this issue
Transcription
this issue
THE JOURNAL OF WINSTON CHURCHILL SUMMER 2009 NUMBER 143 THE CHURCHILL CENTRE & CHURCHILL MUSEUM CABINET WAR ROOMS, LONDON UNITED STATES • UNITED KINGDOM • CANADA • AUSTRALIA AT THE ® PATRON: THE LADY SOAMES LG DBE • WWW.WINSTONCHURCHILL.ORG ® Founded in 1968 to educate new generations on the leadership, statesmanship, vision and courage of Winston Spencer Churchill MEMBER, NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR HISTORY EDUCATION • RELATED GROUP, AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATION SUCCESSOR TO THE WINSTON S. CHURCHILL STUDY UNIT (1968) AND THE INTERNATIONAL CHURCHILL SOCIETY (1971) BUSINESS OFFICES 200 West Madison Street Suite 1700, Chicago IL 60606 Tel. (888) WSC-1874 • Fax (312) 658-6088 [email protected] Churchill Museum & Cabinet War Rooms King Charles Street, London SW1A 2AQ Tel. (0207) 766-0122 CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD Laurence S. Geller [email protected] EXECUTIVE VICE-PRESIDENT Philip H. Reed OBE [email protected] CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER Daniel N. Myers [email protected] DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATION Mary Paxson [email protected] EDUCATION PROGRAMS COORDINATOR Suzanne Sigman [email protected] DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT Cynthia Faulkner [email protected] BOARD OF TRUSTEES *EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE The Hon. Spencer Abraham • Randy Barber David Boler* • Paul Brubaker • Randolph S. Churchill Winston S. Churchill • David Coffer • Manus Cooney Paul Courtenay • Sen. Richard J. Durbin Marcus Frost* • Laurence S. Geller* Sir Martin Gilbert CBE • Richard C. Godfrey* Philip Gordon* • Gretchen Kimball Richard M. Langworth CBE* • Diane Lees The Rt Hon Sir John Major KG CH • Lord Marland Christopher Matthews • Sir Deryck Maughan* Michael W. Michelson • Joseph J. Plumeri* Lee Pollock • Philip H. Reed OBE* • Mitchell Reiss Kenneth W. Rendell* • Amb. Paul H. Robinson, Jr. Elihu Rose* • Stephen Rubin The Hon. Celia Sandys • The Hon. Edwina Sandys HONORARY MEMBERS Winston S. Churchill • Sir Martin Gilbert CBE Robert Hardy CBE • The Lord Heseltine CH PC The Duke of Marlborough JP DL Sir Anthony Montague Browne KCMG CBE DFC Gen. Colin L. Powell KCB • Amb. Paul H. Robinson, Jr. The Lady Thatcher LG OM PC FRS FRATERNAL ORGANIZATIONS Churchill Archives Centre, Cambridge The Winston Churchill Memorial Trust, UK, Australia Harrow School, Harrow-on-the-Hill, Middlesex Winston Churchill Memorial & Library, Fulton, Mo. INTERNET RESOURCES Dan Myers, Webmaster, [email protected] Committee: John David Olsen, Ian Langworth, Todd Ronnei, Dan Myers, Suzanne Sigman, Derek Greenwell Chatlist Moderators: Jonah Triebwasser, Todd Ronnei. ACADEMIC ADVISERS Prof. James W. Muller, Chmn., [email protected] University of Alaska, Anchorage Prof. John A. Ramsden, Vice Chmn., [email protected] Queen Mary College, University of London Prof. Paul K. Alkon, University of So. California Sir Martin Gilbert CBE, Merton College, Oxford Col. David Jablonsky, U.S. Army War College Prof. Warren F. Kimball, Rutgers University Prof. John Maurer, U.S. Naval War College Prof. David Reynolds FBA, Christ’s College, Cambridge Dr. Jeffrey Wallin, American Academy of Liberal Education LEADERSHIP & SUPPORT NUMBER TEN CLUB Contributors of $10,000 or more per year. Skaddan Arps • Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP Carolyn & Paul Brubaker • Mr. & Mrs. Winston S. Churchill Lester Crown • Kenneth Fisher • Marcus & Molly Frost Laurence S. Geller • Rick Godfrey • Philip Gordon Martin & Audrey Gruss • J.S. Kaplan Foundation Gretchen Kimball • Susan Lloyd • Harry McKillop Ellihu Rose • Michael Rose • Stephen Rubin Mick Scully • Cita Stelzer CHURCHILL CENTRE ASSOCIATES Contributors to The Churchill Centre Endowment, of $10,000, $25,000 and $50,000+, inclusive of bequests. Winston Churchill Associates The Annenberg Foundation • David & Diane Boler Fred Farrow • Barbara & Richard Langworth Mr. & Mrs. Parker H. Lee III Michael & Carol McMenamin • David & Carole Noss Ray & Patricia Orban • Wendy Russell Reves Elizabeth Churchill Snell • Mr. & Mrs. Matthew Wills Alex M. Worth Jr. Clementine Churchill Associates Ronald D. Abramson • Winston S. Churchill Samuel D. Dodson • Marcus & Molly Frost Jeanette & Angelo Gabriel • Craig & Lorraine Horn James F. Lane • John & Susan Mather Linda & Charles Platt Ambassador & Mrs. Paul H. Robinson Jr. James R. & Lucille I. Thomas Mary Soames Associates Dr. & Mrs. John V. Banta • Solveig & Randy Barber Gary J. Bonine • Susan & Daniel Borinsky Nancy Bowers • Lois Brown Carolyn & Paul Brubaker • Nancy H. Canary Dona & Bob Dales • Jeffrey & Karen De Haan Gary Garrison • Ruth & Laurence Geller Fred & Martha Hardman • Leo Hindery, Jr. Bill & Virginia Ives • J. Willis Johnson Jerry & Judy Kambestad • Elaine Kendall David M. & Barbara A. Kirr • Phillip & Susan Larson Ruth J. Lavine • Mr. & Mrs. Richard A. Leahy Philip & Carol Lyons • Richard & Susan Mastio Cyril & Harriet Mazansky • Michael W. Michelson James & Judith Muller • Wendell & Martina Musser Bond Nichols • Earl & Charlotte Nicholson Bob & Sandy Odell • Dr. & Mrs. Malcolm