Churchill and de Gaulle: a strange relationship

Summary

Podcast Summary: Churchill and de Gaulle — A Strange Relationship

HistoryExtra Podcast | Host: James Osborne | Guest: Richard Vinan
Episode Date: February 2, 2026

---

Overview of the Episode

This episode explores the complex and often tempestuous relationship between British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and French leader Charles de Gaulle—two titans whose personal dynamics and visions shaped the trajectories of their nations during and after the Second World War. Historian Richard Vinan, author of The Last Titans, joins host James Osborne to discuss their backgrounds, personalities, mutual perceptions, collaborative struggles, and enduring legacies.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Context and Early Lives

• Britain and France at Birth
  • Churchill (b. 1874) grew up as part of a dominant British Empire; De Gaulle (b. 1890) in a still-powerful France.
  • Both witnessed the shift of global power to America during their lifetimes.
  • “That’s the beginning of what an American journalist calls the American century, at which point America obviously overtakes Britain and France.” (Richard Vinan, 01:20)
• Different Upbringings
  • Churchill: Born into aristocracy and fame, groomed for leadership (“famous from the day he’s born").
  • De Gaulle: Provincial nobility—much more modest, expected a military, not political, career. He was little-known even at the outbreak of WWII.
  • “Churchill...is famous even before he enters the House of Commons… De Gaulle…when de Gaulle arrives in London 1940…he's still an obscure figure to the French.” (Richard Vinan, 03:20)

2. Personalities and Leadership Styles

• De Gaulle’s Reserve and Mystique
  • Awkward, towering, preferred silence; could be intimidating, reserved, even shy. Leadership built on “mystery.”
  • “Leadership depends on this sense of mystery.” (Richard Vinan, 06:07)
• Churchill’s Expressiveness
  • Shorter, plump, extremely emotive and sociable, witty, dominating conversations; always “on display.”
  • “You’re very unlikely to face an uncomfortable silence if you’re talking to Churchill.” (Richard Vinan, 07:01)

3. Their Meeting and Wartime Alliance

• Why Churchill Chose De Gaulle
  • Not out of preference—rather, “there’s no one else, really” (“de Gaulle comes over...Churchill likes him...He admires courage, and de Gaulle’s extraordinarily brave in 1940”).
  • De Gaulle was leader of only a tiny group at first; Churchill was always seeking alternatives if needed.
  • “If Churchill had found someone who he thought suited British interests better, then he’d have backed that person and abandoned de Gaulle.” (Richard Vinan, 09:36)
• De Gaulle’s Motivations and Nationalism
  • Driven by an “abstract idea” of France—less about the French people, more about France’s greatness.
  • “France cannot be herself without greatness.” (de Gaulle, via Vinan, 12:50)
  • Willing to risk hardship for France’s dignity and identity, even if it meant suffering.

4. Collaboration and Conflict

• Stormy Relationship
  • Marked by spectacular arguments and fundamental differences in priorities.
  • Churchill prioritized military victory and unity, de Gaulle obsessed with asserting French sovereignty and dignity.
  • “There are moments when they're really very bitter arguments between the two men...particularly moments immediately before D-Day...” (Richard Vinan, 14:03)
• Political Versus Military Roles
  • De Gaulle was not leader of a government-in-exile; he insisted on his status and the defense of sovereignty, seeing his primary role as political rather than military.

5. Language, Writing, and Mythmaking

• Mastery of Language
  • Both men were authors and skilled orators, unusually writing their own material and understanding the power of words.
  • “De Gaulle has a very interesting phrase...‘The book is the man.’ And that's very true of de Gaulle. His personality is very much expressed in books.” (Richard Vinan, 18:22)
• Artistry in History
  • Both considered “artists of history”—conscious of the stories they were shaping for posterity and national myth.
  • “The great artist of a great history.” (de Gaulle about Churchill, quoted by Vinan, 19:09)

