Skip to main content

Movie Review: Darkest Hour


Before Churchill was ever appointed as Prime Minister, by 1938 Chamberlain had gone to Munich to negotiate the German annexation of the Sudetenland. He thought he had Hitler sign off on any further territorial claims over land in Europe, but Hitler reneges on his promise, invades Czechoslovakia and occupies Prague. Poland under increasing pressure to give up the free-city of Danzig, (carved out of east Prussia by the treaty of Versailles), Chamberlain reverses his policy of appeasement and rises to support Poland against any action that threatens its independence.

If ever there was a midnight hour for Europe, it was still to come with the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, signed on August 24th 1939. The Nazis and the Soviet Union's non-aggression treaty, that delineated spheres of interest over Europe and the joint-invasion of Poland. That invasion fell on September 1st, three days later Chamberlain announces a state of war between Hitler and Great Britain. All of this occurs before the setting of the film, which starts with parliament's call for Chamberlain to resign.

The movie covers the events of May in 1940, Chamberlain's resignation, and the war cabinet crises, through to the siege of Calais and the plan for the evacuation of Dunkirk.

One thing historians remind us of, all the time is that we can't judge the actions of people in the past by what we know in the present. You can only imagine from their vantage point, the sense of utter despair and hopelessness across Britain, as its played out on screen, Churchill is the only one in the war cabinet with the sense of courage to go on fighting. Chamberlain (still in high office), then Foreign Secretary, Viscount Halifax and then monarch, King George VI all favored appeasement and plotted a leadership bid against Churchill.

His famous "Blood, toil, tears and sweat" speech was hardly received well among Conservatives either, even among those who did support Churchill's policy, many of them still saw him through a lens, tinted by the Gallipoli campaign and the return to gold at the pre-1914 rate. It was probably hard not to see Churchill's position as naive, on the same day he became Prime Minister, no less, Belgium and France were invaded, (Norway and Denmark had already been attacked), by the time Churchill would first address the nation, the Nazis would have broken through the Maginot line, within a week they were well into France and the Vichy would be installed later that same year. Albeit in July.

America signed a neutrality act (still in force in 1940) and every other country in Europe was either well on the way to defeat or neutral. Britain stood alone, facing increasing pressure to surrender, Mussolini even offered to act as a mediator between negotiations.

Yet, while often underplayed or unappreciated, the film captures incredibly the truly remarkable thing about Churchill–his stubbornness and refusal to surrender–as the man himself put it when he addresses the nation "never to surrender ourselves to servitude and shame, whatever the cost and the agony may be, conquer we must as conquer we shall". Even against unimaginable odds, Churchill's belief in individual liberty, the rule of law and limited government, values he had learned and cherished as a Conservative, were worth defending, with the force of arms if necessary.

Although the film is a fantastic rendition of events, and while some of the scenes are truly inspiring, the speech to the outer cabinet, the broadcast to the nation in an underground bunker, and Churchill's famous "we shall oppose them on the beaches" speech to parliament, there is one line that disfigures the movie. King George IV when talking to Chamberlain infers responsibility to Churchill for the Bengal famine (its not only misplaced, there's no way King George could have known about this in 1940, its outright false).

As far as I can trace back the original claim, it comes from a book dabbling in pseudo-history by Madhusree Mukerjee. In fact Churchill is known to have done everything he could to end the famine, trying to call in favours from America, Canada and Australiato transport wheat to India. Only Australia and Ceylon actually did. There's also recorded conversations he had with Lord Wevall where he stated unequivocally his desire to ensure in every way he could, to stop the famine. Yet the claim persists, t's almost like these accusers don't actually care about India, at least not nearly as much as Churchill did.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

William Lane Craig and the Hartle-Hawking No Boundary Proposal

Classical standard hot Big Bang cosmology represents the universe as beginning from a singular dense point, with no prior description or explanation of classical spacetime. Quantum cosmology is different in that it replaces the initial singularity with a description in accord with some law the "quantum mechanical wave function of the universe", different approaches to quantum cosmology differ in their appeal either to describe the origin of the material content of the universe e.g., Tyron 1973, Linde 1983a, Krauss 2012 or the origin of spacetime itself e.g., Vilenkin 1982, Linde 1983b, Hartle-Hawking 1983, Vilenkin 1984.

These last few proposals by Vilenkin, Hartle-Hawking and others are solutions to the Wheeler-DeWitt equation and exist in a category of proposals called "quantum gravity cosmologies" which make cosmic applications of an approach to quantum gravity called "closed dynamic triangulation" or CDT (also known as Euclidean quantum gravity). I&#…

How Should Thatcherites Remember the '80s?

Every now and again, when I talk to people about the '80s I'm told that it was a time of unhinged selfishness, that somehow or other we learned the price of everything but the value of nothing. I can just remember that infamous line from Billy Elliot; 'Merry Christmas Maggie Thatcher. We all celebrate today because its one day closer to your death'. If it reflected the general mood of the time, one might wonder how it is she won, not one but three elections.

In an era when a woman couldn't be Prime Minister and a working-class radical would never lead the Conservative party, Thatcher was both and her launch into power was almost accidental owing in part to Manchester liberals and the Winter of Discontent. Yet I'm convinced her election victory in '79 was the only one that ever truly mattered. Simply consider the calamity of what preceded it, the 1970s was a decade of double-digit inflation, power cuts, mass strikes, price and income controls, and the three…

Creation Of Universes from Nothing

The above paper "Creation of Universes from Nothing" was published in 1982, which was subsequently followed up in 1984 by a paper titled "Quantum Creation of Universes". I decided it would be a good idea to talk about these proposals, since last time I talked about the Hartle-Hawking model which was, as it turns out, inspired by the above work. 
Alexander Vilenkin also explains in a non-technical way the essential idea in his book; Many World's in One – one of the best books I've ever read – it mostly covers cosmic inflationary theory but the 17th chapter covers how inflation may have begun. In fact Vilenkin is one of the main preponderant who helped develop inflation along with Steinhardt, Guth, Hawking, Starobinsky, Linde and others. 
Although I won't talk about it here, Vilenkin also discovered a way of doing cosmology by using something called "topological defects" and he has been known for work he's done on cosmic strings, too.
In ex…