Home » History » Modern British History » Churchill: Person of the Century

Churchill: Person of the Century

© Joseph Sramek

As one counts the last years, months, days, and even minutes of this century - called "The Age of Extremes" (1) by Eric Hobsbawn, a noted historian/sociologist - he/she most likely will begin to reflect upon it. The optimists among us will look at the often bleak and downright awful run of events and weigh that against its conclusion - the so-called "Peace Dividend," the era of greater peace and democracy that we are supposedly living in now. They will begin to shake their heads and ask just one question: "how did this sudden transformation occur?" The pessimists will also begin to shake their heads, but their singular question will be much different: "how did we ever survive this awful century?"

Although the two questions are as different as night and day, and as different as optimism and pessimism, they both, believe it or not, have the same answer: "by following Winston Churchill's example." Over the past year Time Magazine has run an Internet poll for the "Person of the Century," the "Leader of the Century," and other categories. Winston Churchill has been at the top of the poll for the latter, but has been running neck-to-neck with Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, his main foe at Gallipoli, and later founder of Turkey. Churchill currently leads by a nail-biting margin of 1,354,503 votes [33.50%] to Ataturk's 1,307,289 votes [32.33%], with the three other major contenders: Franklin D. Roosevelt, Fidel Castro, and Vladimir Lenin, not even close.

Many a mainstream news magazine, such as the august Time Magazine now pander, or feel that they have to pander, to "p.c.-ism" and "public opinion." Let's, however, think for a moment about what very well could have happened if, in 1940, the decision over whether Britain should remain in the war or not was decided by a public opinion poll. Looking back at the Battle of Britain, one can argue that without Winston Churchill, the British public very well could have clamored for an armistice with Hitler. When we consider the enormous morale boost that Churchill gave to bombed Londoners, urging them to fight on during the worst of the Blitz, it is likely that without him they would have pressured the British Government to open negotiations with Hitler. The fact that this did not happen, proves the cliche of the "indispensible man." Winston Churchill was that man.

If this indeed had happened in 1940, the world would undoubtedly have been and still would be a much darker place than it is now. Hitler most probably would have launched Barbarossa earlier, and would undoubtedly have accomplished much more [with the Soviet Union lacking allies and with a much stronger Luftwaffe (which would not have been decimated by the British in the Battle of Britain)]. In fact it is very likely that he would have won his Lebensraum, and then, when he wished, he would have striked back at the British. From this it is not much of a leap to suggest that we might all today be saying "Ich bin Amerikaner" or "Ich bin Kanadier,", instead of "I am an American" or "I am a Canadian."