Page Ruth & John Plumpton • Hon. Douglas S. Russell Daniel & Suzanne Sigman • Shanin Specter Robert M. Stephenson • Richard & Jenny Streiff Peter J. Travers • Gabriel Urwitz • Damon Wells Jr. Jacqueline Dean Witter ALLIED NATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS _________________________________ CHURCHILL CENTRE - UNITED KINGDOM PO Box 1915, Quarley, Andover, Hampshire SP10 9EE Tel. & Fax (01264) 889627 CHAIRMAN Paul. H. Courtenay [email protected] VICE CHAIRMAN Michael Kelion HON. TREASURER Anthony Woodhead CBE FCA SECRETARY John Hirst COMMITTEE MEMBERS Eric Bingham • Robin Brodhurst Randolph S. Churchill • Paul H. Courtenay Robert Courts • Geoffrey Fletcher • Derek Greenwell Rafal Heydel-Mankoo • John Hirst • Jocelyn Hunt Michael Kelion• Michael Moody • Brian Singleton Anthony Woodhead CBE FCA TRUSTEES The Hon. Celia Sandys, Chairman The Duke of Marlborough JP DL • The Lord Marland David Boler • Nigel Knocker OBE • David Porter Philip H. Reed OBE _________________________________________ INTL. CHURCHILL SOCIETY OF CANADA www.winstonchurchillcanada.ca Ambassador Kenneth W. Taylor, Honorary Chairman MEMBERSHIP OFFICES RR4, 14 Carter Road Lion’s Head ON N0H 1W0 Tel. (519) 592-3082 PRESIDENT Randy Barber [email protected] MEMBERSHIP SECRETARY Jeanette Webber [email protected] TREASURER Barrie Montague bmontague @cogeco.ca __________________________________ CHURCHILL CENTRE AUSTRALIA Alfred James, President 65 Billyard Avenue, Wahroonga NSW 2076 Tel. (61-3) 489-1158 [email protected] ________________________________________________ CHURCHILL SOCIETY FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY www.churchill.society.org Robert A. O’Brien, Chairman ro’[email protected] 3050 Yonge Street, Suite 206F Toronto ON M4N 2K4, Canada Tel. (416) 977-0956 CONTENTS The Journal of Winston Churchill ✌ Number 143 SUMMER 2009 Cover: Our Gang? “Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves,” from the German humor weekly Lustige Blätter #34, August 1940. A determined WSC seated with royalty, a kilted Scot, a judge, the military, a former prime minister, and a rabbi to represent the Nazi demon incarnate, is, in an odd sort of way, a back-handed compliment to them all. See page 14. Bytwerk, 14 Devine, 20 Lyons, 37 ARTICLES 14/ Churchill in Nazi Cartoon Propaganda A Graphic Reminder of What He was Up Against • Randall Bytwerk 20/ Top Cop in a Top Hat Churchill as Home Secretary, 1910-1911 • Richard A. Devine 26/ Jack French Kemp 1935-2009 “Correrai Ancor piu Veloce per le Vie del Cielo” • Richard M. Langworth 27/ Remembering Jack His Intervention Made Great Things Happen • Allen Packwood 27/ “Never Splash in Shallow Waters” Tenth International Churchill Conference, 1993 • The Hon. Jack Kemp 28/ Services aboard HMS Prince of Wales with the President and Prime Minister Lesson and Prayer • David Robinson USN; Raymond Goodman, RN 30/ Guarding Greatness, Part I “Did You Fly?....Hmmph.” • Ronald E. Golding 34/ From Pen to Parliament How a Young Man’s Writings Shaped a Hero • Allison Hay 37/ Finest Hour Online: Winston Churchill’s Constitutionalism A Critique of Socialism in America • Justin D. Lyons BOOKS, ARTS & CURIOSITIES 44/ Two Works of Genius: “Into the Storm” and Thoughts and Adventures Masters and Commanders • Churchill’s Crusade: The British Invasion of Russia Bleinheim and the Churchill Family • 274 Things You Should Know About Churchill Literary Character: The Man from St. Petersburg • Imperial Kelly • Reviewed by Richard M. Langworth, Christopher H. Stirling, David Freeman, Paul H. Courtenay and Michael T. McMenamin CHURCHILL PROCEEDINGS 50/ Churchill and the Anglo-Irish War 1919-1922 • Alan J. Ward 55/ Why Ireland Won: The War from the Irish Side • Timothy D. Hoyt Hoyt, 55 DEPARTMENTS 2/ Churchill Centre Who’s Who • 4/ Despatch Box 5/ Editor’s Essay • 6/ Datelines • 9/ Around & About 10/ Official Biography • 11/ Riddles, Mysteries, Enigmas 12/ Action This Day • 25/ Wit & Wisdom • 33/ Leading Churchill Myths 61/ Churchill Quiz • 62/ Ampersand • 63/ Regional Directory FINEST HOUR 143 / 3 DESPATCH BOX UNINTENDED RESULTS 3Number 143 • Summer 2009 ISSN 0882-3715 www.winstonchurchill.org ____________________________ Barbara F. Langworth, Publisher [email protected] Richard M. Langworth CBE, Editor [email protected] Post Office Box 740 Moultonborough, NH 03254 USA Tel. (603) 253-8900 Dec.-March Tel. (242) 335-0615 ___________________________ Editor Emeritus: Ron Cynewulf Robbins Senior Editors: Paul H. Courtenay James W. Muller News Editor: Michael Richards Contributors Alfred James, Australia Terry Reardon, Canada Antoine Capet, France Inder Dan Ratnu, India Paul Addison, Winston S. Churchill, James Lancaster, Sir Martin Gilbert CBE, Allen Packwood, United Kingdom David Freeman, Ted Hutchinson, Warren F. Kimball, Justin D. Lyons Michael McMenamin, Robert Pilpel, Christopher Sterling, Manfred Weidhorn, United States ___________________________ • Address changes: Help us keep your copies coming! Please update your membership office when you move. All offices for The Churchill Centre and Allied national organizations are listed on the inside front cover. __________________________________ Finest Hour is