6. Postwar Legacies and Decline

• Contrasting Postwar Roles
  • Churchill’s postwar leadership (1951–55) largely viewed as unsuccessful—a figure rooted in the past, struggling to find relevance.
  • De Gaulle, by contrast, returned as President (1958), reshaped France, and accepted a new place for the nation in the world.
  • “In some ways, de Gaulle's great achievement is to be a peacetime leader more than a wartime leader.” (Richard Vinan, 20:56)
• Attitudes to Power and Old Age
  • Churchill clung to power, feared irrelevance and old age—“he finds old age terribly difficult.”
  • De Gaulle was comfortable leaving power, content in private life—“In a funny kind of way, he's modest about himself… he can take it or leave it.” (23:37)
• Last Encounters
  • Their final meetings were cordial and personal; Churchill, by the end, was outshone by de Gaulle’s ongoing significance. “By the early 60s...there’s a kind of terrible contrast...Churchill is having this very slow, tragic descent into old age...On the other hand, Charles de Gaulle is the subject of repeated assassination attempts. And there's nothing that makes de Gaulle more important than the fact that people want to kill him.” (Richard Vinan, 27:16)

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On De Gaulle’s Ideals:
  “I was frightened that the French would survive as a nation of cooks and hairdressers.” (de Gaulle, via Vinan, 12:50)
• On Churchill’s and De Gaulle’s Relationship:
  “If Churchill had found someone who he thought suited British interests better, then he’d have backed that person and abandoned de Gaulle.” (Richard Vinan, 09:36)
• On Leadership and Mystery:
  “Leadership depends on this sense of mystery.” (Richard Vinan on de Gaulle, 06:07)
• On Mythmaking:
  “There is a sense in which de Gaulle always understands that what he's telling is a fairy story. But he would also say, but fairy stories matter and a nation needs stories about itself.” (Richard Vinan, 19:31)
• On Postwar France vs. Britain:
  “France is able to look forward. There is a way in which Britain becomes kind of trapped by its own victory and its own kind of very, very honourable, heroic position in 1940.” (Richard Vinan, 23:37)
• On the End of Careers:
  “In a way, de Gaulle has a happier end. De Gaulle, I think, is more at ease with his own mortality than Churchill ever was.” (Richard Vinan, 25:29)

---

Important Segment Timestamps

• [01:45–04:23] — Early backgrounds and upbringings
• [05:04–07:43] — Character sketches: what it was like to meet de Gaulle and Churchill
• [08:22–12:22] — Why Churchill chose de Gaulle, de Gaulle’s resolve, and abstract patriotism
• [13:29–15:57] — How their alliance played out; conflict before D-Day; political versus military roles
• [16:28–18:57] — Mutual respect, shared appreciation of language and mythmaking
• [20:16–23:37] — Postwar influence: Churchill’s decline, de Gaulle’s modernizing leadership
• [25:49–28:46] — End of their careers, contrasting attitudes to legacy, and their final meeting
• [29:19–31:38] — Are there modern equivalents? (Thatcher, Macron, Mitterrand)

---

Conclusion

The episode paints a vivid portrait of Churchill and de Gaulle, not only as historical giants but as men of starkly differing temperaments, ambitions, and legacies. Their sometimes fraught partnership reflected broader shifts in world power and the challenge of leading nations through existential crises — and left myths and stories that shaped the collective memory of Britain and France for decades to come.

Transcript

[Thrive Cosmetics Advertiser]

Some days you just want to amplify your everyday look, like when you want the look of false lashes without the extra effort. Reach for Thrive Cosmetics Liquid Lash Volumizer Mascara or when you want all eyes on your smile. Keep Empower Gloss Ultra Glossy Lip Serum in your bag. It's a burst of 24 hour hydration that smooths like a serum, shines like a gloss and can be worn sheer or layered. You'll always look and feel your best with Thrive Cosmetics. Plus, every product is 100% vegan, cruelty free and made with clean skin loving ingredients that work with your skin. Not again against it. Amplify your everyday go to thrivecosmetics.com shine26 for an exclusive offer of 20% off your first order. That's Thrive Cosmetics. C-A U S E M E T-I C S.com shine26.

[Podcast Host Introduction]

Welcome to the History Extra podcast. After France fell in 1940, it was Charles de Gaulle who led the Free French forces against Nazi Germany and Vichy France. From the moment he assumed that position, de Gaulle was locked into a relationship with British Prime Minister Winston Churchill. The two men and their relationship is a subject explored in depth by Richard Vinan in his new book, the Last Titans. Here, in conversation with James Osborne, he shares his insights into these leading figures, the dynamics between them and their lasting impact.

