Their finest hour – in honour of Sir Winston Churchill and “the few”, 75 years after the Battle of Britain



Originally published September 20, 2015.

Sir Winston Churchill has been several times voted the greatest Briton of all time in nation-wide polls. Knighted in 1953 and awarded a Nobel Prize for literature the same year, the some time journalist and war correspondent, solider, first Sea Lord, and politician, did and achieved a lot in his long life. The abiding memories and legacy of Churchill are, however, his aphorisms and his speeches, which continue to contribute to the lexicon of the English language to the present day, many of them remaining instantly recognisable more than fifty years after his death. The occasion of Churchill’s ascendancy as Prime Minister, in 1940, together with the urgency of the hour in the context of the Second World War, was the catalyst for most of his greatest and most famous oratory. Within three days of receiving the royal consent to form his wartime government, Sir Winston rose in the House of Commons to deliver his manifesto, offering nothing but “many months of struggle and suffering” and “blood, toil, tears and sweat,” his one policy being to “wage war against a monstrous tyranny,” and his sole aim “victory.”

The “blood, toil, tears and sweat” speech had been delivered in May 1940, with the German army rampaging through Norway, and the British people and political class rapidly losing faith in the policy of appeasement pursued by Neville Chamberlain. By mid-June, just a few weeks later, France had fallen, and Sir Winston again rose in the Commons to deliver a further important speech. There was, now, a very real prospect that Hitler would attempt an invasion of Britain. Hence, Churchill told the Commons, “the battle of France is over. I expect that the battle of Britain is about to begin.” Upon that battle, Churchill told the listening Commons, and, through the medium of the radio, the British people and the listening world, depended not only the survival of Britain and its traditions, but the very “survival of Christian civilisation.” The magnificent prescience of the oratory continues to echo down through the years to the present day.

“What General Weygand has called the Battle of France is over. The battle of Britain is about to begin. Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilisation. Upon it depends our own British life and the long continuity of our institutions and our Empire. The whole fury and might of the enemy must very soon be turned on us. Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this island or lose the war. If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be free and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands. But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of a perverted science. Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that, if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, ‘This was their finest hour.’”

As he had anticipated, the Battle of Britain commenced soon after Churchill spoke these words. In an attempt to establish air superiority over the British Isles as a precursor to an amphibious invasion (code named operation Sealion), the German Luftwaffe flew an almost daily regime of bombing raids and sorties over Britain, an action that extended over the summer and autumn months of 1940. Although greatly outnumbered, the Royal Air Force, aided by the Canadians, and those who had managed to escape from just about every country on the continent now under Nazi occupation, ultimately prevailed, and operation Sealion was postponed. In August 1940, with the battle in the air still raging, Churchill had made perhaps the most famous speech of all, forever defining the young pilots who were continuing to defend Britain at great cost even as he spoke as “the few” to whom “the many” owed so much.

“The gratitude of every home in our Island, in our Empire, and indeed throughout the world, except in the abodes of the guilty, goes out to the British airmen who, undaunted by odds, unwearied in their constant challenge and mortal danger, are turning the tide of the World War by their prowess and by their devotion. Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few. All hearts go out to the fighter pilots, whose brilliant actions we see with our own eyes day after day, but we must never forget that all the time, night after night, month after month, our bomber squadrons travel far into Germany, find their targets in the darkness by the highest navigational skill, aim their attacks, often under the heaviest fire, often with serious loss, with deliberate, careful discrimination, and inflict shattering blows upon the whole of the technical and war-making structure of the Nazi power. On no part of the Royal Air Force does the weight of the war fall more heavily than on the daylight bombers who will play an invaluable part in the case of invasion and whose unflinching zeal it has been necessary in the meanwhile on numerous occasions to restrain… “

The British victory in the Battle of Britain was the first major military defeat inflicted on the then dominant German war machine. It not only prevented the planned invasion of Britain, but was an incalculable boost to the morale of the allied forces who had suffered, by then, a succession of defeats. The battle was also the catalyst for a shift in public and political opinion in the then neutral United States, which had feared that Britain too might fall to Hitler, but now realised the British would stand alone against Nazi-occupied Europe and would need all the help they could be afforded. The calls for American support and intervention increased greatly from this point. In terms of the battle itself, a turning point came with a shift in the intensity of the Luftwaffe bombing from 15 September 1940, a date which Churchill eventually designated as the moment of victory and which came, after the war, to be Battle of Britain Day. The 75th anniversary of that day, and of that victory, fell during the course of this past week, providing a fitting occasion on which to remember and to honour “the few” who delivered victory in the air, and the one man who, through the strength and resolve of his character and his oratory, ultimately delivered victory in, not only the battle, but the war.