made possible in part through the generous support of members of The Churchill Centre and Museum, the Number Ten Club, and an endowment created by the Churchill Centre Associates (page 2). ___________________________________ Published quarterly by The Churchill Centre, offering subscriptions from the appropriate offices on page 2. Permission to mail at nonprofit rates in USA granted by the United States Postal Service, Concord, NH, permit no. 1524. Copyright 2009. All rights reserved. David Jablonsky’s “The Churchill Experience and the Bush Doctrine” (FH 141) was a thoughful reminder of Churchill’s warning that war is full of unexpected turns and unpleasant surprises. —JAMES MACK, FAIRFIELD, OHIO DON CORLEONE VS. STAN AND OLLIE Colonel Jablonsky’s piece on the use of force in Churchill’s context as opposed to the “Bush Doctrine” is like comparing “The Godfather” with “Laurel and Hardy.” Churchill was a student of the use of the military to attain political advantage. He never utilized a preemptive attack such as Bush did on the government of Iraq. Jablonsky makes a stretch to argue that Churchill utilized a preemptive attack on the Vichy fleet at Oran. At this particular time of World War II, Great Britain was fighting for its very survival. Vichy France was a mere puppet state of Nazi Germany. Jablonsky states that the Vichy was “nominally independent.” His argument is weak and superfluous. Jablonsky is correct in stating that Churchill expounded the virtues of military preparedness to make sure that the agreements of Versailles and Locarno were followed. How these prescient activities by Churchill during his wilderness years compare to anything President Bush advocated is beyond me. As stated in the author’s conclusion, Churchill would have taken greater care in relations with Iraq. It was Churchill’s folly which created this dysfunctional entity. He knew that when going to war, one must examine all the consequences. Churchill was a soldierstatesman. In retrospect Bush was a man seeking statesmanship through war without the knowledge of a soldier. —RICHARD C. GESCHKE, BRISTOL, CONN. Editor’s response: Ordinarily I would ask the author to respond, but since Col. Jablonsky is ill, I will reply for him. To label something a “Bush Doctrine” doesn’t necessarily mean one approves of it. It seems to me that Jablonsky’s piece, while sympathetic toward the former President’s dilemmas, was more critical than supportive: “the Iraq war...has raised doubts not only in U.S. claims to legitimacy in its use of Produced by Dragonwyck Publishing Inc. FINEST HOUR 142 / 4 force, but the efficacy of such efforts.” To say Vichy France was only “nominally independent” compared to Iraq is to struggle asymptotically towards truth. In Vichy France they had disagreement. By comparison Hussein’s Iraq was only “nominally independent,” and I’m not too sure it had a government, in the sense we understand it. None of which endorses or dismisses the Bush Doctrine. “Churchill’s folly” in Iraq (the title of a recent book, which was not persuasive) is a judgment based on what we know now. David Freeman (“Churchill and the Making of Modern Iraq,” FH 132) explains that the factors governing WSC’s actions there ceased to apply almost as soon as they were taken. Yet his folly kept Iraq stable for nearly forty years, even as his folly in Ireland kept the peace for nearly fifty. Iraq today is less scary than it was, but it asks too much that Churchill (or Bush) should be held responsible decades later, after the factors have changed and others have had all that time to repair or extend whatever follies they committed. As Churchill said in 1952: “It is always wise to look ahead, but difficult to look farther than you can see.” ★★★ Your book, Churchill by Himself, praised by Mary Soames and Martin Gilbert (FH 142: 53) sits tall and eclipses lesser compendiums. It reminds me of Churchill’s alleged reply to a taunt about Ireland being only a small, weak country: “Yes, but it is a mother country.” I was twigged also by your contributions to the pages of Finest Hour. Having just rifled through some back issues, I was struck by your meticulousness and willingness, like Churchill, to recognize negatives while accentuating positives. Example: balanced treatment of the delicate issue of Churchill, Islam and race (FH 114:45)—a subject that might resurface over Kenya. My enthusiasm derives in part from having served as chairman of the organization with the longest name, the Churchill Society for the Advancement of Parliamentary Democracy, and the privilege of talking with some of those who were closest to the great man. ERNEST J. LITTLE, HAMILTON, ONT. Editor’s response: Mr. Little, meet Mr. Geschke. Continued success to your fine organization. ✌ EDITOR’S ESSAY Churchill and Theodore Roosevelt I s there a market for a symposium on Churchill and Theodore Roosevelt that would welcome both the Churchillians and the “TR advocates” I know are among our readers? If you like the idea, email the editor. We have long been chary of joint conferences, which “gang aft agley.”At one such event recently Churchillians politely turned out for all the non-Churchill panels; but the “other