The most brilliant and heroic period in British history?

From a 1976 interview with Aleksander Solzhenitsyn by the BBC:

I am surprised that pragmatic philosophy consistently scorns moral considerations - and nowadays in the Western press we read a candid declaration of the principle that moral considerations have nothing to do with politics. They do not apply, and should not, so to speak, be applied. I would remind you that in 1939 England thought differently. If moral considerations were not applicable to politics, then it would have been quite incomprehensible why on earth England went to war with Hitler's Germany.

Pragmatically, you could have got out of the situation. But England chose the moral course and experienced and demonstrated to the world perhaps the most brilliant and heroic period in its history.

Was he right? Was this the most brilliant and heroic period in British history?

Or do you have another candidate?

UPDATE: Solzhenitsyn may have said England but we intended this post to reflect British history. Apologies for any inadvertant confusion.

(Hat tip: Keith)

Comments

[Tony Francis]

The fact is, every philosophy has a moral component. When that philosophy is expressed in the laws of a country, it makes a moral statement, because those laws carry the express or implied connotation that the policing power of the state will be used to enforce them. Same thing applies to laws which are not passed. There is an implicit stamp of state approval of certain activities. So to discuss political philosophy absent morality is a myth, and always has been.

[Ben Maccer]

Thomas Paine put government in the same category as clothing after the fall in the garden of Eden, i.e. a mark of our loss of innocence. Presumably moral concerns are of the same line of thought - morals, clothes and government are all needed because we're imperfect social beings.

Anyway, in answer to the question, 1939-45 was definitely in the top three, but I wondered if 1807's abolition of the slave trade and its subsequent policies to enforce that ban was a good contender.

[Arbie]

"Pragmatically, you could have got out of the situation."

And pragmatically, we would then have had the world's most powerful military power in control of almost the entire continent, contravening every pragmatic principle of defence that Britain has held in the modern era. WWII certainly had a moral element to it, but it was fought out of the pragmatism of mere survival ahead of anything else.

[Technomist]

I tend to think Alfred's wars against the Danes were as heroic as the war against Hitler.

[ACT]

We can forgive a Russian, 'England': your excuse is harder to find.

[Richard Young]

I dunno, Arbie. Plenty of people here figured the Nazis could have Europe and we'd stick to the Empire.

1939-45? It's impossible not to get goose-bumps when you hear Churchill's speeches of the time - partly because he was a great orator, but also because our position was so fragile and our cause was seemingly moral (although not as moral as most people later discovered, of course). Brilliant and heroic, too.

A lot of our other historical triumphs have looked a bit tarnished through the filter of *modern* morality. The British Empire at its height (say... 1890-1920)? Pirates turned uber-capitalists with racist overtones. The Crusades? Richard the Lionheart was a bloodthirsty zealot. Magna Carta? Historical, maybe, but hardly moral, or heroic. The Elizabethan age? Again, the brilliance and heroism rather overshadowed by some pretty cynical politicking. I reckon AS had it about right.

[john]

It was Winston Churchill who lead the Brits when all other British political leaders either had shown a lack of morality in their leadership, or had stood by and been tainted by inaction in the face of pragmatism (in this case it was called appeasement). So Churchill's leadership brought forth the the morality of the decent and freedom-loving Brits and they stood for freedom, as in the olden times. Truly a great comeback it was, brilliant and most heroic, and it saved the world.

[Ted]

It wasn't the pragmatism of mere survival, the British Empire could have made a deal. Agree with Solzhenitsyn and with Niall Fergusson "in the end the British sacrificed their Empire to stop the Germans, Japanese and Italians from keeping theirs". The world would be a more terrible place had Britain stepped aside. For all the sins of Empire, when it came to it the British (be they UK, Canadian, Indian, Australian, West Indian, South African etc) hocked all the assets, sacrificed lives and stood alone.

[ged manchester]

A colour film from 30s on TV disemdodied spirits talked about what British did.They meant we/us.Whatever this country has done good or bad we were all in it.
My family have never exploited anyone,that is no excuse.
1939 was our proudest momennt, but on balance Britain has been a force for good for centuries,less ambitious, and selfish,more visionary and prepared to plan for the future, but with a greedy minority not confined to any class.
but we have had lapses in the past. Cromwell found the crown lying in the gutter, it could be there again shortly.

[Bernard Parke]

We came out of the war bankrupt.
Whilst our allies the U.S. and the soviet union acheived a great deal.
So much for morals.

