when I’m done reading these memoirs, but this steely resolve seems to have been passed in the Churchill blood.
    If they could look and see what the “men” in Britain have become now, they would weep uncontrollably.

  6. Churchill was a bitter loser. He bombed Dresden as payback for Coventry. He bombed Sofia because Bulgaria did not join the Allies to help him in Gallipoli. At Yalta, he sold out the whole of Eastern Europe to Stalin. He and Roosevelt betrayed the very ideals many believed they had been fighting the war for.
    Fat, amateur Sunday painter – that’s Churchill.

    1. It also very telling that he did not declare war against the Soviets – After-all, wasn’t the reason for declaring war to defend Poland (who were also saber-rattling)?

  7. Great article. Moral: as a leader, have the courage to make uncomfortable decisions, and the balls to stand by them.

  8. I can’t decide if its interesting or monotonous to read WWII history as viewed through a drinking straw. Never mind that European borders haven’t been stable for more than a few years since 1000 ad (see video), never mind that it was “proud but demoralized” France that imposed unprecedented (until Nuremburg) reparations on Germany in WWI, never mind that all this indignation over Germany’s actions came while the US “interned” its own citizens and the USSR murdered millions of its citizens. ….and all the while little ol’ England doing its damnedest to keep a death-grip on the world’s purse-strings.
    That’s whats so great about the internet, the availability of information makes it a lot harder for the Victim-Class to con European descendants into murdering each other.

  9. nice article – can be read as history or as a meditation on decision making. And few have better form in that respect that churchill. I tend to side with the ‘hagiography’ somewhat but I’m interested in the detractors side too – this certainly wasn’t the only decision (of this kind) that Churchill made that cost many lives.
    There are so many tales of the making of the man, but I always remember a quite minor story of his being chased by some hostiles in his youth and jumping off one of the bridges in the bournemouth chines and breaking his leg in the process. Not that big a deal, until you walk past the bridge in question and see what a leap he must have attempted. The point is he was able to make a difficult decision on the fly, even at great cost.

  10. History and politics are not the RoK’s strongest fields.
    For any truth seeking individual who wants to grasp the reality of WW2, read this:
    Zionism and the Third Reich
    National Socialists and Zionists worked together for what each group believed was in its own national interest. As a result, the Hitler government vigorously supported Zionism and Jewish emigration to Palestine from 1933 until 1940-1941, when the Second World War prevented extensive collaboration.
    Until late 1938, the Zionist movement flourished in Germany under Hitler.
    SS officer Leopold von Mildenstein and Zionist Federation official Kurt Tuchler toured Palestine together for six months to assess Zionist development there.
    Four months later, a similar article appeared in the SS paper: /11
    The recognition of Jewry as a racial community based on blood and not on religion leads the German government to guarantee without reservation the racial separateness of this community. The government finds itself in complete agreement with the great spiritual movement within Jewry, the so-called Zionism, with its recognition of the solidarity of Jewry around the world and its rejection of all assimilationist notions. On this basis, Germany undertakes measures that will surely play a significant role in the future in the handling of the Jewish problem around the world.
    In spite of the basic hostility between the Hitler regime and international Jewry, for several years Jewish Zionist and German National Socialist interests coincided. In collaborating with the Zionists for a mutually desirable and humane solution to a complex problem, the Third Reich was willing to make foreign exchange sacrifices, impair relations with Britain and anger the Arabs. Indeed, during the 1930s no nation did more to substantively further Jewish-Zionist goals than Hitler’s Germany.

    1. One mustn’t judge a sites strengths based on whether or not they align with your foregone conclusions.

    2. Yeah, I’m sure that if General Rommel had set its feet on Israel, I’m sure they would have totally helped all the jews the germans murdered move there instead. LMAO

  11. Love the article, but I’m not sure I buy the line that this was an agonizing decision for Churchill. Britain punching the French in the nose out of self-interest is a time-honored tradition.

    1. That’s a good point, John. And it is one that many French veterans raised themselves.
      I saw a documentary on this episode once, and several French sailors present at Mers-el-Kebir were interviewed. They were still very bitter about the whole thing.
      I can’t second-guess them. I would be bitter too if I were them. But it is clear that Churchill did (to some degree) wrestle with this decision.