fellows” left as soon as their programs finished, or didn’t bother to attend at all. Perhaps we would have done the same had “they” hosted. The ideal approach would probably be a symposium in some neutral corner, with a distinguished moderator and, to ice the cake, C-Span coverage. There’s more to the TR/Churchill relationship than seems apparent from its inauspicious beginnings. On his second visit to America in December 1900, Churchill met the Vice President-elect, who, as Robert Pilpel observed, “had charged up San Juan Hill two months before Churchill had charged at Omdurman. In their vitality, their energy, their lust for adventure, the two men had other things in common as well. It was a case of likes repelling.” Roosevelt wrote: “I saw the Englishman, Winston Churchill here....he is not an attractive fellow.” Six years later the President read Lord Randolph Churchill: “I dislike the father and I dislike the son, so I suppose I may be prejudiced....both possess or possessed such levity, lack of sobriety, lack of permanent principle, and an inordinate thirst for that cheap form of admiration which is given to notoriety, as to make them poor public servants.” The ice melted slightly in 1908, when, planning a safari to Africa, Roosevelt read Churchill’s My African Journey. “I do not like Winston Churchill but I supposed I ought to write him,” TR wrote U.S. Ambassador to Britain Whitelaw Reid. “Will you send him the enclosed letter if it is all right?” The letter thanked Churchill “for the beautiful copy of your book,” expressing the wish that “I shall have as good luck as you had.” Both Roosevelt and Churchill enjoyed a relationship with Winston Churchill the New Hampshire novelist. (See “That Other Winston Churchill,” FH 106.) TR often visited Churchill and others gathered around Augustus SaintGaudens’ literary colony in Plainfield, New Hampshire, not far from Churchill’s home in Cornish. Alistair Cooke, speaking at our 1988 Bretton Woods conference, began by saying he was pleased that so many had “come to the state where Winston Churchill spent the last forty years of his life.” “Why don’t you go into politics?” English Winston wrote the American, after they’d met on the same journey in which Churchill visited Roosevelt. “I mean to be Prime Minister of England: it would be a great lark if you were President of the United States at the same time.” American Winston was elected to the New Hampshire legislature (1903, 1905), but rose no higher—in part because of TR. In 1912 Roosevelt broke with William Howard Taft and formed the Progressive or “Bull Moose” party, unsuccessfully opposing Taft for President. In the same election American Winston, also running as a “Bull Moose,” lost a bid for Congress. I suspect, but have not been able to prove, that the relationship between the two Winstons withered because of TR’s influence: they could hardly been so close and not have discussed American Winston’s opposite across the Atlantic. Roosevelt began to admire English Winston after World War I broke out in 1914, when he wrote a friend: “I have never liked Winston Churchill, but in view of what you tell me as to his admirable conduct and nerve in mobilizing the fleet, I do wish that if it comes your way you will extend to him my congratulations on his action.” English Winston for his part seemed to harbor no hostility for TR—quite the contrary. Despite the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917, Churchill typically remained committed to job #1: “beating the Hun.” As Martin Gilbert has stunningly revealed, Churchill actually proposed that Britain send what he called a “commissar” to Lenin, to negotiate Russia’s re-entry into the war—in exchange for which Britain would guarantee the Bolshevik revolution! When he realized that in no event would that commissar be he, Churchill recommended Theodore Roosevelt. Sir Martin tells me he sprang this remarkable factoid in Moscow, in a lecture before a large number of highranking Soviet officers. “You could have heard a pin drop,” he said. Teddy Roosevelt had died when Winston Churchill next visited America in 1929, but he did find himself seated at a dinner party with the President’s daughter, Alice Roosevelt Longworth. “Despite her lineage,” Robert Pilpel wrote, “Mrs. Longworth seems not only to have taken to him but even to have engaged in a little flirtation as well. When he asked her to state her opinions about Prohibition, for example, she leaned over and murmured, ‘I would rather whisper them to you.’ (Of course, this may simply have been because bad language from a lady was still unacceptable in polite society.)” Pilpel’s judgment of “likes repelling” was confirmed by the late Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., after I published a piece on their relationship in Finest Hour 100. “I once asked Alice Roosevelt Longworth why her father disliked Winston Churchill so much,” Schlesinger wrote. “She replied, ‘Because they were so much alike.’” ✌ FINEST HOUR 143 / 5 “The Kennel Club (for historic parallels think of the Gestapo or George Orwell’s Thought Police) is demanding changes to what is known as the written standard for dogs—not just bulldogs, but other breeds too. They will eventually get their way, but it will take decades of selective breeding to produce a series (rather than an occasional example) of bulldogs to a ‘new’ standard. “I would be delighted to see bulldogs with somewhat longer legs, but still with the traditional look (including ‘flat’ face and Churchillesque attitude), and a wide-legged stance—like each of the seven generations of bulldog which my family has owned, and owns to this day. However, I would be appalled to see longer noses, shrunken faces and lean bodies, since this means we will be going back to the “Boxer” identity, destroying the most endearing characteristics of the true bulldog. “Anyone who doubts that my son’s five-year-old bulldog cannot play, run, and enjoy himself in every way is welcome to try to wear him out before I do.” DATELINES WITH A FRIEND: 1951 General Election. BULLDOG NOT LONDON, JANUARY 12TH (REUTERS)— The classic English bulldog, symbol of defiance and pugnacity (though in fact a friendly and affectionate animal) may now disappear. A shake-up of breeding standards by the Kennel Club has signalled the end of the dog’s Churchillian jowl. Instead, the dog will have a shrunken face, a sunken nose, longer legs and a leaner body. The British Bulldog Breed Council is threatening legal action against the Kennel Club. Chairman Robin Searle said: “What you’ll get is a completely different dog, not a British bulldog.” Finest Hour referred this one to longtime colleague, prominent motoring writer and bulldog partisan Graham Robson, who writes: “As a long-time bulldog owner (your editor has met various of my much-loved mutts) I am at once delighted and appalled by what is being proposed. Loud-mouthed critics of ‘traditional’ bulldogs talk about breathing difficulties (usually untrue), too-fat bodies (only some breeders encourage this—mine never), heads too large and legs too short (arguable—none of mine were ever grotesque), and difficulties in delivering puppies without a vet’s help (unfortunately true). HMS Bulldog (H91), 1929-1946 Since 1782, seven Royal Navy ships have borne the name Bulldog. The last was a B-Class fleet destroyer laid down on 10 August 1929. Early in WW2 she was deployed as an attendant to HMS Glorious and HMS Ark Royal. As part of the Home Fleet in a 1940 action against E-boats, Bulldog towed Lord Mountbatten’s badly damaged HMS Kelly to the Tyne for repairs. After distinguished convoy duty through the war, Bulldog was broken up at Rosyth in 1946. She achieved the distinction of being in operational service for most of the war apart from periods of refit or repair. —www.navalhistory.net LAS PALMAS REMEMBERS LAS PALMAS, CANARY ISLANDS, MARCH 26TH— Winston Churchill visited the Canary Islands three times* but the plaque being unveiled at the Port in Las Palmas in honour of one of Great FINEST HOUR 143 / 6 Quotation of the Season ppeasement from weakness and fear is alike futile and fatal. Appeasement from strength is magnanimous and noble and might be the surest and perhaps the only path to world peace. When nations or individuals get strong they are often truculent and bullying, but when they are weak they become better mannered. But this is the reverse of what is healthy and wise.” “A —WSC, HOUSE OF COMMONS, 14 DECEMBER 1950 Britain’s most internationally influential figures was to commemorate his visit fifty years ago. As a guest aboard the Onassis yacht Christina, he came to the island for a holiday, and as a tourist, chose to visit Caldro de Bandama and Montaña de Arucas. In memory of his visit a plaque was unveiled by the Mayor of Las Palmas, Jerónimo Saavedra Acevedo. It has been written that General Franco’s reluctance to risk losing the Canary Islands was the reason Spain never officially entered into the war, as Churchill had warned that an invasion was logistically possibile. A painting of Churchill hangs in the British Club, where the fondly remembered Churchill Restaurant was located. Matthew Vickers, chairman of the Club and his wife were present “to represent the British community….It’s interesting that here they respect him enough to unveil a plaque….He was someone who could see all of the enjoyment there was to see here….He was never one to shrink from challenges and there are lots of challenges for everyone. He had that ‘never say die’ spirit. Ultimately he was all about how you can build stronger links between people.” The consensus among the guests attending was that Churchill was a unique character who deserved being remembered in the Canary Islands. Francisco Marin Loris, from the Real Sociedad Economica de Amigos del Pais de Gran Canaria, said it gives a sense of pride to the Canarians that a man of Churchill’s stature chose to holiday on Gran Canaria, and increases the interest of British visitors to learn more about the history of the island. —DEBORAH WOODMANSEY (WWW.ROUNDTOWNNEWS.CO.UK) 1959: Onassis, WSC, and Sgt. Murray on Gran Canaria. (Editorial Prensa Canaria) *Editor’s note: The 1959 visit was on 26 February; see Gilbert, Winston S. Churchill VIII: 1284. I have verified the 1961 visit, again via Christina, but not the third. Can readers assist? RML BRITAIN FORGETS LONDON, 25 MARCH 