[Nonplussed]

Well it's definately not now with its present state of petty beaurocratic enforcement and over zealous liberty bashing.

Bah!

[Tom Sykes]

I would add the wars against brutal French tyranny betwen 1792 and 1815 when the British, with a population of 6 million, saved Europe from 25 million Frenchmen and their allies.

Though our activity in India in teh same period was not quite so honourable!

[Dashingprince]

Britains stand at the battle of Britain was the greatest single moral statement of the last 500 years politically.

[Paul Owen]

Yes, undoubtedly 1939-40 was Britain at its best. We had no need to rush to the defence of Europe, the Nazis would have allowed us to continue as we were under a more amenable government, but we felt morally obliged to stand fast. In so doing we brought total war upon ourselves, citizens as well as armed forces and bankrupted ourselves for a generation. But had we not the world would look very different today. That, after all, is why the Norwegians send us that tree for Trafalgar Square every year. We have much to be ashamed of in our history, much we should look upon with regret. But we can be proud of the stand we took when others chose to look the other way.

[Laet Oliveira]

Considering the odds, the isolation, Dunkirk, V1/V2 bombing, et al, one can only admire your spirit. Forget philosophy, ethics and logic. Think only of the word spirit, and try to find another similar situation in world history. I couldn't think of any that comes close to what England did between 1939 and Dec/7/1941.

[Chris Best]

Solzhenitsyn's analysis is flawed. Economically, Britain could not have faced loss of Empire and a dominant European (and probably Russian - given the Wehrmacht would have turned east in 1940 instead of 1941) single superpower. Within a decade Britain would have been a minor anomaly in the unlikely event it stayed independent. But was the choice purely moral? Maybe only Churchill knew for sure. Brilliant and heroic though? Yes. To stand alone, for whatever reason, is heroic, more so even than 1801-15.

[Dr Andris Lielmanis]

23 March 2007 when 15 British sailors and marines surrendered without a shot and fraternized with their captors...Nelson would have been proud...Wellington would have been equally proud of the Army's collaboration with the militia in Basra, which allowed them to sit idly by as the Iraqis and the US troops battled the same militia.

[wpo]

To confuse the English actions during the thirties, with some sort of morality is quite silly. England chose to defend that which it had acquired, and was prepared to pay a great price, for that which it valued. That of course was the Empire, Imperial Preference, and all of that, what England had not included into the complex equation, was the possibility that she could win the situation, and still lose her Empire.

[Nosmo]

The First World War rivals the Second as most heroic period - although the "cause" was weaker, a far greater number of Britons died for their country, and for the idea of liberty. Of doubtful relevance: the common soldier had a far grimmer time of it in the muddied trenches of the former conflict.

[Dirk Bruere]

WW2? Pragmatically, Nazi Germany and the USSR would have fought themselves to exhaustion and a still-intact British Empire would, after 4 years of re-armamment, been quite capable of handling the remnants of whichever vicious dictatorship survived. Not to mention a little help from a nuclear armed USA, who would still have been an ally in our war with Japan. All that siding with Stalin against Hitler got us was a bankrupt nation.

[James Holloway]

The Puritan period, 1642-1659: in which the Puritans, led by Cromwell, achieved the victories over totalitarianism and definition of English liberties that were ratified by 1688 and 1776, Cromwell and the Puritans receive far less credit than they deserve, but they were the most remarkable group of men who ever lived, as Macaulay observed. Putney Church is the Bethleham of Anglo-American liberty.

[Danny Wright]

Britain was most heroic during the Battle of Basra in Iraq.

NOT!

[Dodgy Geezer]

"Or do you have another candidate.."

For Britain, there are lots. Not for nothing does the Chinese name for Britain translate to 'Land of Heros'

You could start with:

Alfred and the Danes
Elizabeth and the Spanish
Nelson and the French
.....

[Francis Purves]

Times of adversity are obvious candidates for being called heroic but surely the decisions countries make to redefine themselves and move forward voluntarily from the past are the more creditworthy. Proactive rather than reactive. For this, abolishing the monarchy and forming what alas became too short a republican commonwealth in 1653 must come top of the list as it established the foundation of what became the much vaunted enlightenment and sowed the seeds of the world's first nation of laws. If only the country was as bold today.

[Shane Fahy]

Give me a break. No country in the history of civilisation goes to war with another for 'moral' reasons and Britain is no different. They went to war in 1939 merely because they felt they had no choice. It was a matter for their very survival. Are we really to believe that the same entity that brutally colonised the world for so long suddenly developed a concience. This is the same nonsense that allowed the US to go into Iraq in 2003 on the pretense of at least partially caring about the Iraqi people. As I said, give me a break.