[James Osborne]

Richard, your book the Last Titans is this twin portrait of Winston Churchill and Charles de Gaulle. Before we begin looking at these two men, can you first take us into the changing world that they inhabited and perhaps the geopolitical context of their two countries? Because we know them both as war leaders, but there's also much more to it, isn't there?

[Richard Vinan]

So when Churchill is born in 1874, Britain is really the most powerful empire the world has ever seen. And when de Gaulle is born in 1890, France is not quite the same kind of power, but she's still a great imperial power with large possessions overseas. And Britain and France are in lots of ways kind of dominant powers, although in economic terms, America is already on the horizon. America as a military power is nothing compared to Britain and France at that stage. And then obviously in the course of their lives, this changes. So by the time Winston Churchill first goes to America, America's really overtaken Britain as an economy. And then I suppose the key date really is December 1941, when America comes into the Second World War. That's the beginning of what an American journalist calls the American century, at which point America obviously overtakes Britain and France. And so there's this kind of double drama that de Gaulle and Churchill are living through, where on the one hand, they're war leaders in a war they win, but on the other hand, they're also seeing the kind of tectonic plates slip away underneath them as their countries cease to be these great dominant powers.

[James Osborne]

So they're born into this world of British and French power, but that power is waning and America is on the ascendancy.

[Richard Vinan]

Absolutely. Yeah.

[James Osborne]

Okay. And then on a really broad level here, I want to trace their early stories before they come to dominate both of their nation's landscapes in the Second World War. What do we know about their childhood, perhaps their early years before they became the leaders who we now know them.

[Richard Vinan]

As well, they're very different kinds of upbringings in the sense that in some ways, Churchill is famous from the day he's born, because his grandfather is a duke and his father is a very eminent politician. So it's almost like Churchill as a public figure as a child, and then, in addition to that, as a writer and a journalist. He's famous by the time he's 25. So he's famous even before he enters the House of Commons, which he does at a very young age. De Gaulle has, I suppose, a more modest upbringing. He comes from what he calls minor, kind of provincial nobility. But really, his father has to work for his living. De Gaulle would have had to work for his living. And de Gaulle is a professional soldier, a man, I think, who expects to spend his whole career in the army in a way that Churchill probably never does. And de Gaulle is slightly known in the 1930s. But when de Gaulle arrives in London 1940, which he does at the age of 49, he's still an obscure figure to the French. I mean, most French people don't know how to spell his name, don't know what he looks like. Whereas Churchill, by that stage, of course, has been very, very famous since 1900, 40 years.

[James Osborne]

So Churchill's background has set him up as this figure of fame from this background of aristocratic power. He's already well known. People know who he is. Whereas de Gaulle has come from much more humble origins. He's a much more modest figure, at least in terms of his background. I now want to move towards their time as leaders. I think listeners will already have an image in their mind of who they think Churchill was, of course, but de Gaulle is a much more opaque figure. If you were going to go to have dinner with Charles de Gaulle, who would you be sat across from? And I don't mean he's the leader of France, I mean, who as a person.

[Richard Vinan]

Well, I think it would be probably an uncomfortable dinner unless you were actually a member of his family. I think he's very good with his own family. He's in some ways a more kind of easy father and husband than Churchill is. But to almost all outsiders, he's a more awkward figure. So he's extremely tall, especially tall by the standards of Frenchmen of his age, over 6 foot 5. He is very good at being silent, which can be slightly disconcerting. So in the 1960s, when people come to see him, he sometimes begins a meeting with just the words, je vous et coute. I'm listening. Which of course is a completely chilling way to begin a conversation. And he's not a man who naturally puts other people at their ease. He's, in a funny kind of way, he's quite a modest man. I mean, Churchill is always performing, he's always on display. And de Gaulle, I think, is not like that. I think sometimes actually de Gaulle's quite shy, although like lots of shy people, he can also be quite intimidating.

[James Osborne]

Do you not think that that is a performance in its own right, or is that just really who he is?

[Richard Vinan]

A bit of both. So, yeah, he does kind of learn to perform, and he probably learns that more self consciously and later than Churchill. But there's also, I think, a sense in which de Gaulle is a very naturally reserved man. So even people who work with him don't always feel they fully understand him. He says that leadership depends on this sense of mystery. And there's also a sense in which the circumstances under which he becomes a leader sometimes require him to be mysterious.

