They literally did you fucking moron.
>>18617308OBVIOUSLY not talking about 1951, you absolute retard.
>>18617305Has there ever been a country leader who LOST re-election after winning a war? How fucking garbage do you have to be that not even the euphoria of winning a war can salvage your campaign?
Brits recognized that there was no going back to the old empire as Churchill sought to do. It was time to gear up for a new age, rebuild Britain as a social democracy, and give the empire and it's overseas subjects a dignified sendoff for a postcolonial era.
Despite being remembered as a titan of 20th century British politics, he only won a single general election in the 1951. By contrast Wilson won four general elections, and Thatcher won three.In 1945 Churchill's campaign was remarkably tone deaf, complaining about the "Labour gestapo" while he was buddying up with Stalin on the world stage.
>>18617403Did the British electorate know/care about the NKVD?
>>186173141951 is after WW2 you fucking ape.
>>18617403>Wilson won 4 general elections
>>18617457I was referring to Harold Wilson retard-kun
>>18617450Bongpeople during WW2 generally did not know the full scale and extent of Soviet terror, and public awareness of the NKVD, was heavily downplayed or masked by wartime alliance propaganda. My grandfather's school teacher in 1930s Wales would tell the children about the innovative new socially scientific project taking place in Russia. The British media, howver, wasn't quite as familiar toward thr UUSR as FDR and the Americans were, calling Stalin 'Uncle Joe'. Britain was still highly suspicious of the Soviet Union at the time and Churchill famously feared and loathed Stalin.
>>18617308>>18617455>>18617457Damn this board's average IQ isn't very high
>>18617489>Why didn't Britain vote for Churchill after WW2?>1951 is after 1945
>>18617502Germany surrendered on May 1945, 2 months later Churchill lost in a landslide.
>>18617527And then in 1951 Britain voted for Churchill
>>18617528He didn't even win the most votes, Labour got more. He did manage to squeeze out a razor-thin majority of seats and even then it was thanks to 3rd parties collapsing. In 1945 he legitimately got his ass kicked in a huge landslide.
>>18617538Yeah, that's how all British elections work.
>>18617542Something that barely happened in history. It's also worth mentioning that he won thanks to accepting the policies of the government that kicked his ass, essentially conceding that WW2-Churchill couldn't win.
>>18617305by the time elections were held the war was already won so they didn't need a guy like him in charage, helped by the fact nobody wanted his vision of a low safety net Britain that would do everything to maintain an empire most stopped giving a shit about since it would mean even more costly wars
>>18617559>maintain an empire most stopped giving a shit about since it would mean even more costly warsWhich the Conservatives tried to do after gaining back power of course, culminating in one of their biggest humiliations on the world stage and getting bitch slapped by the 2 real superpowers.
>>18617305He was uncharismatic and terrible at politics. He's been retconned in the public consciousness as being the British Napoleon but at the time everyone just saw him as a generic corrupt aristocrat
>>18617305'Cause he was a nepo baby who simply happened to be appointed PM at an important moment. Not a real Mover of History
>>18617482>Churchill famously feared and loathed Stalin.Out of still clinging to the old ways of "muh European balance of power", not out of being "based" or whatever
>>18617598No, I think Churchill found Stalin personally unsettling too. Here's just one anecdote from the Tehran conference:>Stalin proposed executing 50,000 to 100,000 German officers so that Germany could not plan another war. Roosevelt, believing that Stalin was not serious, joked that "maybe 49,000 would be enough."[17] Churchill, however, was outraged and denounced "the cold-blooded execution of soldiers who fought for their country." He said that only war criminals should be put on trial in accordance with the Moscow Document, which he had written. He stormed out of the room but was brought back in by Stalin, who said he was joking. Churchill was glad Stalin had relented but thought that Stalin had been testing the waters.[18]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tehran_Conference
>>18617616This would make for a decent purity spiral nowadays. Referring to Wehrmacht officers as "soldiers who fought for their country" would definitely get you cancelled
>>18617616Churchill gets such a bad rap today, but I truly do admire the man. If he was placed in Washington D.C instead of Roosevelt then the post-war order would be pretty great
>>18617579You cannot listen to his extraordinary speeches during wartime and at the same time title the man as "uncharismatic". If you were an ordinary gentleman trying to maintain morale during the blitz, hearing his oratory feats of resilience would have kept you going. His "Fighting on the Beaches" speech kept the country going after the retreat at Dunkirk.>Chips Channon, a Conservative MP, writing in his diary "he was eloquent and oratorical and used magnificent English; several Labour members cried".
>>18617791His speeches are way too rambly and they're full of pathetic pleas to America. PM Lloyd George would be an example of an actually charismatic British statesman
>>18617791Cool, reality disagrees and the endless reports of ordinary people who actually met him and not cronies on his payroll or sycophants universally describing him as a rude cunt and his loss of an election despite winning the war despite the partisan followers ready to vote down ballot for him shows the reality.