[William A. Ingram]

Perhaps if the British and French governments of the mid 1930's had more guts( or Bottle) than the Policay of Appeasement to oppose Hitler et.al when they moved back into Alsace, took over Austria and moved onto Czeckoslovakia then WW2 might have been avoided.
However Chamberlain and his ilk waving a piece of worthless paper Stating "Peace In Our Time" to be more effective than preparing for what was to come.
By 1945 - How many dead was it? 6 Million jews, 20 Million Russians,4.4Million Germans,4.3 milion Poles and a total cost estimated at 171 Thousand million pounds
Pragmatism be dammed - action was what was required!!

[L Smith]

It seems to me a rather well known politican once summed up this obvious "winner" exactly correctly - "It was their finest hour"

And it was.

[Lissa]

I'd vote for WWII, as well. It was a time when Britain had such moral character. Post-war, Britain seems to have undergone a strange confusion about its identity.

Anyway, had I not chosen WWII, Solzhenitsyn's writing would have given me pause to contemplate it. What a man!

But then, I live in the US, where anyone who can spell WWII is no doubt regarded as a great thinker and master of the arts nowadays. So perhaps thats a nostalgia for a time of great men, great thinkers and doers.

[will]

initially yes we could have been stupid and said you can ahve the continent if you leave us alone. but that would have lead to at best someone like moseley being a puppet and at worst, well this article wouldnt have been written and the time times would have been called something like die zeite.

but yes it was undoubtably when we where most heroic, the RAF fought off the luftwaffe, fisherman evacuated the BEF from dunkirk and old men and children signed up to be the first line of defence if we where to be invaded. to be blunt what Churchill said was correct. "if the British empire and her Commonwealth last 1000 years, people will forever remember this, as their finest hour"

while abolition of slavery was a great jesture, its not heroic, it was the decent thing to do, it didnt save the world from "descending into a new dark age"

where do we stnad today though? we negotiate with an illegal army in basra, our sailors get kidnapped in iran and one of them cries because he got called mr bean. Moral fibre? the only fibre we seem to have had lately is the stuff that makes ones trousers brown.
(not saying our soldiers, just our stupid do gooder, dont spank your children, nanny state, nhs loving politically correct politicians)

please let David Cameron be a man when hes PM in 2 years.

[domingo]

I do think this was the most heroic time in British history,followed by a similar time when Britain stood alone in Europe against tyranny,namely in the period of te Revolutionary/Napoleonic wars.

[Brendan Madley]

I would say it was against the Armada that Britain stood most heroically. Basically the entire continental Europe was devoutly Catholic and abhorred any 'heretics', but Britain said 'No, this is what we believe' and fought for that but also liberalism and freedom of speech and act. Never has Britain been so isolated against such a potent enemy.

[Mladen Andrijasevic]

Last year, as I was finishing reading Vol. 4 of Churchill’s “The Second World War”, I noticed the 6 volumes on several of my friends‘ bookshelves in Tel Aviv. Forty years ago it was considered a great bar mizvah present, I was told.

[Ray Massart]

Pragmatic philosophy and the ensuing pragmatism are in essence an attempt to give a practical meaning in the immediate here and now without any concern for metaphysical concepts whereas the moral values that determine a society have always been deduced in one way or the other from religious beliefs. It is obvious that the decline of religious convictions is mirrored by our crumbling moral standards and that a void has been created, a black hole, for which neither a pragmatic nor a humanistic philosophy have an answer.

[Zorbathejock]

I thought this was to be about British history.I hadn't realised that it was England that went to war with Hitler's Germany

[martin]

So where would nulabor be in this argument?

[Jingo]

Heroic Brtiain or heroic England? I seem to remember a lot of Scots, Welsh, and Irish lads giving their lives too. A little more consideration and a little less arrogance please.

[Nick]

For the six years prior to 1939 Great Britain did its best to not be involved and demonstrated little morality. With appeasement as a backdrop to suddenly crown 1939 as our most "moral hour" is maybe a little bit starry eyed. Pragmatic resasons played (understandably) a large role.