2009— Children will no longer study World War II and Queen Victoria, but instead learn how to assert themselves on the Internet under radical plans to overhaul primary school teaching. According to reports today, the new draft curriculum commissioned by the government claims that pupils can do without learning about the battle against Nazism and the rise and fall of the British Empire. In a move which will horrify many parents, it would see children focus on internet tools such as Wikipedia and podcasting, as well as innovations such as blogging and Twitter, which allows users to post instant minute-by-minute updates about their lives. How this smacks of the “Me Generation.” Schools Minister Lord Adonis says children will still have to learn about the Second World War as part of secondary school curriculum, including Churchill’s role in defeating the Nazis. Cutting Churchill from history lessons, he told Sky News’ Sunday Live programme, is “completely wrong….It is a statutory and mandatory requirement of the new curriculum for all students in secondary schools in England to study the Second World War. I cannot conceive how you can teach the history of the Second World without having Churchill, Hitler and Stalin as part of the story.” —DAILY MAIL GILBERT WINS BRADLEY One of four 2009 Bradley Prizes, each carrying a stipend of $250,000, was presented to CC Honorary Member and Trustee Sir Martin Gilbert at the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. “The Bradley Foundation selected Sir Martin Gilbert for his compelling work in historical research and his commitment to freedom,” said Foundation President and CEO Michael W. Grebe. “Sir Martin’s seminal work in history has been widely acclaimed, and his work is considered the standard in its field.” Sir Martin was knighted by Queen Elizabeth II in 1995 for “services to British history and international relations,” and earlier named a Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire (CBE). He is an Honorary Fellow at Merton College, Oxford, a Distinguished Fellow at Hillsdale College, and the author of seventy books, specializing in the two World Wars, the Holocaust and scholarly atlases in addition to Churchill. The selection was based on nominations solicited from more than 100 prominent individuals and chosen by a committee including Terry Considine, Pierre S. du Pont, Martin Feldstein, Michael Grebe, Charles Krauthammer, Heather MacDonald, San W. Orr Jr., Dianne J. Sehler and Shelby Steele. Founded in 1985, The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation is devoted to strengthening American democratic capitalism and the institutions, principles and values that sustain and nurture it. Its programs support limited government, dynamic economic and cultural activity, and a defense of U.S. ideals and institutions. Recognizing that self-government depends on enlightened citizens, the Foundation supports scholarly studies and academic achievement. WASHINGTON, JUNE 3RD— BRITAIN REMEMBERS LONDON, MAY 10TH— With his “Into the Storm” telefilm appearing in America and Britain, Irish actor Brendan Gleeson’s portrayal of FINEST HOUR 143 / 7 Winston Churchill drew raves. The notice that stands out most for him came the other night at a screening in London, from Churchill’s daughter, 86-year-old Lady Soames. “I think she was genuinely pleased,” Gleeson reports. “She said I didn’t fall into the usual traps or something of that nature. Of course for her it was looking into the past. She said, ‘This is very emotional for me.’” The joint HBO-BBC production (reviewed on page 44) picks up where the 2002 “The Gathering Storm” (Finest Hour 115) left off, with the war years seen via flashbacks as Winston and Clementine (Janet McTeer) await postwar election results. “The Gathering Storm” won shelves of awards, including Emmys for Outstanding Made for TV Movie and Outstanding Lead Actor for Albert Finney—a fact of which Gleeson was quite aware when he took on the job. Finney’s performance, he says, “had such force and humanity in it that you say, ‘Where do you take it from there?’” Portraying the iconic figure “was a huge acting challenge” which included portraying someone twenty years older than himself. Gleeson admits, “I was a little wary of it being a bridge too far, of miscasting myself, but the people involved were very encouraging.” — MARILYN BECK AND STACY JENEL SMITH, NATIONAL LEDGER GAMESMANSHIP It was 1957 when Gary Player first pointed his car down Magnolia Lane to the Augusta National clubhouse—a place, he so often has implied, where golfers “begin to choke as you drive in the gates.” The Hall of Fame golfer did it again today, commencing his fifty-second week at the Masters Tournament. Put another way, he will have spent an entire year of his life chasing golf balls around Augusta National by the match’s end. And that’s where Player has decided it should conclude. The 73-year-old South African announced Monday that this Masters will be his last as a competitor, signing off on a tenure that began before eighty-nine of this week’s other ninetyfive entrants were born. “I’ve had such a wonderful career,” Player said. “My goodness, when I think of the career I’ve