[James Osborne]

So perhaps one of the reasons why I said he's this opaque figure and that he's less understood is simply because he is inherently less understandable.

[Richard Vinan]

Yes, I think he is a hard man to understand. He's an inscrutable figure.

[James Osborne]

And for the sake of completeness, can you paint the picture of Churchill in his prime war leader years? In this same scenario, who would we be sat across from?

[Richard Vinan]

Well, Churchill is much shorter than de Gaulle, I guess a foot shorter than de Gaulle. He's plump, he is very emotionally expressive. So he's a man who smiles easily, who laughs easily, who cries easily cries in public, but right into his old age. He is very witty, he is very talkative. So you're very unlikely to face an uncomfortable silence if you're talking to Churchill. And sometimes probably you're going to find it quite hard to get a word in edgeways. He can be immensely charming, although he's also a very ruthless man. And of course, for most of his life, like the grand aristocrat that he is, and also like the important politician he is, he's surrounded by other people who are there to kind of do his bidding.

[James Osborne]

So they're both these kind of strange figures, really, aren't they? They are not usual people. On the one hand, you have de Gaulle, who is awkward and silent and comfortable, and perhaps all of this is intentional to some extent. And then, on the other hand, you have Churchill, who is expressive, emotional, at ease with himself and witty. But despite all their differences, these two men are drawn together over the course of their lives, and they did develop a relationship. So as France falls and Philippe Petain establishes the Vichy regime, Churchill brings de Gaulle across to London. Why him?

[Richard Vinan]

Because there's no one else, really. So that de Gaulle comes over. I mean, he comes over for the first time to London a bit earlier, on 9 June, which is when he first meets Churchill, in fact. And Churchill likes him. So he likes someone who displays resolution in the face of impending defeat. But he doesn't understand who de Gaulle is. He says de Gaulle is a figure on the general staff of Weygond. Vagond, the French commander. De Gaulle, by that stage, is under Secretary of State for War, and he's very emphatic that Weygond, the commander, answers to him rather than vice versa. Then they meet again during the kind of desperate meetings in France that take place as the French government is actually retreating away from Paris towards Bordeaux, where it takes refuge at first, and Churchill later recalls having said at this stage to de Gaulle, d', Estaing, the man of destiny. Now, it's not clear whether he ever did say that. De Gaulle always denies he says it, but either way, Churchill has clearly clocked that de Gaulle's an exceptional kind of person. I think he's sentimentally attracted to de Gaulle. He admires courage, and de Gaulle's extraordinarily brave in 1940. But at the same time, Churchill knows lots of other French people better than he knows de Gaulle. And there are lots of other French people who are much more important than de Gaulle. So Mondel, who's Minister of the Interior, is someone the British place a lot of hope in. Vagond, the French commander who, again, Churchill has known since the First World War, lots of British people have known since the First World War, and who, although Weygond joins the Vichy government, joins Petain's government. He's known to be A nationalist, to be anti German. The British go on hoping they might bring Weygond across to their side. We sometimes think, well, de Gaulle comes over to London in June 1940, and then he's the leader of the Free French and that's it. Actually, he's the leader of a very small group of people. And the British are always rooting around to see if they could find someone more important. And Churchill is part of that rooting around. And Churchill is ruthless. As a war leader has to be ruthless. So if Churchill had found someone who he thought suited British interests better, then he'd have backed that person and abandoned de Gaulle.

[James Osborne]

So de Gaulle is chosen not to, necessarily because that's who Churchill wanted, but just kind of from a more pragmatic set of reasoning. He's also extremely unbending in his will to resist. And that is something that Churchill deeply respects. As you say, why is he like this? Why is he so uncompromising? Because that's certainly not to be taken for granted, is it? Especially when you look at the broader French context.