The moral course and the heroic course are not the same thing - the crusades were pretty "moral" bu that did not make them heroic - something that maybe needs to be highlighted by the article above

Abd after all

[Peter Brightman]

I believe Solzhenitzyn to be right in his assertion that 1939 was the "most brilliant and heroic period in Britain's history. There were many valid reasons not to go to war - appeasing the aggressor had many supporters, fortunately moral considerations did influence the final decision to fight and because of this the people of Europe and many countries have been free to live their lives without the slavery of Nazi domination. Surely no other period in Britain's history can claim such a far reaching conclusion?

[Niall Orr, Sydney]

Perhaps, The United Kingdom fighting Napoleon's French Empire in every Coalition War from 1803 to 1815? This included the Glorious First of June, Battle of Trafalgar, as well as Wellington's forces ultimately defeating the French at Waterloo.

This period was full of heroics, personalities and brilliance. It resulted in Pax Britannica ("The British Peace"), which was essential for the stability of the world through British dominance until the outbreak of the Great War.

Conversely, although the Second World War was undoubtedly heroic in character, the actions of the USSR and US were the foremost contributors to the fall of the Third Reich and the Axis Powers.

[ian payne]

During WW 1 & 2 !!!

[ludvig]

Apparently, not in Basra

[Chris]

The first few decades of the 1300s when Scotland succesfully resisted a brutal imperialist expansion and produced one of the most important declarations of liberty in history at Arborath in 1320.

[John Dean]

To have done a deal with Hitler was unthinkable for sure as 'eggs is eggs' he would have fudged it. The Nazis could never walk beside anybody as a friend and equal, they either had to strut in front, shout and wave his arms about or mince along behind in servility.

[Archie]

Three things: I'm firmly of the belief that British involvement in WWI was completely uneccessary and would probably have negated WWII and our bankruptcy, not to mention maintained our hold on the Empire for several more years enabling a more sedate transition to indigenous self-government.
Secondly; everyone seems to forget that Britain did not stand alone in 1940; the Empire, in the shape of Australia, Canada, India, New Zealand, South Africa etc. by and large rallied to the cause with commendable zeal and these were formidable forces to be reckoned with, to be later betrayed horribly by the arch-traitor Heath's EU fanaticism.
Thirdly; the moral and intellectual confusion which resulted from the US pressure to abandon the Empire to US commercial interests led to the immigration chaos which haunts us to this day.
As others have pointed out, we have much to be proud of and very little to be ashamed of, especially compared with other colonial powers.
I have frequently wondered what might have happened to Ghandi's independence movement if the British had not fought the battle of Kohima/Imphal and had instead withdrawn to a defensive line inside India and left the indigenous population to the tender mercies of Japanese occupation!
Finest hour? Certainly, and loads more besides!

[Calum]

England ceased to exist in 1707.

[Waldemar]

Solzhenitsyn was wrong. Britain has "declared" the war on Germany on the 3rd of September 1939 but in reality Britain did not lift her finger to help the Poles. It was a betrayal not only of the Poles but also betrayal of the 3.3 mln of the Polish Jews. That is why the Holocaust could proceed uninterrupted between 1939 and 1945.

The American Jews also did not help in any way the exterminated and brutalized Jews despite the clear factual evidence, appeals for help and even the suicides of some prominent Jewish leaders.

I can see no evidence of any "morality" here but plenty of very pragmatic political opportunism and plain cowardice.

Let’s face it if it is a crime not to stop and assist a victim of a road accident it surely is a crime to do nothing when the innocent people are being slaughtered every day for years. Or isn’t it?

Ironically the Polish pilots fought during the Battle of Britain very bravely and the 302 and 303 Fighter and 300 and 301 Bomber Squadrons are very proud chapters in a Polish military history.

[Edward I]

Scots kvetch and blabber on these weblogs whenever "England" is mistakenly used for "Great Britain". It really is rather childish and tiresome. Please desist and make room for real debate.

[Chris Bowman]

I am just really surprised to learn that my Glaswegian grandfathers were English.

Not as surprised as they would have been though.

Shame on you Finkelstein, and all other Brits on here equating England with Britain. Scotland gave more that it's share of lives, and it demeans the memory of all Brits that you forget so easily.

[Peter Dickinson]

The struggles against Hitler, Napolean, the Spanish Armada etc barely qualify under the terms of this debate. Fighting somebody who threatens you is not actually heroic in itself - it is logical self-defence. How about abolishing the global slave trade, which, until the British Empire took a stand, had gone on since time immemorial? Driven by a moral imperative that would shame most modern politicians, tens of thousands of Brits gave the best years of their lives (and very often died in the process) fighting against this evil. It remains one of the greatest achievements of world civilisation.

