Churchill made many mistakes in a glorious career. His list of errors are impressive and many have had long lives. No error in judgement however, has been as consequential and as permanent, and so detrimental to Western interests, than the establishment of the United Nations. The mephistophelian allure of 'transnational' governance, solidarity and 'moral purpose', which would and must, metastasize into a cancer of Biblical proportions, was ignored by the founders of the UN, including both Churchill and Roosevelt. Churchill never gave any serious thought or critical thinking to the monstrosity being erected during the desperate days of World War II. It is quite easily, his greatest blunder.

The UN or Useless Nations Organization was intended to replace the failed League of Nations which collapsed with the rise of Fascist Marxism in the guise of Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin. The League was useless. It did not stop the Italian war on Abyssinia; the Japanese invasion of Korea and China; the rise of Hitlerism and the expansion of the Nazi state; the breaking of the rather tame and tepid Versailles Treaty [it could and should have been a much tougher Treaty]; nor the slaughter of non-Red Russian civilians in the Leninist civil war. It was a colossal mockery. Yet upon this tragic failure, Churchill the erstwhile romantic and apostle of 'better days' of 'sunlit uplands', based his hope on a new post Nazi-war, world order.

The whole idea of the UN, even in the dark, dangerous days of World War II was madness.

The entire concept of a super-charged, transnational organization maintaining 'peace' and guaranteeing 'rights' came from the expedient and fertile minds of both Churchill and Roosevelt. It was crafted as part of the 'Atlantic Charter' meeting off of the coast of Canada, in August 1941, in which the US and Britain pledged to uphold the sanctity of states, individual rights, and take measures to create a sustainable era of peace. Roosevelt proposed the name 'United Nations' and this name was used to denote the gaggle of nations involved in defeating militaristic Fascism.

The details of the UN were thus worked on mostly by the British and Americans from 1941 onwards, and the outlines of this super-group were drawn up at Dumbarton Oaks, near Washington DC in 1943. The ‘Big Four’ - China, Britain, USA and Russia - drew up the guiding principles of the ‘general international organisation’ including:

-The UN's purpose would be to maintain international security and peace and guarantee human rights as codified by the UN.
-It would seek to develop friendly relations amongst all nations.
-The UN would try to manage international economic, social and humanitarian problems.
-The UN would be a forum for all nations to discuss, debate and resolve problems peacefully.

All nice ideas – but entirely utopian. The Americans for sundry economic, political and ideological reasons, viewed the creation of a new League, in which all nations would share the political and budgetary pain of upholding international 'standards' and ensuring 'territorial integrity' of the membership, a rather practical and realistic ideal. For the Americans the attitude was that the UN would always remain under US control, forever. A rather dimwitted assertion as time has proven.

Churchill on the other hand saw it as a vehicle to sustain British relevancy. For the British the UN was to be a forum in which they would be one of the '5 Great Powers', maintaining, however implausible it actually was, its world power status. Yet like the Americans the British were whistling in the wind. Great Britain in 1945 was no longer Great and quite bankrupt. Neither the UN, nor any other communitarian creation was going to change the facts of geo-politics and reality-based economics. Churchill was mistaken. The UN would not sanction Britain's relevancy. It would over time, just make Great Britain a lot more Little.

The UN was like so many other 'great ideas' - emotionally satisfying but devoid of intelligent analysis or critical thinking. No one in power seriously forwarded some obvious concerns about the creation and then the self propelling life-force of a supra-national body. Once you establish a bureaucracy you have to expect it to assume its own vitality and purpose. The leaders of the bureaucracy will develop their own objectives and goals – irregardless of what the 'shareholders' might want. The more disperse the control, the greater the chance that the bureaucracy in question will simply spiral out of control.

There was thus no cognitive analysis of this socialist-pacficist ideal of a 'One World' organization. Where would this group stop ? How large would it become ? How ambitious ? How meddlesome in the politics of states ? It is obvious that the entire UN ideal was one based on the emotional and intellectual - not the rational, practical or moral. Churchill, the lover of democracy and state greatness never asked some obvious questions:

-Who should be a member – what are the criteria ?
-Why should non-democratic states be admitted ?
-Why should states who did nothing to fight Fascism be members ?
-What about those states who supported Fascism ?
-How would the UN in practice 'solve' military or issues around war ?
-How to limit the money needed or expensed for this organization, and the obvious abuse, waste and fraud which occurs in each and every bureaucracy ?
-How to control it properly so it actually defends its ideals in the future ?
-How to limit its activities so that member states are not interfered with by an unaccountable bureaucracy ?

None of these common-sensical objections or critiques were uttered.

In essence the entire idea of an unaccountable, non-democratic body such as the UN was not only insipid but immoral. Nations with absolutely no common interests, cultures, attitudes, or political-military-economic alliances and cycles, will not suddenly throw down their legacies and self-interests because they are part of some 'United Nations' forum. It is utter bunk. They will do what all self interested states do – use the system to their advantage, as they are doing today in the case of the Third World demanding more Western guilt money; Islam demanding UN protection; and the Globaloney Warming cult demanding taxes, regulations and economic control – under the guise of the UN's mandate.

Churchill should have made two simple rules in the deal-making around the creation of the UN. These rules would have been vital to constructing a coalition of states of like-minded actors which common attitudes and interests:
Rule 1: The UN must be composed only of allied Democracies who have fought against Fascism.
Rule 2: The UN must be transparent, accountable and its charter must be up for renewal, in a forum vote every 4 years.

By not standing up for transparency, real-politick, democracy and alliance patterns Churchill abdicated his duty. By letting Roosevelt and the Americans develop the inanity of a One-World body into an actual creation, Churchill ignored the very real consequences – easily observable in the lamentable League of Nations – in vesting power with an undemocratic and alienated bureaucratic elite. In that sense Churchill's greatest disaster was not the Dardanelles, his Chancellorship, or Singapore and ignoring the Japanese threat. His greatest legacy of failure is the monster which stalks all Western states and Israel today – the United Nations.