[Richard Vinan]

It's a good question, and like lots of things about de Gaulle, it's quite hard to answer. So partly because he's grown up in a very kind of nationalistic background, haunted by the French defeat by Prussia in 1870. He's fought, obviously in the First World War, so his whole life is about Germany, really. He's a prisoner of war in Germany for most of the First World War, which probably saves his life and also means he kind of observes the Germans. So he kind of takes it for granted that fighting Germany is something one should do. Now, you could say lots of other French people, right wing French people especially, are in that kind of situation. The reasons why he wants to go on fighting in 1940 and other people don't, I think in a curious kind of way. One reason is that he has quite an abstract view of France. Famous opening lines of his memoirs are, all my life, I've had a certain idea of France, and lots of other French people in 1940 want to have an armistice. They want to stop fighting the Germans, at least for a time, because they want to protect the French land or the French people or to get French prisoners of war brought back from Germany. And de Gaulle's idea of France is sometimes a bit separate from the interests of particular French people. So I think it's that idea, it's that sense of kind of France as something special that he's protecting in 1940, even if that is going to mean some terrible sacrifices for The French.

[James Osborne]

Okay. So he's clearly a very deeply felt patriot, and he has this background of having been in combat with Germany across the course of his life. But I guess there are lots of other people who would have been in that position too, at that moment in time. So really, it is this abstract view of seeing France as this uber national concept that that's what really drives him and his passion to resist, isn't it?

[Richard Vinan]

Yeah. I mean, the other line on the opening page of his memoirs is, france cannot be herself without greatness. And looking back on 1940, when he's talking to the British ambassador in the 1950s, he has a very interesting phrase. He says, I was frightened that the French would survive as a nation of cooks and hairdressers. Now, you know, there's nothing wrong with being a cook and a hairdresser. And you might say that French cooks are one of the things that make France such a nice place to be. But that kind of idea of comfort is something that doesn't appeal to de Gaulle. De Gaulle wants France to be a nation of soldiers and a nation of greatness, and that's what he sees as threatened in 1940.

[James Osborne]

Do you think it's fair to say that he loves France more than he loves the French?

[Richard Vinan]

Absolutely.

[James Osborne]

Okay, so he does become this de facto leader elevated by Churchill because he was the person at the right place at the right time, but nevertheless, he's in opposition. How do these two men then go on to work together throughout the war?

[Richard Vinan]

Sometimes quite stormily, one has to say. So there are some spectacular arguments between them. At one time, John Colville, who is Churchill's secretary and sometimes interprets between the two men on the rare occasions when Churchill admits that he doesn't really speak French at one point, he leaves them together after a particularly kind of difficult episode. And then after a while, the silence kind of worries him so much he thinks maybe they've actually attacked each other. So he has to creep back into Churchill's study and he finds them, in fact, smoking cigars and on the best of terms. But there are moments when they're really very bitter arguments between the two men. So moments like that, moments towards the end of 1942 when Churchill again actually thinks he might try and replace de Gaulle with an alternative French general. And then particularly moments immediately before D day, when Churchill sees this as a great military event where everything must be mobilised to maintain unity. And de Gaulle, I think, sees this as a moment when it's supremely important that French dignity is asserted. And so they're kind of at cross purposes. And those arguments just before D day really haunt their relationship and haunt the relationship between Britain and France, in de Gaulle's view, for a long time afterwards.

[James Osborne]

So these arguments, they are more about the broad concepts of how these two countries should be working together and the position of France and the position of Britain in relation to each other.

[Richard Vinan]

Yeah, absolutely. So in a way, de Gaulle doesn't take much interest in military detail. I mean, he knows he doesn't have many soldiers at his disposal. And so his key thing is to assert the idea that in some way he's defending French sovereignty. Of course, the key thing is that de Gaulle, contrary to what people often think, is never head of an exiled government. The British go on saying, look, the Vichy government is a legal government, not a government we like, not a government we want to exist, but it is in fact the government of France. So in that sense, de Gaulle doesn't have a strong political position, but he insists on defending what kind of political position he does have. And he does see himself, I think, primarily as a political actor in the Second World War, not a military one.

[Shopify Advertiser]

You didn't start a business just to keep the lights on. You're here to sell more today than yesterday. You're here to win. Lucky for you, Shopify built the best converting checkout on the planet, like the just one tapping ridiculously fast acting sky high sales stacking champion at checkouts. That's the good stuff right there. So if your business is in it to win it, win with Shopify. Start your free trial [e-mail] win.

[James Osborne]

How did they understand each other as men? Did they respect each other?