[HB]

Well, refusing tens of thousands of Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany in the thirties and forties, as well as inventing the concentration camps in the Boer Wars in 1900 must surely be up there with Britain's most heroic deeds...Or being the worlds largest slaves and drugs dealer in the 19th century....Britain sacrificed its empire to save the world? Yeah right, its easy to say that afterwards. "History is written by the Winners"

[Graeme]

Yes, as several people have already pointed out, just as Russia tended to actively ignore the existence of smaller countries within the USSR, so the blundering behemoth of the world's most self-obsessed nation - England - is happy to forget that it is only one-quarter of the UK.

The history of the UK and/or the British Isles is not just that of England - and to happily follow Solzhenitsyn's "mis-speak" in crediting England alone in fighting Nazism is deeply insulting to the other three-quarters of the UK.

[Graeme]

Oh, and Edward (10.01.46), I think you'd take a different view if you kept being told that your country was "Wales". It's only the childish who thoughtlessly disenfranchise others.

[Jim]

There were other moments within British history, certainly, that could compare to WW2, but none rival the sheer courage and moral audacity of saying to Hitler, Conqueror of Europe, "we wont surrender, you will have to break us or lose the war." It's the stuff of legends. I'm not British but I live here in the UK and if I was asked to nominate "their finest hour" it would have to be those dark years the UK saw down the evil of fascism in Europe and from which great stand led to its eventual defeat.

[Julian Ellison]

Voting Churchill out of office in 1945 was the most heroic act of the British people. It showed the world that winning a war was not enough. People wanted social justice as much as military victory, and the democratic institutions had survived the war to make this possible.

[Shirley]

Is anybody really interested in the totally puerile British/English sidebar except a few jocks and pedants?
Move along please, back to the rather more interesting debate at hand.

[Edward I]

Do pipe down, Graeme. There's a good Scot.

[Chris Bowan]

My thanks to Daniel for amending the above article.

I fully agree with Solzhenitsyn. I think people now forget just how dark those days were. Most Britons fully expected to lose the war, yet they stood up and fought regardless. As Jim says, the stuff of legends.

[Chris McComb]

Of the responces here, refer to survival and economic woes during and after the war.To be able to fight for survival one needs to have beliefs and the greatest cornerstone of belief is morality.
America made a fortune out of the war as they are still doing today.Selling arms to the very people they are fighting.Money and morals?-Never the twine shall meet.

[Jens Hansen]

Going to war in 1939 was not heroic. Chamberlain tried to remain in office by making an open-ended commitment to Poland. Alas, the policy was called in full.

However, by standing alone against Germany from the fall of France in June 1940 to the beginning of the German attack on the Sovietunion in the fall of 1941, Britain showed true heroism. That remains the finest hour of any nation in European civilisation.

[steve]

In my view 1939/40 was our finest hour. However I think it unfortunate that people tend to dismiss the modern generation. The Falklands was not that long ago & our troops were not found wanting. To pick on a few individuals who may not have behaved in a perfect manner in Iran is unfair. All eras have Heros & those that are less than perfect (most of us). In most cases from Iraq to Afghanistan our troops are not found wanting. I am 56 so therefore not defending my own generation balance is what is required when making judgements

[Roman Freitag]

It was their finest hour. Although the Czech people would disagree a bit since they were let down badly just before hand by Britain & France signing the Munich Agreement Sept. 1938. Despite the fact that the Agreement was popular with most people in Britain, Churchill was against it. The critics pointed out that no only had the British Government behaved dishonorably, but lost the support of Czech Army, one of the best in Europe.

[Richard]

Whilst Sep 1939 was brave, Britain's continuing defiance in June 1940 after the French had been crushed was even braver.

Whilst France was in the fight a WW1 stalemate type situation (painful but not mortally threatening) was probably the reasonable assumption.

However with the fall of France a completely overwhelmed Britain was on the ropes. We had no-one to turn to (except the brave but distant empire nations, Poles etc) and no-where to go.

The Nazis would have allowed us to bow out (we had the empire and they had Europe) but Britain chose defiance and fought on. That was incredibly gutsy and for me, the single most important act that has shaped the modern world.

If the USSR defeated Hitler on land, Britain and her allies allowed them the platform to do so. Without that platform I don't think they could have done it.