had—you can’t have it all, and I did have it all. You can’t be greedy. Winston >> AUGUSTA, GA., APRIL 7TH— DATELINES appearance in Churchill’s time. (We hope they’re right about this.) The first black swans were a gift from Sir Phillip Sassoon in 1927. The population was topped up by the govern—JEFF SHAIN, MIAMI HERALD ment of Western Australia, where the black swan is a state symbol. C. atratus is native also to Tasmania and has been FOR THE BIRDS: introduced to New Zealand. It is the Giles Palmer world’s only black swan, though its flight says the feathers, invisible at rest, are white. Giles swans are Palmer hopes the pair will soon breed settling in and begin a new generation. nicely. Churchill was devoted to his swans and regularly conversed with them in “swan talk,” in which he claimed profiBLACK SWANS RETURN “All the black swans are mating, not only ciency. But a former bodyguard, Ronald Golding, wrote (see page 31) that this the father and mother, but both brothers was one of WSC’s little myths, because and both sisters have paired off. The Ptolemys always did this and Cleopatra was the swans would cry out to anyone who the result. At any rate I have not thought it approached within a certain distance: “It was some time after this dismy duty to interfere.” covery that I was walking down to the —WSC TO HIS WIFE, CHARTWELL, 21JAN35 lake with Mr. Churchill. I was a little in front, and watched carefully for the critWESTERHAM, KENT, MAY 26TH— Seventyfive years ago Lady Diana Cooper surveyed ical spot. I then called out in ‘swan-talk’ and the birds dutifully replied. Mr. Chartwell’s birds: “five foolish geese, five furious black swans, two ruddy sheldrakes, Churchill stopped dead. I turned round and he looked me full in the eye for a two white swans—Mr. Juno and Mrs. Jupiter, so called because they got the sexes moment or two. Then the faintest suspicion of a smile appeared and he walked wrong to begin with, two Canadian geese on in silence. No comment was ever (‘Lord and Lady Beaverbrook’) and some made that this secret was shared.” miscellaneous ducks.” Chartwell’s black swans have been looked after as zealously as the apes on FH TRAVEL GUIDE Gibraltar (Finest Hour 125:6), but over LONDON, APRIL 1ST— On England’s the years marauding foxes and mink “Churchill Trail,” Carol Ferguson of the reduced the population, which reached Herald-Banner, Greenville, Texas, stopped zero last year. Happily last winter, to chat Chartwell head gardener Giles Palmer with two installed a new floating “swan island” to gents on a provide natural protection, and two new bench on black swans (Cygnus atratus) are now New Bond cruising the ponds designed by Sir Street. “I’m Winston himself. prompted Mr. Palmer told Kent News to thank (www.kentnews.co.uk): “I have seen the Finest Hour for its regular travel tips,” swans on their island once or twice but Carol writes, “especially the addresses of am confident that they will see just what Churchill’s London homes and directions they are missing out on as soon as the to Chartwell. My daughter and I scouted foliage on the island grows up. For now, them out together.” I’m simply thrilled that the swans are settling on so well and getting to know the GETTING TO CHARTWELL gardens. They’re getting so brave now PERIODIC ADVISORY— Chartwell is open that they ventured all the way to the Wednesdays through Sundays from kitchen garden recently.” The floating March through 1 November from 11am island has allowed gardeners to remove to 4pm, and on Tuesdays in July and ugly mesh screening set up against preda- August. Local telephone: (01732) tors, returning the lakes to their 863087. We like to remind readers of FINEST HOUR 143 / 8 how to get there from London. By car: the drive nowadays is not something for the faint-hearted or trafficchallenged, or North Americans not familiar with righthand-drive. Chartwell is two miles south of Westerham on the A25, accessed by M25 junctions 5 or 6. Drive to the town centre, take the B2026 a few miles to the car park (on left). By bus: Sevenoaks station 6 1/2 miles; Oxted station 5 1/2 miles; Metrobus 246 from Bromley station to Edenbridge passes the gates. The National Trust’s Chartwell Explorer coach takes visitors from Sevenoaks to Chartwell for £3, which provides unlimited bus travel to any local Trust property and a pot of tea at Chartwell. You can also get a combined ticket from London, which includes train and coach, for £13, or £8.50 for Trust members. Details at (08457) 696996. By rail: Some recommend Charing Cross Station to Sevenoaks (four fast trains per hour). Others suggest Victoria Station (fewer trains, but some marked “to East Grinstead and calling at Oxted”). Though only a mile closer than Sevenoaks, Oxted is less congested, making for a lower taxi fare. Arrange to have the cabbie pick you up for your return from Chartwell, so you don’t get stranded—although there are worse places to be stranded than Westerham. There’s a lovely footpath from Chartwell to the town, with its famous King’s Arms pub. (Factoid: the Nemon statue of Churchill on the village green was a gift from the people of Yugoslavia.) CHERIE REVEALS ALL LONDON, MAY 5TH— The wife of former