Back in the 1940s a lot of people in the UK hated Churchill - certainly my father who had been in the RAF WW2 loathed him. He was seen as wanting to return the UK to the pre-war status-quo - which is most definitely not what a lot of people were fighting for and why Attlee's Labour government (which gave us the NHS) was voted in as soon as the war ended.

Interesting, I had always heard him as being praised. A quick glance at Wikipedia shows some of the controversy.

"Widely considered one of the 20th century's most significant figures, Churchill remains popular in the UK and Western world, where he is seen as a victorious wartime leader who played an important role in defending Europe's liberal democracy from the spread of fascism. Also praised as a social reformer and writer, among his many awards was the Nobel Prize in Literature. Conversely, his imperialist views and comments on race, as well as his sanctioning of human rights abuses in the suppression of anti-imperialist movements seeking independence from the British Empire, have generated considerable controversy."

I guess it's always important to look outside your current 'bubble' and see what others think.

The sections on the Bengal famine gives a stronger indication of why he's so divisive.

It's just like with FDR for conservatives - for most, his greatness as a wartime leader generally overpowers whatever bad he may or may not have done elsewhere. I'd argue that Stalin ought to be looked at in a similar (but perhaps less idealized) light.

Sure.

But the UK actually lost the war. To the US.

The British don't idealize Churchill, right-wing British and Americans do.

He was not even that popular in his finest hour, as head of a cross-party coalition wartime government, being kicked out of office by the British people before the war had even ended and never once won the popular vote in any general election.

Edit: Someone obviously doesn't like easily verifiable facts.

He’s an incredibly popular icon and often tops any historic figure polls in the UK. Election results after the second world war don’t really mean much to his legacy. He also had (so far) the last state funeral in the UK, lasting for 4 days, something that is usually reserved for royalty.

His witticisms are often fondly repeated, and some of his most famous portions of his speeches are known to everyone in England. You also find some of his most famous pictures (cigar-toting v for victory) in a lot of places.

That’s not to say people adore him or would dislike you for talking poorly of him, but it’s a much wider segment of the population than you suggest.

It’s an interesting problem though. People are aware of his racism and more controversial actions, but the feeling is that it doesn’t really matter. For leading our country through a fight for its very survival, he gets a free pass, because who is to say that we’d be around to discuss winning WW2 if another man was in charge.

He did win the 1951 general election:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1951_United_Kingdom_general_el...

Yes, without winning the popular vote. From your link:

     Churchill: 13,717,851
        Attlee: 13,948,385

That doesn't really count for anything in our election system.

The point was about Churchill's popularity in Britain (real vs myth), not the British electoral system.