[Ian Dickson]

Shane Fahy, you're spouting bilious nonsense. Britain went to war with Germany because she had a treaty with Poland which Hitler put to the test when he invaded in September 1939. Britain could have turned the other cheek but didn't. She honoured her agreement and the result is today you are free from a tyranny that would have blighted Europe. You should be grateful.

[Tim]

The railings of the other bits of the UK against "England" on here highlights something very interesting in today's history and politics. I think WW2 is the prime mover of the nationalism of the 'client' countries in the Union (and the foreign confusion of Scotland as being part of England as pretty telling on where the (correctly) perceived balance of power lies.)

WW2 cost the British Empire to stop the Nazi Empire. A pyrrhic victory.
As the Empire went, the identity and nationalism of the dominions was ever sharpened, a process started by the Irish in WW1 in fact.
This arc continues today in a sweep of nationalism and the fracture of Scotland and Wales from the Union. I see their departure as inevitable, and a logical consequence of the events set in train by fighting the Nazi Empire to the death.

Some irony there - Hitler, the Father of the Republic of Scotland.

[Robert El-Cid]

Great Britain engaged in WW2 because of national fervour and rightousness. The morality of the situation did not enter the equation and the word is incorrectrly used. It is to Solzhenitsyn's great credit that he relied upon the sorrow and pity of human conflict in his overview of the international tragedies of Russia and Europe.

[Arrow]

dear edward
it is not kvetch and blabber when Scots get p*ssed off being referred to as English. it is simple ignorance on the part of English people who do not know or care. those from abroad it is understandable when they are only able to read Britain and England are interchangable. on holiday i called an Englishman Scottish and he was quite upset. why? if it is good enough to dish out then it is good enough to accept.

[Mike]

Although our actions in WWII were truly courageous, I would argue that they were not, ultimately, heroic.

Any use of violence will only beget further violence. If Britain had not entered the war, its possible that Europe would have been ruled by a Communist USSR for 50 years. But even now we can see that this would no longer be the case, since the Berlin Wall colleapsed in 1989. Nothing lasts forever, expecially flawed regimes (watch out America!)

How much "evil" was released into the collecitive unconscious of Europe as a result of WWII.

For me our greatest our hour must be a moment of great moral imperative not one of political/power based action.

For this I would nominate the abolition of the slave trade. This action revolutionised a behaviour which had been "acceptable" to societies since the birth of ancient civilisations. Britain voluntarily legislated for the freedom of individuals for the first time in history without having to fight a 5 year civil war (sorry - USA!)

This was a turning point in the evolution of humanity far greater than any political or military action.

[Edward, Cheltenham]

Not finest hour, but perhaps finest moment: In the aftermath of Britain's humiliating defeat in the American Revolution, and British General Carlton faces Washington to discuss surrender terms. Washington demands the return of thousands of escaped American slaves who'd fought for the British, including some of his own. Carlton, without a leg to stand on, simply refused to dishonour the promise of freedom. Washington backed down, and Carlton unwittingly struck a blow for freedom which led to abolition.

Point of fact for one respondent - the British didn't invent concentration camps in 1900, the Spanish did in Cuba 20 or so years earlier.

[Dave Proctor]

The usual mish-mash of ill-infored, often American, comment. Nosmo, we didn't ally ourselves with Stalin against Hitler. Stalin was upplying hitler with war materials for 18 months whilst we stood alone and only ceased after the Nazi invasion.
As for all the comments about brutal British colonialism, most British colonies wouldn't have swapped places to be ruled by one of the other colonial powers who were far more brutal and exploitative than we were. Which is why most are quite happy to maintain British traditions, legal system and language whilst remaining in the Commonwealth.

[G Blezard]

The history of England is a history of standing against tyranny in all its forms.Religios political and legal.One has to ask the question HOW and the WHY it has stood so succesively on so may ocasions.
Two european wars.Two world wars.
The only reasonable answer is its biblical christian heritage.
While France turned to the guilotene for the answer of all ist troubles England hear john welsey preach the gospel.
When England face defeat and ruin (denied by ignorant men)The King of England called upon the country not to 'faiths' but to GOD.The response and what followed is a matter of history. and FACTS are stubborn things.

G Blezard

[John Jarman]

I rather suspect the "appeasement" of most Politicians of the day (1939)was down to the fact that they remembered the horrors of the first war and would do anything to avert a repeat. That in itself is not dishonourable. One cannot look at the second war without understanding the first as they are intrinsicly linked. The fact Britain was bankrupted was down to the machinations of Roosevelt and his communist staff who were hell bent on preventing the British and the French from resuming where they left off in 1939. Why else did Britian alone in the alliance have to pay back in full their war debt. A debt only finally cleared in 2007.
Apart from her politicians, which I suspect are no better or worse than politicians the world over, I have a great deal of respect for America and its people in general, I have yet to meet one I didn't like.
Britains finest hour is yet to come, otherwise it is downhill all the way.