>>18617791Eh . . he had a few iconic photogenic quotes but as a whole he rambled a lot and slurred his words. I wouldn't say he was the worst public speaker of all time but he definitely wasn't the greatest
>>18617847Only one of these statesmen have received a Nobel prize for literature, in reward to his oratory feats. Churchill is in the same realm as Cicero when it comes to rhetorical excellence. It must also be said that the obsequious diplomacy towards America is what made Britain endure to victory. It's a compliment to Churchill that he was met with such adoration by the United States. I personally think his courting favour with the U.S was a masterclass in diplomacy.>And now the old lion with her lion cubs at her side stands alone against hunters who are armed with deadly weapons and impelled by desperate and destructive rage. Is the tragedy to repeat itself once more? All no! This is not the end of the tale. The stars in their courses proclaim the deliverance of mankind. Not so easily shall the onward progress of the peoples be barred. Not so easily shall the lights of freedom die. But time is short. Every month that passes adds to the length and to the perils of the journey that will have to be made. United we stand. Divided we fall. Divided, the dark age returns. United, we can save and guide the world!>>18617853The success of Attlee has little to do with Churchill's personality. The Anglosphere the world over had decided that socialism would be the preferred path to reconstruction. Ben Chifley of Australia, Louis St. Laurent of Canada, etc... The war had exhausted allied nations.>>18617856He did not ramble. Maybe you find his speech patterns irritating, but you will not find directionless rambling in any of his transcripts.
>>18617867>It must also be said that the obsequious diplomacy towards America is what made Britain endure to victory. It's a compliment to Churchill that he was met with such adoration by the United StatesFDR (and by extension the US) was going to support whatever muppet in Whitehall promised to fight to the end. The 'special relationship' being achieved by Churchill jestermaxxing for FDR was just bongoloid cope.
>>18617867>Churchill is in the same realm as Cicero Is the strategy you're going for here "make deliberately absurd claim so I can bait an angry response"?
>>18617867>Churchill is in the same realm as Cicero when it comes to rhetorical excellenceHoly kek Bongs are really this delusional
>>18617867>retarded bong noises Yikes
>>18617867>It must also be said that the obsequious diplomacy towards America is what made Britain endure to victory. It's a compliment to Churchill that he was met with such adoration by the United States.Churchill was half-American you fool. His embarrassing obsequiousness to America simply reveals his true loyalties. No one should be surprised he put Britain in 61 years of debt bondage to America, signed the Atlantic charter in an act of humiliating submission, and reluctantly approved the Bretton Woods agreement that cemented the end of British imperial hegemony
>>18617881Winston wasn't just speaking to FDR. He was speaking to a nation of more than a hundred million. The America First Committee was a powerful force in American politics.>>18617886>>18617893>>18617903The revisionist prejudice against Churchill on this board needs some pushback. And for what it's worth, I'm Australian. He and Sir Robert Menzies stir me deeply when thinking about the history and trajectory of the English-speaking peoples.>>18617906Churchill made no secret of his American heritage. Still yet he had been in 40 long years of service to King & Country, resigned to the trenches after the disgrace in the Dardanelles, thought to be some hysterical old loon at the height of appeasement, only to shine forth in Britain's darkest hour. >Do not let us speak of darker days: let us speak rather of sterner days. These are not dark days; these are great days — the greatest days our country has ever lived; and we must all thank God that we have been allowed, each of us according to our stations, to play a part in making these days memorable in the history of our race.Oct. 29, 1941
>>18617922You're overthinking it. He was just a fat nepo baby, like countless other men in history. If he hadn't been appointed PM in WW2 he'd be completely forgettable.
>>18617935You're not owing him enough thought. You make it out like his being tethered to his father's legacy is something to be scoffed at. In fact, his ability to escape his father's shadow and esteem himself among his pedigreed line is something to be admired. It's a ridiculous and irrelevant counterfactual that his importance would be lessened had he not been the chief antagonist of British appeasement during the interwar years. He himself even famously remarked on this great responsibility given to him:>“I felt as if I were walking with destiny, and that all my past life had been but a preparation for this hour and for this trial..."
>>18617944That just makes him sound like a narcissist with protagonist complex. Again, not something that makes him unique. Plenty of aristocratic elites suffer from protagonist complex
>>18617953The fact that he was one of the Great Men of History makes him unique. You're acting like he was never the reigning Prime Minister during Britain's gravest trial. He is owed some sense of self-importance, after his recuperation after the errors as First Lord of the Admiralty.
>>18617964Britain's greatest trial was its competition against America for world hegemony, a trial Britain lost in large part thanks to Churchill's leadership. Britain is dead as a power and Churchill has no legacy.
>>18617975How ridiculous. I'm sure Vichy France & the revolutionary fanatics in Germany would have gotten along well & fine with Britain's interests across the world. Churchill's legacy lies in the fact that we prosper without totalitarianism today. Economic and social malaise today cannot be tied to his resistance against the uncontrolled and rapacious continental power of Hitler's Germany.
>>18617998Maybe take off your rose-tinted glasses, grandpa. America's defeat of the British Empire and usurpation of its power was the greatest act of civilizational destruction in world history. It is debatable whether the human species will even survive at the rate civilization is collapsing.
>>18617998America's defeat of the British Empire is directly responsible for everything we see today.America is fundamentally a mongrel society ruled by Jews. It was inevitable that America would mongrelize and Judaize the world. If you don't understand this, you are either stupid or dishonest.
>>18618002>>18618014This kind of grotesque hyperbole is unbecoming for a history board.