[Richard Vinan]

They certainly have a sense of each other as exceptional people. And of course these are men who are also very exceptional themselves. And I think perhaps this is a very rare kind of period in their lives when they encounter counter someone who in some ways is an equal. So I think they do have this kind of understanding of each other's importance in some way understanding of each other's importance as people.

[James Osborne]

So these are men of equal stature and gravity, but they are very, very different, but not entirely different. There are some similarities specifically in how they use politics. And something I do want to focus on is on language. They are both orators, they are both authors. They really do understand the power of language. How did they use it differently? How did they use it? In the same way. How did they understand language? Was it conscious?

[Richard Vinan]

Oh, yeah. These are men who are intensely conscious of their language. So that, I suppose a key figure in the life of most modern politicians is the ghostwriter. So most political speeches have not been written by the person who delivers them. Most political memoirs have not been written by the person whose name is on the COVID These men, on the other hand, de Gaulle and Churchill have begun their life to a large extent as writers. They're professional soldiers, but they make their reputation even when they're soldiers, as writers. So that's true of Churchill. So he becomes a war correspondent even when he's still nominally a British soldier. And actually he sees more war as a journalist than he does as a soldier. And de Gaulle likewise becomes a kind of military intellectual between the two wars. So a lot of what he's doing is actually writing books about the French army. So very importantly, Verlamd de Metier, his book Towards a Professional army, published in 1934, a series of books, he writes about the history of the French army. He's actually himself a ghostwriter for Marshal Petain, writing things that are going to be published under Marshal Petain's name. De Gaulle has a very interesting phrase, in fact, when he quarrels with Peter about who's going to claim the authorship of one book, he says the book is the man. And that's very true of de Gaulle. His personality is very much expressed in books.

[James Osborne]

Do you think that that shared appreciation of language and that shared understanding of the power of words, is this something that really drew them to each other, at least in terms of respecting one another?

[Richard Vinan]

Absolutely, yeah. No, I think especially the way de Gaulle regards Churchill. He respects culture and so he's very conscious of Churchill's sense of history and very conscious of the way Churchill kind of spins his own story. So the title, which to be honest, if I'd had my way, would be the title of the book which I didn't have my way, would have come from a phrase that de Gaulle uses about Churchill where he says, the great artist of a great history. And I think both of these men do think of themselves as artists of history in that sense. And that can be understood in several ways. It can be understood as people who see kind of being a historical actor itself as a kind of art, but also people who are artful in their self presentation. So they understand that they're kind of creating a story that is then going to be told by later historians and understood by their own countries and play a role in kind of national mythology. And I think they both also very strongly understand that national myths are important. So very often British historians talk about, you know, destroying myths, but myths sometimes matter, even if they're not quite true. And there is a sense in which de Gaulle always understands that what he's telling is a fairy story. But he would also say, but fairy stories matter and a nation needs stories about itself.

[James Osborne]

I want to now talk about the lives of Churchill and de Gaulle after the war. How do you think that both men shaped the direction of their two countries after the war? What did they imagine that post Second World War Britain and post Second World War France would and should be?

[Richard Vinan]

Well, in that sense they're very different. So I think Churchill does come back to power as prime minister from 51 to 55. Almost nobody, and especially I think conservatives, regard that as a successful premiership. De Gaulle, having seemed as if he's completely finished in the mid-1950s, then comes back to power in 1958 and in fact becomes President, not just head of government, but head of state. So de Gaulle then dominates France during the 1960s. And in some ways, de Gaulle's great achievement is to be a peacetime leader more than a wartime leader. So in that sense, de Gaulle moulds post war France much more than Churchill moulds post war Britain. I think they both have a vision of what they want. I think Churchill's vision of what he wants in some ways becomes an out of date vision after 1945. It always seems to me that the most double edged words that Churchill ever uses are on this very iconic date. So 18th of June 1940 is the date that de Gaulle gives his call to honour speech from London in which he calls on the French to resist. But it's also the date on which Churchill gives his finest hour speech. And the finest hour speech, of course, has this double edge. Because if you say people are going to look back on June 1940 as our finest hour, you also mean that one day that finest hour is going to be passed. And of course, in some ways a feature of post war Britain is looking back to 1940 as though that was indeed a moment of greatness that Britain can never recover. De Gaulle, by contrast, although he's often known in France as the man of the 18th of June, people do talk about that date. De Gaulle emphatically doesn't want to be remembered as the man of 1940. He doesn't like the idea that he's going to become a kind of public monument to celebrate a past that is now finished. He wants France, as he puts it, to embrace her century. So de Gaulle, much more than Churchill, I think, understands modernity. He understands the challenges of new technology. He understands the way in which France can adjust to a new kind of position in which she'll preserve a certain kind of greatness without being a great power in the way that she had once been. And so in that sense, I think de Gaulle is a more successful figure after the Second World War. And of course, de Gaulle is also simply and crucially, 15, 16 years younger than Churchill.