[Luke T]

Britans finest hour was wehn the people voted out the Cconservative in 1998 and chose a leader of love and compasion

[james]

obviously, luke t, you are a product of the education policy of the 'great leader of love and compassion'?
the uk took a stand and as a result won the war, but as chester wilmot says, lost everthing while the united states gained everything.
pax britannica is dead, long live pax americanna.

[Tony]

Edward – re your “point of fact” - yes, the British didn't invent concentration camps in 1900, but neither did the Spanish in Cuba 20 or so years earlier. It was the US in 1830, as means of killing off the Cherokee.

[Chris]

The Spanish Amada, fought by the British? I think not. It was 1588, and Britain hadn't even been formed. That was England v Spain, not Great Britain v Spain. Any history before 1707 was England (or Scotland), it could never be Britain.

[Luke T]

I recieved a top-class secondary ediucation, thanks james. And yes it was after Tony B came to ofice. you can't even spell americana. fool.

[John Buckeridge]

Has to be the invasion of Iraq when the UK defeated the mighty Iraqi army, thereby saving the world from impending nuclear annihilation. UK troops were then welcomed with open arms by the local citizenry who were overjoyed to see Challenger tanks rolling through their ruined cities.

[William Hoffman]

The 1939 - 1941 period was an amazingly brave and heroic period in British history. The leadership was so solid in the goal of winning and 'we will never surrender'.

Britian was alone, the US was not interested in war - with only limited help coming. The massive German army across the Channel - those had to be trying times.

As an American who lived a while in London (3 years) - our London office worked with a German division. I remember many times thinking as the Germans visited London for meetings, how much restraint it would take to forgive the Germans for the Blitz. To stand and fight and take the bombing and continue on each day trying to live a life - that is a brave and heroic people.

You British held the world for the future until the Americans could rally support (thank you Japan) to eventually defeat evil. Very proud time in your long, illustrous history.

[ged manchester]

Strange things morals. During my National service I heard of a man who blew up German shells after the war. There were reports that people in a nearby village had become sick.Investigations showed the shells were full of a chemical no one had ever heard of. It was sarin a nerve gas powerful enough to wipe out entire armies. There was much speculation as to why Hitler did not use it. Some said it was a speech by Churchill declaring we would match anything the Germans used. A complete bluff because we had no idea of its existence.
Do you think that perhaps even Hitler balked at such an obscene weapon? It did not stop other countries developing further more powerful examples after the war.
Which rather puts him on a higher moral plane.

[Daphne Kenward]

The best time the British ever had was under Oliver Cromwell, & Queen Elizebeth 1st.

[Alex]

Luke, are you trying to be sarcastic with your "top-class secondary" level grammar and spelling?

Caustic too, I see. Truly a child of this generation's love and compassion. Charmed.

BTW, Our island's most heroic period was September 1939 - August 1945. Other periods are contenders but don't come close on balance of the points made above.

Voting in Blair on their manifesto? Risible in comparison.

[John Reeks]

There is absolutely nothing which can compare to World War Two, which included all of society and not just a fragment. The defeat of the Spanish Armada, or the victory over Napoleon, were wonderful moments for sure but they are not truly moments in which all Britain can take such pride as the Second World War. It was a total war which brought hardship, suffering and death, yet the British people got their heads down and dutifully played a part in securing victory. And, as Solzhenitsyn said, it was a war we could probably have avoided if we had been so minded. We sacrificed an empire and paid heavy dues, all in the name of Britain's finest hour.

[Richard M]

It is quite simple for me - the most heroic period in British history was during the Napoleonic Wars when we stood squarely against the tyrant and created the conditions for British supremacy through the 19th Century.

[margaret]

What about King Harold and his army marching north to deal with the Danes then turning round and marching back to Hastings to try and repel William the Conqueror's army,which he almost suceeded in doing.He may not have been victorious, but it was certainly heroic.

[JONB]

Luke T - "you can't even spell"
'recieved'
'ediucation'
'ofice'

Oh, the irony! Great to finally see the results of Blair's policies. When you learn a bit more about political history as you get older you will realise the greater folly of your earlier remarks. The 'natural' party of government will be back in power before you know it. Watch and learn.