  • Trog

    A very worthy “man of the century”. A man made for a different era sadly but with a raft of talents that were simply extraordinary. A long time favourite of mine and still missed. It behoves us all to remember those times and the tragic consequences of endless appeasement.

    • Steve B

      Winston Churchill was great in a way that the current crop of political morons will never be…

    • Karen Dwyer

      And a man who was prepared to call for a national day of (Christian) prayer. Which did take place, and Dunkirk was the result. Lots of loyal, brave, “small” people to the rescue. I get teary even now to think of the fine people who put themselves in grave danger in order to save others.

      Can you imagine any British or Australian politician today suggesting prayer as a necessary part of a nation’s strategy? Abbott suggested getting persecuted Christians away from the real genocide being carried out, and he was ousted as PM within hours.

      At most, we get the meaningless “our thoughts and prayers are with them”. Oh really?????

      Churchill was a man with a backbone!

      • Trog

        Exceptional leadership and principle. I love the stories about him even the bad. Apparently his father was very disappointed in him over Winston’s poor academic showing and decided that he should go to Sandhust rather than a University. Poor bugger needed 3 attempts to get in!!! And later, on top of all his other lifetime accomplishments, wrote the multi-volumed History of the English Speaking World.

        Much like Einstein who in the year he devised 3 theories that changed the world, failed to gain promotion to Swiss Patents Clerk grade 2! Peas in a pod for early “failures”.

        I continually reminded my kids about these factoids when they occasionally struggled.

        You’re right. For me when Turnbull declined to attend the Service for the reinternment of the 27 WW2 servicemen’s remains on “home” soil, his decision I felt was a crystal clear window into the inner man.

        He doesn’t even have the measure of Tony Abbott’s pinky toe.

  • skuld

    Sadly and unfortunately, the Britain of the 1940’s is long gone.
    Winston would be churning at high revs in his grave at the version of his beloved Britain that exists today.
    English culture has changed for the worst, as has the culture of the other Colonial era powers, France, Germany.
    Unfettered immigration from former colonies and an influx of rapefugees has forever cucked their societies.
    Look at the horrendous calculated sexual abuse in Rotterham, carried out by Pakistani Muslims. The abuse, rape and trafficking of innocent girls continues to this day, covered up by authorities and the Muslim community.
    The authorities wilfully ignored it for many years, and destroyed records in a cover up, so as not to upset the Muslims and give air to “racism”.

    Nope, we can’t risk upsetting the Muslim community, just have to let them get on with raping white English girls.

    That is not Winston Churchill’s England !

    • Jamie Blank

      All caused by a combination of the contraceptive pill and feminism.


        Who owned the Empire Windrush?

        The same people who lent money to the drunk bankrupt Churchill to fund his political career.

    • Yes, it is Winston Churchill’s England.

      They are side effects of the same semitic rot.

  • Bikinis not Burkas

    What was that quote from Winston?
    “Islam in a man is as evil as rabies in a dog!”

    • Trog

      Not quite but close. Published 1899 original River Wars two volume set later abridged. Lengthy quote decrying evils of Mohammedism.

  • Popular Front

    It is interesting to note that in amongst ‘The Few’ were 22 Australian fighter pilots, of whom 14 were shot down and killed. Quite a contribution that should not be forgotten.

    • Tim Richardson

      Not to mention the much bigger contribution of Polish forces, who were the largest non-British fighting force in the air (during the Battle of Britain). On top of that, some incredibly brave Poles smuggled out their reconstructed enigma encoding engine through enemy lines, which was the crucial foundation for the amazing British effort to break it. The Poles ultimately got nothing from Britain: Britain neither prevented German the German invasion (which was not Churchill’s fault) and the free Polish government was sold out to the Soviets after the war (as part of deal which left Greece in the western sphere). So I hope the Polish immigrants in the UK have a special place in the hearts of the British.

      • Ron Mortimer

        The stupid Poles didn’t understand that they were used merely as bait to get the war started, and were then discarded. The Polish Ambassador in London who asked that Britain act against the USSR, who invaded Poland two weeks after the Germans, was told to fuck off….
        Britain wanted war, used Poland to get it going, joined forces with the co-invader of that country then at the end of WW2 handed it over to Stalin. There is a reason the French call Britain perfidious.

        • Shosshannah

          Investigate “The Gleiwitz incident”. WW 2.

          You seem to be the only person here of high intellect, so it may interest you.