[James Osborne]

So you're painting this picture of de Gaulle as a more progressive, forward thinking, post war leader than Churchill, whereas Churchill dealing with, did look upon the Second World War and Britain's position in the Second World War as its moment of greatness. Do you think that that says something about the egos of the two men? So Churchill, obviously, his great moment was the Second World War. And as you say, after the Second World War, his political career does fade, whereas the Second World War for de Gaulle and for France was about failure rather than success. Do you think that that's why de Gaulle is able to look forward in a way that Churchill.

[Richard Vinan]

I think it's partly why de Gaulle is able to look forward. I also think it's partly why France is able to look forward. There is a way in which Britain becomes kind of trapped by its own victory and its own kind of very, very honorable, heroic position in 1940. I think there is also a question of ego here. So Churchill finds it very hard to walk away from power and very hard to imagine kind of what life is like, going to be like after power. I think the strange thing about Churchill is that he would have been perfectly happy or not perfectly happy, but he would have accepted it if he'd been killed during the war. He carries a cyanide pill during the war now, you know, he knows there's a real chance going to be surrounded by the Germans, he's going to take his own life, that kind of thing. But on the other hand, then he finds old age terribly difficult. The idea that his powers are fading, that he's ceasing to be a central figure. By contrast, de Gaulle, I said early on that in a funny kind of way, he's modest about himself, so he doesn't need to be the centre of attention. De Gaulle is very satisfied with the idea of a private life, going back, living with his wife, writing his books. But in terms of power and the kind of trappings of power, he can take it or leave it. So he wants to do certain things with power, but he doesn't value office in itself. And of course, when the end comes in 1969, he chooses to resign. He's defeated in a referendum or a proposal that he's supported, and a referendum is defeated, but that doesn't require him to resign as President of France. And it's almost like he wants to resign. He likes the idea of his career ending in the way that he chooses it to end. And he likes the idea of going to this very quiet country house, living on his own, writing his memoirs, talking to his cats, who he likes, because he says, my cats are not afraid of me. He never goes to Paris again after he resigns, except once, when he goes to attend the first communion of his granddaughter. Now, it's inconceivable that Churchill would have said, I'm never going to visit the capital city again after a certain point in my life. So in that sense, in a way, de Gaulle has a happier end. De Gaulle, I think, is more at ease with his own mortality than Churchill ever was.

[James Osborne]

There's a kind of irony to that, isn't there, that de Gaulle is happy to leave power behind once he is no longer required to be the figurehead. And yet he does persist for much longer than Churchill does. Whereas Churchill is constantly trying to resist the fact that he's fading away. But really, after the Second World War ends, that is all that's in store for him. Do you think that Churchill looks across to France and de Gaulle during these post war years and, you know, during these years of high Gaulism, do you think he looks across with envy?

[Richard Vinan]