  12. To me I also view World War 2 as a major “Economic Conflict/Shift” in Global power and economics. The belligerents were Communism, Capitalism, and Mussolini’s Fascism. Communism and capitalism formed an uneasy alliance (Russia and Allies) against Fascism (Germany and Italy). All of these entities also controlled so called third world countries and their resources. So you see uneasy alliances forming such as Arab with Nazi against Zionism and Judaism respectively. You see Indians who could have favored Germany because of their status as British Colonies, Latin America with Communism or Mexico with Germany (Revenge for United States occupation and taking of Western Mexican Territory). You also see Ireland and Finland having Nazi Ties. In China, where basically all the major European countries carved out China for hundreds of years, you had a complicated situation between Mao Ze Dong’s Communist forces and Chiang Kai-Shek’s Nationalist Kuomintang and the Japanese. The Japanese saw what happened to the Chinese and basically the Drug pushing by the English Monarchy itself which and decided they would not suffer the same fate.
    It was a War to see which Economic paradigm the world would be subjected to, in the end Capitalism “won.” But the real winners are the Large National and International Banks and families such as the Rothschild who pull the strings. It was a war fought by young men to prop up their nation and economy on top of the rest of the world. But is runaway capitalism the answer? We focus on welfare abusers and the left when we also have Banks getting Bailouts, a widening chasm between the super-rich and the poor, and the shrinking middle class. So in the end most of us lose anyway. Perhaps another larger war is looming this century.

  13. Paris, France – 1940 vs. Contemporary Paris, France.
    Gee lads, so glad those wascally, evil Naht-zees were beaten. I mean, look at that German officer. How dare he sit at a Parisian cafe sipping his ocffee in his his immaculate, starched uniform reading the morning paper.

    1. Yeah, imagine the world with only white people of the german breed. Oh, you say the French, American and English would have been allowed to exist? Sure, as low class beggars at best.

      1. I don’t know what photo you were glancing at, but I see French people in the above photograph. Looks like they exist.

      2. Hitler was a massive fan of the British Empire, he consistently tried to make peace with the UK, there was never any invasion threat…..
        Germany had no intention of world domination, it’s pure fantasy….

        1. Hitler started it all. He invaded Poland, which at that point in time was allied with both France and Britain. He then invaded the Netherlands, a neutral country, and bombed an entire city to the ground just to make a point.
          You can hardly punch a man in the face, tie him down, force him to watch you raping his girlfriend, and then say “don’t shoot” when he manages to come loose and picks up a gun.

        2. Yeah that’s right pure fantasy , that’s why Germany only invaded and annexed over a dozen countries and had plans to annaxe more, like Tasmania from Australia.

    2. Yeah those rascals only killed about 250,000 French soldiers. They deserve a sit-down and coffee. I’m sure the French were thrilled to have them.

  14. Churchill was the scum of the earth and only concerned with himself. He set Americans up for death so that he could bolster his legacy. Scum of the earth.

  15. Here’s another unpopular decision Churchill boldly made:
    “It is most important to attract neutral shipping to our shores, in the hope especially of embroiling the United States with Germany. … We want the traffic – the more the better – and if some of it gets into trouble, the better still.”
    WHAT A REAL MAN!!!!!!!

  16. Squatty little British Badass. Takes balls the size of bowling balls to carry something like this out. Churchill had saw the horrors of war throughout his life with the Boer War and Africa. Decisions need to be made when your back is against the wall and 1940 England/UK was on the brink.
    Its a shame to see a lack of fortitude today amongst the US and UK political class.

  17. Quintus, the French malaise went al least as far back as 1871 if not to the 30 years war or further.

  18. Phenomenal article.
    Upon reading the title, I thought this was going to be about Churchill’s decision as 1st Admiral in WWI to storm Gallipoli. However, it was not and the message served to reconfirm that the medium is the message especially when dealing with the “arrogant” french.
    Nonetheless, my initial thought led to marvel at Churchill. Completed fuck up in WWI resulting in resigning from GOVT to displaying balls of steel in WWII and enduring long enough to win.

