The Church of Churchill: Decoding the Post-War Consensus as a Secular Creed, By Peter West

In the wake of World War II, a narrative took root that has shaped the Western world for 80 years: the Post-War Consensus. This isn't just a political agreement, it's a worldview, a secular religion, complete with saints, scriptures, and a fierce inquisition against dissenters. As JD Hall argues, the Consensus casts liberal democracy as humanity's saviour, the Allies as redeemers, and institutions like NATO and the United Nations as sacred pillars of peace. Its high priest? Winston Churchill, lionised as the bulldog who saved civilisation. But this creed, Hall contends, is less about historical truth and more about control, demanding uncritical devotion, especially from conservative Christians who should know better. Is the Post-War Consensus a noble legacy, or a false faith?

The Creed of the Consensus: A Gospel of 1945

Every religion needs a story, and the Post-War Consensus delivers a compelling one: the Allies defeated the Axis, democracy triumphed, and global institutions were born to prevent a return to 1939's chaos. This narrative is taught as gospel, recited in classrooms and reinforced through rituals like D-Day commemorations and flag-draped speeches. Churchill, Roosevelt, and Truman are its saints, their flaws airbrushed into irrelevance. To question their actions, Churchill's Dresden firebombing, Truman's atomic bombs, is to risk excommunication as a "revisionist" or "Nazi sympathiser." The Consensus doesn't invite debate; it demands faith.

Hall's framing resonates because it exposes how deeply this narrative is embedded. NATO is treated as untouchable, despite its role in far-flung conflicts. The UN is hailed as indispensable, even as it struggles with inefficiency and bias. The IMF and World Bank are defended as economic stabilisers, yet criticsargue they prioritise global finance over local sovereignty. This isn't history; it's dogma, shaping everything from foreign policy to cultural identity.

Churchill: Saint or Sinner?

At the heart of this "religion" stands Winston Churchill, canonised as the saviour of civilisation. His speeches are quoted like scripture, his cigar and V-sign relics of a mythic hero. Yet, Hall's critique of Churchill as a "butcher" rather than a saint demands scrutiny. Churchill's record is complex: he rallied Britain against Hitler in 1940, a pivotal moment when defeat seemed imminent. His defiance, captured in speeches like "We shall fight on the beaches," galvanised a nation and arguably the Allies. But his halo dims under examination.

Churchill's colonial policies were steeped in racial hierarchy. In 1919, he advocated using poison gas against "uncivilised tribes" in Iraq, reflecting a brutal imperial mindset. During the 1943 Bengal famine, his government diverted food from India, contributing to three million deaths, while he dismissed Indian suffering with callous remarks about "breeding like rabbits." The 1945 Dresden bombing, which killed tens of thousands of civilians in a city of negligible military value, was a war crime by modern standards, yet Churchill distanced himself only when public backlash grew. These aren't isolated missteps, they reveal a man driven by imperial ambition and a willingness to sacrifice lives for strategic ends.

Defenders argue Churchill's leadership was indispensable, that his flaws were outweighed by the existential threat of Nazism. Yet, as Hall notes, victory owed more to Hitler's blunders, invading Russia, Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor, than Churchill's genius. Britain's survival was a collective effort, propped up by American and Soviet intervention, not a solo act of heroism. To sanctify Churchill is to ignore the moral ambiguity of his choices, a hallmark of the Consensus's refusal to tolerate complexity.

The Moral Danger: Blind Loyalty Over Truth

Hall's most provocative claim is that conservative Christians, who pride themselves on Biblical scrutiny, have become the Consensus's most fervent disciples. They defend Churchill and Truman with more zeal than they defend scripture, treating NATO as sacred, while questioning globalism in other contexts. This contradiction is striking. A 2023 Pew survey found that 68% of U.S. evangelicals view military strength as a moral good, often tying it to the Allies' WWII victory. Yet, the same group is sceptical of centralised power in domestic policy. Why the blind spot for the Consensus?

The answer lies in its liturgical power. D-Day ceremonies, Veterans Day hymns, and Arlington's eternal flame, function as sacraments, binding believers to the creed. Questioning Hiroshima or NATO risks social exile, as seen in the backlash against historians like Howard Zinn, who called Allied bombings atrocities. X posts from users like @Culture_Crit (2025) highlight this, noting that criticising Churchill often triggers accusations of "anti-patriotism" rather than reasoned debate. For Christians, this loyalty risks idolatry, elevating human institutions above divine truth.

The Inquisition: Silencing Dissent

The Consensus enforces its creed through fear, not reason. Hall likens it to an inquisition, where dissenters are branded heretics. Suggest Dresden was excessive, and you're a revisionist. Question the UN's efficacy, and you're undermining peace. This tactic mirrors religious orthodoxy, punishing scepticism to protect the narrative. The Consensus thrives on silence, not scrutiny.

This intolerance is evident in modern politics. When critics question NATO's expansion or the IMF's economic grip, they're accused of echoing Putin or Hitler. A 2025 X post by @TheGrayzone_news called NATO a "tool of U.S. hegemony," sparking accusations of "Russian propaganda." The Consensus doesn't debate, it demonises, ensuring its institutions remain untouchable.

A Call for Clarity: History, Not Myth

The Post-War Consensus isn't inherently evil, but its sanctity is a problem. NATO has kept peace in Europe, but now pushes for war with Russia. It has also fuelled conflicts in Afghanistan and Libya. Churchill's leadership was crucial but marred by moral failures. To treat these as sacred is to abandon reason for faith, a betrayal of both conservative scepticism and Christian discernment.

Christians, especially, should lead the charge for truth. Their tradition of testing every claim against scripture, Hall's "Berean behaviour," equips them to question secular creeds. The Consensus's saints are human, its scriptures fallible, its sacraments political. Recognising this doesn't diminish the Allies' victory but grounds it in reality, not myth. Conservatives, too, must reject blind loyalty to globalism, reclaiming their commitment to sovereignty and localism.

The Church of Churchill thrives because we let it. It's time to open the history books, not as gospel, but as records of flawed humans navigating a brutal world. Only then can we break free from the Consensus's altar and reclaim a worldview rooted in truth, not dogma.

Postscript: Churchill's alcoholism is well known but not discussed by the Consensus. I knew a fellow who was a doorman at one of the establishment's where Churchill drank, most of the day. He once caught him from a fall, as he was leaving this place blind drunk, barely able to walk to his taxi.

https://insighttoincite.substack.com/p/the-church-of-churchill-understanding