The story of Winston Churchill and the United Kingdom in World War II has become an important tool for Hollywood and the rest of the Western film industry. Over the years, it has been used to endorse the "good war" narrative - a tool to push global interventionism, the multicultural state and other similar ideas - while providing a break from focusing on America's role in the "good war" for the same type of purpose.
There is no shortage of films dealing with either narrative-pushing force; when it comes to American war effort, there is a list of endless B-List "runaway productions", big-budget John Wayne films and years of the series Band of Brothers to all the turn-of-the-century "look-what-we-can-do-with-effects" films like Saving Private Ryan and Pearl Harbor. As for the British war cause and effort, there are already plenty of films and television series, too.
On the other hand, there seems to be a growing trend to focus on the British side, as films like Dunkirk and Hurricane suggest. I suspect that, at least for Hollywood, the shift is a safe space of sorts now that glorifying historic causes once draped in pro-America anything arguably panders to, empowers or emboldens the whole "MAGA" - "Make America Great Again" - movement, which is the last thing at least Hollywood wants to do. There's also that other part that has gained traction in the public's understanding of the war - i.e., stuffing Japanese in concentration camps, turning the conflict into a race struggle and fearing that the importation of rich and successful Jews who had been pushed out of Europe would be a threat to American national security. The LGBTQ+ left has taken it even further:
For all of these reasons, I predict that, if the focus is not on American non-white characters (ex: Red Tail) or Jewish characters (ex: Inglourious Basterds), the tactical employment of the "World War II story" in television in film entertainment will increasingly favor Britain or others outside of America.
If I am right on this, the irony is that the United Kingdom was the first to introduce concentration camps against people it considered a threat. Churchill advocated using poison gas on "uncivilized tribes" and criticized opponents of this idea for their "squeamishness". He called the colonists who pushed out the Aborigines in Australia and tribal peoples of the Americas a "stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race." He put white Protestants at the top and believed in social Darwinism. He took no action to relieve the Indians in his Empire of famine, ostensibly blamed them for "breeding like rabbits" and suggesting that, if Gandhi starved to death, it would be good because the United Kingdom would be rid of a "bad man and an enemy of the Empire." He also was an advocate of Zionism specifically because he believed "the Jew is an incorrigible alien, that his first loyalty will always be to his race." He spoke out against Islamists, comparing them to rabies on a dog. With these facts in mind, it is absolutely hilarious to see Churchill and the United Kingdom put forward as some noble crusaders fighting for everything that the "good war" narrative has been contrived to suggest World War II was about. In reality, the United Kingdom was not much more modern, global-era friendly than America was in the conflict.
On the other hand, the history of Churchill and the United Kingdom has been so distorted through its presentation in connection with the "good war narrative" that it is likely to take some time to catch on. This may, incidentally, be another reason why a shift to the focus on Churchill and the United Kingdom to push the "good war" narrative is inevitable - even the film industry, filled with left-wing social justice warriors, is completely clueless.
On par with the public's lack of awareness concerning Churchill and the United Kingdom, there is very little expose to the inherent contradictions, inconsistencies and inconvenient truths that surround the war and have been clouded over by the "good war" narrative. Since memes are the most popular medium to convey ideas these days, a development following the rise of Twitter culture, here are some of the contradictions, inconsistencies and inconvenient war truths into meme format:
And then there's always the reality of the outcome of the war, which is totally lost within the context of the "good war" narrative and all the fanfare about Churchill and the United Kingdom's never-surrendered "victory":
May the truth one day prevail.
There is no shortage of films dealing with either narrative-pushing force; when it comes to American war effort, there is a list of endless B-List "runaway productions", big-budget John Wayne films and years of the series Band of Brothers to all the turn-of-the-century "look-what-we-can-do-with-effects" films like Saving Private Ryan and Pearl Harbor. As for the British war cause and effort, there are already plenty of films and television series, too.
On the other hand, there seems to be a growing trend to focus on the British side, as films like Dunkirk and Hurricane suggest. I suspect that, at least for Hollywood, the shift is a safe space of sorts now that glorifying historic causes once draped in pro-America anything arguably panders to, empowers or emboldens the whole "MAGA" - "Make America Great Again" - movement, which is the last thing at least Hollywood wants to do. There's also that other part that has gained traction in the public's understanding of the war - i.e., stuffing Japanese in concentration camps, turning the conflict into a race struggle and fearing that the importation of rich and successful Jews who had been pushed out of Europe would be a threat to American national security. The LGBTQ+ left has taken it even further:
For all of these reasons, I predict that, if the focus is not on American non-white characters (ex: Red Tail) or Jewish characters (ex: Inglourious Basterds), the tactical employment of the "World War II story" in television in film entertainment will increasingly favor Britain or others outside of America.
If I am right on this, the irony is that the United Kingdom was the first to introduce concentration camps against people it considered a threat. Churchill advocated using poison gas on "uncivilized tribes" and criticized opponents of this idea for their "squeamishness". He called the colonists who pushed out the Aborigines in Australia and tribal peoples of the Americas a "stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race." He put white Protestants at the top and believed in social Darwinism. He took no action to relieve the Indians in his Empire of famine, ostensibly blamed them for "breeding like rabbits" and suggesting that, if Gandhi starved to death, it would be good because the United Kingdom would be rid of a "bad man and an enemy of the Empire." He also was an advocate of Zionism specifically because he believed "the Jew is an incorrigible alien, that his first loyalty will always be to his race." He spoke out against Islamists, comparing them to rabies on a dog. With these facts in mind, it is absolutely hilarious to see Churchill and the United Kingdom put forward as some noble crusaders fighting for everything that the "good war" narrative has been contrived to suggest World War II was about. In reality, the United Kingdom was not much more modern, global-era friendly than America was in the conflict.
On the other hand, the history of Churchill and the United Kingdom has been so distorted through its presentation in connection with the "good war narrative" that it is likely to take some time to catch on. This may, incidentally, be another reason why a shift to the focus on Churchill and the United Kingdom to push the "good war" narrative is inevitable - even the film industry, filled with left-wing social justice warriors, is completely clueless.
On par with the public's lack of awareness concerning Churchill and the United Kingdom, there is very little expose to the inherent contradictions, inconsistencies and inconvenient truths that surround the war and have been clouded over by the "good war" narrative. Since memes are the most popular medium to convey ideas these days, a development following the rise of Twitter culture, here are some of the contradictions, inconsistencies and inconvenient war truths into meme format:
And then there's always the reality of the outcome of the war, which is totally lost within the context of the "good war" narrative and all the fanfare about Churchill and the United Kingdom's never-surrendered "victory":
May the truth one day prevail.