I think perhaps, mercifully, Churchill probably is too old to think about things much by that stage. So Churchill is 84 when De Gaulle returns to power. And so Churchill goes and meets de Gaulle in 1958, but he's not, I think, with it in the way that he would once have been. They meet when de Gaulle comes on a state Visit to London, 1960, but de Gaulle himself actually not very keen on meeting Churchill at that stage. And then the French ambassador comes out with this very damning line. He says, you have to see Churchill because he's a public monument, like the Arc de Triomphe. Funnily enough, their last ever meeting, rather touchingly, is in the autumn of 1960, which is a private meeting. So Churchill happens to be on holiday in the south of France. De Gaulle is there too, and they meet up. And I think it's rather appropriate that these two extraordinary great public figures should have this one last meeting, which is a kind of friendly, personal meeting, at which they do seem to relate to each other as human beings. And at that stage, de Gaulle is very nice to Churchill and Kind of puts him at ease and doesn't try to impress on him de Gaulle's kind of special importance. So in that way, I think there's a nice end to their relationship. But of course, by the early 60s, Churchill, at that stage, I think, turns very anti European, which is rather covered up by his own family, who are very pro European, and by the British establishment, who are very pro European at that stage. I think it is true that the British as a whole become painfully aware that, first of all, France highlights British decline, and also sometimes painfully aware that Churchill's kind of decline, his personal decline, in some way perhaps reflects British national decline. So this is the point, of course, when Private Eye refer to Churchill as the greatest dying Englishman. And there's a kind of terrible contrast, which is, on the one hand, Churchill is having this very slow, tragic descent into old age in the early 60s. On the other hand, Charles de Gaulle is the subject of repeated assassination attempts. And there's nothing that makes de Gaulle more important than the fact that people want to kill him. It kind of puts him at the centre of this great national drama. And in some ways, the people who are trying to kill him are the great Gaullists, because they're the people who think, well, just getting de Gaulle away would in itself change the history of France. So they're saying de Gaulle is so central that his death alone will change France's destiny. And in some ways, that's very flattering.

[James Osborne]

To de Gaulle as we wrap up this conversation. Your book is called the Last Titans, and these two figures are Titanic. They do hold this immense stature across the 20th century, and their legacies are certainly still things that we think about and talk about. So I've got two final questions. Do you think that figures can only reach this stature if they have successfully come through a crisis? And secondly, who do you think comes closest? I know that you've written and researched about Margaret Thatcher. Is it her?

[Richard Vinan]

Perhaps the first of those questions is easier to answer than the second, though they're both quite hard to answer. So I think crisis obviously helps both men. So perhaps the crisis of 1940 for Churchill, perhaps more the crisis of 1958 and the Algerian War for de Gaulle. So I think in lots of ways, French history would be the same without de Gaulle in 1940. But French history would be very different if de Gaulle hadn't come back to power in 1958, and then, curiously enough, done, of course, what his supporters didn't expect him to do, which is to take France out of Algeria. So France is the Great kind of decisive figure who says, now empire is over and we must accept that. So in that sense, I think they both did need a kind of crisis. I think there are also certain things they benefit from. They come at a particular point in the history of broadcasting and in their different ways they both become great broadcasters. Of course, the world of the podcast is much more inimical to great men, I think. So there are too many kind of media outlets, a too kind of myriad faced media world. Now to get the situation of 1940, where 75% of the British population seem to have been listening to Churchill at some point points, in terms of who might resemble them now, Thatcher in some ways, of course, Thatcher, like Churchill and de Gaulle, one should remember that she seems different in retrospect to how she often seemed at the time. So she, I suppose, in some ways is looked back on as a figure who changed her country. The person she admired, I think actually was more de Gaulle than Churchill, although she misunderstood de Gaulle. She thought de Gaulle was a Eurosceptic in a way. I don't actually think he was, or rather he was a Eurosceptic, but a Eurosceptor. Except it there may be things you don't like that you have to accept. I think Macron, strange as it may seem, I think Macron has de Gaulle's sense of the theater of politics, and in some ways he's a man who's played the role of a Fifth Republic president very well. I think also curiously, Mitterrand, So Mitterrand hated de Gaulle when he was alive. These two men were in violent conflict. But again, Mitterrand is the man who kind of understands the kind of presidency that de Gaulle has left behind him and is capable of filling that role. I think Englishmen matching up to Churchill, they don't exist. And the ones who try hardest are the ones who fail worst.

[Podcast Host Introduction]

That was Richard Vinan speaking to James Osborne. Richard is a professor of history at King's College London and his latest book is the Last Titans, Churchill and de Gaulle.

[Lowe's Advertiser]

Time is valuable. That's why Lowe's blueprint takeoffs turn blueprints into quotes faster. Bring us your plans and we'll generate itemized material lists to make quoting easier so you can get back to Building Plus. At the Lowes Pro desk, you get access to thousands of building materials not sold in store. And when your order's ready, we'll deliver everything to the job site. Improving is easy at Lowe's.