Churchill's ‘finest hour’ helped defeat the Nazis. But was it a double-edged sword?

On 18 June 1940, Nazism was sweeping across continental Europe and Britain seemed on a precipice. France, Britain’s principal ally on the continent, had rapidly collapsed under the force of the German invasion. The British Expeditionary Force had escaped from Dunkirk, but only by abandoning vast quantities of weapons and equipment on the beaches of northern France.

Britain now faced the very real possibility of invasion, defeat, or a long war fought in near isolation. In that context, Winston Churchill stood in the House of Commons to deliver one of the most well-known speeches in British history.

“If the British empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years,” he declared, “men will still say, ‘This was their finest hour.’”

This crystallised a moment when an increasingly isolated Britain resolved to continue the fight.

But as historian Richard Vinen suggests, for all that Churchill’s famous words marked the moment, they also conveyed a deeper ambiguity about Britain’s post-war future.

The meaning of ‘finest hour’

“It always seems to me that the most double-edged words Churchill ever uses are on this very iconic date – 18 June 1940,” Vinen explains, speaking on the HistoryExtra podcast.

On the same day that Churchill sought to rally the British, Charles de Gaulle delivered his own appeal from London, urging the French people to continue resisting after their government had sought an armistice with Germany. Together, these speeches marked the opening of a new phase of the war, in which resistance against occupation became an essential theme.

Indeed, Churchill’s phrase “finest hour” was intended to inspire – and it did. It recast the ongoing disaster as a test of national character, suggesting that greatness would be forged in the fires of conflict.

But, Vinen says, that central phrase also has an edge of pessimism.

“If you say people are going to look back on June 1940 as our finest hour,” Vinen notes, “you also mean that one day that finest hour is going to be passed.”

In other words, to declare a moment as the summit of national greatness is also, implicitly, to place that greatness in the past. As it turned out, that more pessimistic implication might have also been correct.

Nazi Germany | A short course from HistoryExtra Academy

Member exclusive | Everything you need to know about Nazi Germany, guided by historian, author and broadcaster Laurence Rees.

Explore the course now

Victory and memory

Britain emerged from the Second World War on the winning side, but the costs of victory were immense.

The country was financially exhausted, burdened by debt and increasingly dependent on the United States. At the same time, the foundations of the British empire were beginning to crumble. India gained its independence in 1947; other colonies would follow, as Britain’s global position steadily contracted in the post-war decades.

In this new, diminished world, the memory of 1940 assumed even greater importance.

“In some ways, a feature of post-war Britain is looking back to 1940 as though that was a moment of greatness that Britain can never recover,” Vinen says.

Later decades – shaped by economic difficulty, imperial retreat and the loss of great-power status – could seem diminished by comparison. The more keenly 1940 shone in public memory, the easier it was for the post-war present to appear as a story of decline. Churchill’s own post-war story would have the same theme.

• Read more | How did the Nazis justify the Holocaust? “What they told us was, at the time, they felt it was the right thing to do”

The former prime minister returned to Downing Street in 1951, serving a second term in office until 1955.

“Almost nobody, and especially conservatives, regard that as a successful premiership,” Vinen says.

Part of the explanation lies in the difference between leading in war and leading in peace. In 1940, Churchill’s gifts – his rhetoric, certainty, instinct for drama and refusal to contemplate surrender – were exactly what the national emergency demanded. But post-war Britain faced different challenges: the practical work of economic reconstruction, the expansion of the welfare state, the management of imperial decline and the realities of a world increasingly shaped by Cold War rivalry.

“I think Churchill’s vision becomes, in some ways, out-of-date after 1945,” Vinen explains.

A different path: de Gaulle

Meanwhile, the other man who had tried to rouse his nation with a speech on 18 June 1940 charted a different path.

Charles de Gaulle had laid the foundations for the Free French movement and helped sustain the idea of a France that hadn’t surrendered after military defeat, even while Phillipe Petain’s collaborationist Vichy regime conspired with Nazi Germany.

But de Gaulle’s post-war career unfolded very differently to Churchill’s.

After a period in the political wilderness, de Gaulle returned to power in 1958 amid the crisis of the Algerian war and the collapse of the Fourth Republic. He oversaw the creation of the Fifth Republic, establishing a new constitutional settlement that greatly strengthened the presidency.

“He then dominates France during the 1960s,” Vinen notes. “In some ways, de Gaulle’s great achievement is to be a peacetime leader more than a wartime leader.”

He “moulds post-war France much more than Churchill moulds post-war Britain”.

Rather than allowing wartime memory to define him completely, de Gaulle sought to reshape France for a changing world marked by decolonisation, technological change and new geopolitical realities. “He emphatically doesn’t want to be remembered as the man of 1940,” Vinen explains.

De Gaulle recognised that France could not simply cling to the past. It had to adjust to weakened imperial power while still asserting its sovereignty and independence. This included pursuing an independent nuclear deterrent and carving out a distinct position within the Cold War order.

“He understands modernity,” Vinen says. “He understands the challenges of new technology… [and] the way in which France can adjust to a new kind of position.”

Churchill, by contrast, remained more attached to an older conception of Britain as a great imperial power with a global mission. “I think there is also a question of ego here,” Vinen suggests. Churchill “finds it very hard to walk away from power, and very hard to imagine what life is going to be like after it.”

Meanwhile, “de Gaulle is, in a way, modest about himself,” Vinen says. “He doesn’t need to be the centre of attention.”

He stepped away from power more than once, and when he finally left office in 1969 after losing a referendum, he did so decisively. He resigned the presidency and withdrew almost completely from public life.

“He never goes to Paris again after he resigns,” Vinen notes, apart from a single family occasion.

Instead, he retired to his home in Colombey-les-Deux-Églises and devoted himself to writing his memoirs.

“It’s inconceivable that Churchill would have said, ‘I’m never going to visit the capital city again,’” Vinen concludes.

Richard Vinen was speaking to James Osborne on the HistoryExtra podcast. Listen to the full conversation.