-Analysis-
PARIS — How can we describe the “European moment” we’ve been experiencing in recent weeks, ever since Donald Trump’s America turned its back on its alliances? A British author has coined a phrase: “Vive le Churchillo-Gaullisme!” writes the noted public intellectual Timothy Garton Ash — in French, no less — in the British daily The Guardian.
For the author of the concept, it’s more of a mindset than a doctrine. Though often difficult allies, the former British prime minister and the leader of Free France above all embody a spirit of resistance, one that was forged in a dark chapter of European history.
For the latest news & views from every corner of the world, Worldcrunch Today is the only truly international newsletter. Sign up here.
Why invoke the spirits of these two great figures from the past? Because Europe now finds itself orphaned of American protection, caught in a vise between an America that has turned imperial and isolationist once again and a resurgent, menacing Russia on its eastern flank. Because Europeans risk succumbing to what Italian President of the Republic Sergio Mattarella recently called the “prospect of happy vassalage.”
In this context, Paris and London bear a particular responsibility.
What is Churchillo-Guallism?
When times get tough, France and the United Kingdom tend to fall back on old instincts. Despite choosing to sail off on its own with Brexit, the UK has drawn closer to the continent to coordinate a response to America’s abandonment.
“Should we die for Danzig?” has now morphed into “Should we die for Kyiv?”
Paris and London, both nuclear powers and permanent members of the UN Security Council, have a long tradition of international engagement. They stepped into a leadership role that was up for grabs — likely joined by Germany’s next chancellor, Friedrich Merz, who has declared his commitment to “independence,” marking a historic shift, and by Poland, a rising power on Europe’s eastern flank.
But historical analogies have their limits. Before Churchill and De Gaulle, there were references to the “sleepwalkers” stumbling into World War I (borrowed from historian Christopher Clark’s book title, The Sleepwalkers: How Europe Went to War in 1914) to Munich and the appeasement of Hitler, and to the infamous question: “Should we die for Danzig?” which has now morphed into “Should we die for Kyiv?”
Manipulations of history
The current situation, however, is largely unprecedented: historical parallels are useful but do not offer simple answers. Should we arm ourselves, risking the escalation of war? Or does refusing to arm ourselves amount to capitulation in the face of those who aren’t hesitant to use force? History provides arguments for both of these opposing views, which are part of the public debate.
This call is incredibly relevant today.
Hence the appeal to unquestionable figures like Churchill and De Gaulle, figures who even those who would have been their opponents during their lifetimes can identify with. Without speaking for the dead, no one can truly doubt how they would respond to the current crisis: by resisting force and supporting an attacked Ukraine.
Timothy Garton Ash is publishing an essay this week in France titled Homelands, in which he recounts the continent’s history since 1945 and his desire to “defend, improve, and expand a free Europe,” a “worthy cause of hope” in his view. This call is incredibly relevant today, one that Churchill and De Gaulle would have undoubtedly supported.