  19. Churchill made the right call. Over two years later, French naval forces that escaped his attempts to round them up or eliminate them were fighting the Americans at the Battle of Casablanca with support from German U-boats.

  20. I like these articles about historical figures.
    Unfortunately, most of what we know about our history is filtered as received
    knowledge directly from the cathedral. Thus it is whiggish history i.e. winner
    history. Elite history. It is often hilariously and dangerously wrong. Since we
    are talking Churchill here, and this is a purported red pill site, I have a
    strong urge to recommend — Churchill, Hitler, and “The Unnecessary
    War”: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World. By Patrick J. Buchanan. Truly this is a red
    pill masterpiece. I too was an admirer of Churchill based mostly on his
    stirring speeches and my own ignorance of history. That’s understandable, he was one of the greatest
    orators in history. But pretty words aside we really should judge men upon
    their deeds. Pat’s book is horribly, horribly incorrect vis a’ vis “the
    narrative” and therefore reads like a shocking crime story rather than a
    dry political history. If you can read this book and report back that you still
    have unqualified admiration for Churchill you might want to choke down a few
    blue pills.

  21. You might want to read Pat Buchanan’s book on Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War. Churchill was prominent among the few who set the stage for the creation of the Soviet Union and the Third Reich. He ranks with Hitler and Stalin.

  22. For at least six decades there have been rumors that Churchill KNEW that the city of Coventry was going to be bombed and prevented RAF fighters from saving the city.
    Coventry was annihilated. The Nazi used the city name as a verb the remainder of the war. When a target was hit HARD, they said that it had been “Coventr-ated”.
    The problem was that England had cracked the Nazi code. They KNEW about the attack on Coventry, but Coventry was a relatively insignificant target. If the RAF dedicated large resources to protecting such a small target, Luftwaffe leadership would smell a problem.
    Rather than sacrifice a critical wartime resource, (an enemy code) DID Churchill decide to sacrifice one of his own cities?
    Now do your own search for the bombing of Dresden. Was Dresden revenge for Coventry?
    Could Coventry/Dresden be (at least part of) the reason Churchill was voted out of office SO quickly after the European side of the war?
    Command Decision v Politics. In time of crisis, the CD H-A-S to be made by a decisive leader. Later, when the danger has passed, the feminine will become involved and the leader will pay for his heroism.

  23. A very good article but I seriously doubt he “struggled” with his decision. After all he didn´t even flinch when he sold out the entire Eastern half of Europe to the Soviets or carried out operation Keel haul to “repatriate” hundreds of thousands of civilians an empire that undoubtedly killed millions more than Hitler. I think that after the war and in hindsight he was one of the architects in destroying the British empire. After the folly of starting and waging the World War I and Versailles, another war was inevitable with it the enormous waste in money and human lives that would ensue.

  24. Any men with any interest in the free exchange of ideas should know what a gag this site has become. These clowns are deleting comments and banning people faster than any feminist rag out there. This has become one big circle jerk with zero tolerance for any deviation from the party line. Fuck you, Return of Queens, I gotta feel bad for anyone that thinks they’re part of any kind of free thinking here. Up yours.

  25. I have always marked the beginning of the war with Haile Selassie’s Appeal to The League of Nations in 1936. He announced the danger of Fascist Governments to the world … and nobody listened.
    Perhaps if his skin had been a bit lighter, like the Polish, for example, he would have spared the world much misery.

  26. If Churchill could see the UK now, I’m sure he would weep, they’re falling over themselves trying to surrender to Islam, every chance they get, they surrender, “oh I’m sorry were you offended? Okay I’ll surrender then”, fucking pathetic to an absurd degree.

  27. Churchill was the last great man of the West. The visible grief of the English people during his funeral rites, and their spontaneous gestures of respect, say it all. Nobody could imagine the people giving such a send-off to any of the modern, political quislings. Sometimes when I watch this video, it seems like I’m watching the funeral of Western civilization’s virility. But there’s nothing saying that we cannot make it flourish again.

Comments are closed.