[tired and emotional]

The moment will be when we shake off the dead hand of Brussels and stand free again

[Luke T]

you make me sick, jonB. The liberal demcrats are not the "natural party of goverment and never will be. New Labour is what rescued this country and you just cant accept that. you must have psichological problems or be one bagette short of a picnic.

alex - your comment is so rude that i will not dignify it with a reply

[NATALIE]

I'd just like to thank everyone for enlivening my work day. Especially you, Luke T, for you hilarious riposte to James. May i suggest your response would have had more weight had you not mis-spelled both "office" and "education" - top class indeed...

[Steve Charlton]

He was partly right, maybe that war brought us economic ruin, but what about the technological advances (more for our so called allies than us) and the slum clearance programme provided free by the Luftwaffe. However our brave forebears efforts have been wasted by Labour who know very little about foreign affairs. Indeed very little about anything. Once we were Lions lead by Donkeys, now it seems we are Donkeys lead nobodies.

[IanMac]

The most heroic period in our history-without doubt -Mel Gibson in Braveheart!

Although Robert The Bruce at Bannockburn comes a close second!

[john]

Nelson: Copenhagen, Trafalgar

[Mike Lea]

Perhaps the most heroic, and often unheralded period of English history, was during the reign of Queen Anne, when Marlborough defeated the French in battle after battle, most famously at Blenheim in 1704. His skills as a general exceeded Wellington's and he also had to deal with greater political intrigues.

[ahem]

Judging by the comments, you can be damned sure 2008 isn't one of them.

[Dan Sweeney]

I have no doubts that the actions of UK and Empire soldiers sailors (Merchant and RN) and air force personnel during WWII were among the most heroic actions of the peoples of the British Isles (including volunteers from RoI). Unfortunately they were, as in the previous european family squabble, lions led by donkeys.
The question of morality is dubious as we were aware of the Nazis intentions to rid Europe of 'Jewry' and did nothing about it. I note a difference in the collective guilt complex around slavery copared to the lack thereof re the Holocaust.

[alison]

Why do people insist on bringing up the now contradicted analysis on Basra in this thread? Petty minded?

[Jonathan]

The declaration of war over Poland followed the capitulation over Czechoslovakia. However there did appear to be some measure of principle involved, albeit underpinned by pragmatism. WWII helped define the British character much as did the rescue of enemy sailors after Trafalgar or the Charge of the Light Brigade. We are at our best when we stand by our principles of justice, freedom, fairness and support for the underdog and at our worst when we abandon them.

[JONB]

Luke T

The 'natural' party of government I was referring to was of course the Conservatives who governed for most of the last century, Britain is a free market capitalist economy so it is only natural that a right leaning party is best suited to governing, socialist parties are therefore traditionally seen as the opposition and they are elected in protest, ie labour doesn't win elections, conservatives lose them as most Britons are naturally right leaning. And I think I can safely say without fear of contradiction that New Labour did not 'save' this country as you suggest, rather they have made it worse - but don't take my word for it - take a look at any opinion poll in the last year and wake up. Change is coming, only the Conservatives aren't going to need to change the name of their party or their ideology in order to get elected.

[hugh brennan]

Dear Brits, Something has gone terribly wrong with you. Perhaps it is a symptom of a decline in educational standards, but an awful lot of the comments contain needless breast beating over various "shameful" incidents in your history.
By what standard of historical comparison do you find Britain's actions requiring all these apologies? Which nation, empire, tribe, society, clan, culture or civilization can you point to that has had, on the whole, a more positive influence on humanity? I am curious where did these notions of national disgrace originate, and why are they so widespread?
As an Irish-American I was born to resent the "bloody Saxons", but how can I deny that the Mother and her children comprise the bulk of the handful of nations in which the bulk of the citizens can live decent, humane and just lives. I'm glad to speak ( a version of ) English, read Shakespeare and obey common law! As to bright moments: Agincourt, Trafalgar, Battle of Britain. Common now "Hearts of Oak", after all, at least you weren't born French!

[Lawrence Ash]

Undoubtedly the arrival of the SS Windrush. For this heralded a new beginning for Britain; one where history does not matter; only a clear view forward. Making this country multi-racial was the beginning of our new golden age.

[Speaker of Truth]

Britain was multi-racial before Windrush, Lawrence Ash. I also suspect that you a trolling to bait Daily Mail reader types.