          • Ron Mortimer

            I know about the Gleiwitz incident, used as a casus belli by the Germans. I have heard claims that it was faked. I have also heard claims that large numbers of ethnic Germans in west Pomerania(incorporated into Poland at the end of WW1) were killed or dispossessed by Poles. There are lots of nuances to the WW2 story……….

  • Taipan

    Churchill saved the world from Hitler with his buddy Stalin.

    • Ron Mortimer

      Good point. Why did we side with Stalin against Hitler when Stalin’s aim was world communist domination? The primary beneficiary of the war was Stalin. It could then be said that we fought for Stalin.


      Yeah, he sure saved Europe for Communism.

  • Jonathan

    Lucky those Brits beat those evil Germans otherwise they would have been invaded by foreigners who would have changed their race and culture forever.

    • Ron Mortimer

      Churchill was the man who destroyed two empires, the British Empire and the German one. The complacency and arrogance of the British on supposedly defeating the greatest tyrant(tm) allowed them to become what they are today…….facing cultural and possibly literal extinction. Great job Winnie….

    • Unfortunately, they had already been occupied by foreigners who divided their race and changed their culture forever.

  • Repeal fake marriage

    Ok peoples, time to take a side. Was the Spitfire or the Bf 109 the superior fighter? I will choose the 109 for its fuel injected engine and cannon armament. And it did not catch fire, burning the pilots like the Spitfire did.

    • Shosshannah

      Research shows that the Messerschmitt 109 was a superior aircraft to the Spitfire.
      The last 109 variant was the K series, which was superior to all allied aircraft, like the P-51.
      My grandfather flew the Avia: a copy of the 109, during the late 1940’s.

    • Jai_Normosone

      Not being a pilot nor having flown in any of them, any opinion I give to this would be worthless in value.
      I think the Messerschmidt 109, on paper, is the pick – although I love the sound of any of them flying overhead.

  • LadyMoonlight

    A man (or men) of the calibre of Winston Churchill is the only thing that will save the West from Islam. Unfortunately, there are none left in the positions of power.

  • Ron Mortimer

    Here’s a question that someone may be able to answer for me. If the current Globo-homo-femo-multicult-west is a result of the NWO, and the powers that are pushing it were the victors of WW2(with the exception of Russia who seems to have reneged and is therefore a target of said NWO), can we say that the allied victory in WW2 was a victory for the NWO?

    • Jai_Normosone

      I would say “no”.
      As you say, “If the current Globo-homo-femo-multicult-west is a result of the NWO…” (etc).

      What happens when a side is victorious after a vicious and extended battle is that, rather than working feverishly towards rebuilding, there starts a growing attitude of the next generation that they don’t have to be guilty or feel recompense for anything. So, since there is a sense of less need for soldiers and scientists, people lean more towards the arts and more frivolous pursuits (adapted from a quote of John Addams ( “I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy.”
      Read more at:

      I believe that when there is an ideology at play and it gets beaten, it tries again – and will wait for their “oppressors” to get lazy and weak before trying again. In this case, the tactics have changed to infiltrate and change from the inside, starting with political correctness in the 80’s and descending to the horse-shit that it has become today.

      If I’m wrong, I’m wrong – but that is how I see it.

      • Ron Mortimer

        I do agree with your point about victorious sides becoming complacent, Britain being a prime example of that. The hubris of the US is also a result of that same victory.
        What I was getting at was that the winners were the globalists. Whether western globalism or communism they were globalists. The losers were the nationalists.
        The winners created the League of Nations, then the UN, the World Bank, IMF and all the globalist organisations we see today, slowly unifying the world, under their control(of course).
        I am also thinking of the other less obvious globalist web of influence comprising of Freemasons, bankers, Fabians etc pushing globalism.
        Perhaps this is why Hitler had to be stopped and why Stalin was celebrated, one was nationalist while the other was globalist.

        • Jai_Normosone

          Interesting points. I hadn’t considered those – and cannot effectively argue against them.

          Were the winners actually Globalists though? Could it be assumed that it was their goal in 1945 to have a one-world government – or was the intention to have a centralised “committee” where they could all meet and discuss issues without having to go through the obvious arrangement process? (“Sorry, America cannot attend that week due to Thanksgiving Day celebrations…”)

          I can only guess at the politics at play at the time and what the intentions were. There would have always been the snake in the grass that would have pushed for such an agenda on the basis that they’d see it being advantageous for them; although who could have foreseen the hub of corruption and ineptitude that the U.N. would become?

  • “Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilisation.”

    And unfortunately the real Christians lost.

    Churchill is a Duke in Hell.