British Prime Minister Tony Blair compares her spouse to WSC. Cherie Blair told Vanity Fair that her husband “was fantastic. I’m sure history will judge him very well. I think he’ll be up there with Churchill.” But, she was less complimentary about her own image: “Just looking at the press cuttings, you could not say that it was a triumph, could you!” Cherie has admitted that her husband was taken aback a little by some DRAWING BY KARL MEERSMAN GARY PLAYER... Churchill, one of my all-time great heroes, always said it’s never a bad thing to cry. It’s a cry of appreciation and enjoyment, a cry of gratitude.” of the saucy contents in her new memoir, Speaking for Myself: “I think he’s rather embarrassed by the love affair bits. I don’t think he particularly read those closely. Been there, done that!” Yes, well... At least Cherie didn’t liken herself to Clementine Churchill. “THE SEASHORE” LONDON, MAY 21ST— Churchill’s “The Seashore” (Coombs 320) was placed on auction at Christie’s today, estimated at £200,000-300,000. The sale benefitted the Queen’s Silver Jubilee Trust. The provenance is William Greenshields, Churchill’s butler between 1948 and 1953. “The Seashore” was given to him by Churchill, as well as a further work called “Antibes,” which sold at Sotheby’s in 1966. According to David Coombs, the preeminent expert and co-author with Minnie Churchill of Sir Winston Churchill: His Life through His Paintings, the scene is one of a series that Churchill painted during the 1930s, in which he demonstrates his fascination with the sea breaking on the shore. The exact location is not known, but these coastal scenes appear to be painted from the French Riviera. Since 1977, The Queen’s Silver Jubilee Trust has supported charities that work with young people in the UK, Channel Islands, Isle of Man and the Commonwealth. Through its grantmaking activity, the Trust has helped hundreds of thousands of young people to find employment, volunteer in their local communities or experience new opportunities that they would not otherwise have enjoyed. PUBLIC INTELLIGENCE WASHINGTON, APRIL 30TH— R. Emmett Tyrell, Jr., editor of The American Spectator, comments on the recent debate AROUND & ABOUT he Things They Say Department: the Wall Street Journal, April 24th, reports: “In London, [President Obama] said that decisions about the world financial system were no longer made by ‘just Roosevelt and Churchill sitting in a room with a brandy’—as if that were a bad thing.” Maybe not, but it’s a simplification of wartime decision-making. Also, FDR drank vermouthlaced martinis, which Churchill reportedly dumped in the nearest flower pot. Thanks to Elliot Berke for this snippet. ❋❋❋❋❋ How the Mighty Have Fallen Bureau: “When Prime Minister Gordon Brown came a-calling at the White House, there was no trip to Camp David, no state dinner or joint meeting with the press, and nobody quoting Churchill that we noticed. An aide explained to the UK’s Sunday Telegraph: “There’s nothing special about Britain. You’re just the same as the other 190 countries in the world. You shouldn’t expect special treatment.” One editorial suggested the UK threaten to set off one of its nuclear weapons: “That might get their attention.” ❋❋❋❋❋ Last issue we presented the Finest Hour Re-Rat Award to Senator Judd Gregg (R.-NH), who accepted nomination as President Obama’s Secretary of Commerce but then withdrew. (Churchill, who deserted the Conservatives for the Liberals in 1904 but oozed back to the Tories in 1925, later said, “Anyone can rat, but it takes a certain amount of ingenuity to re-rat.”) Re-ratting, a lost art, is experiencing a revival. Just a few weeks later, Senator Arlen Specter (D.-Pa.) re-ratted by switching from the Republicans to the Democrats. A registered Democrat, Specter beat Philadelphia Democrat District Attorney James Crumlish in 1965, and subsequently changed his registration to Republican. We must now commission two copies of the Re-Rat Award, which we think might take the shape of the “Flying Fickle Finger of Fate” once dispensed by the Rowan and Martin TV show “Laugh-In.” Re-ratting, if it spreads, could produce a historic realignment, perhaps even new Liberal and Conservative Parties, which would better define the two opposite approaches to issues of the day. Then we could get down to the business of arguing out the debate, instead of obfuscating, dodging and weaving in order to toe some known or imagined party line. As Churchill, who always put principle before party, remarked early in 1907: “The alternation of Parties in power, like the rotation of crops, has beneficial results.” T over declassifying top secret documents: “…frankly I am uneasy about this new climate here in Washington. Historically, intelligence documents have been kept from public eye, not just here but throughout the Western world. The idea is that we do not want our enemies to be informed of what we know. David Reynolds’ In Command of History, on how Churchill wrote his World War II FINEST HOUR 143 / 9 memoirs, repeatedly shows Churchill and his opponents in the Labour government cooperating to keep secrets from the public. British intelligence techniques were not divulged….Intelligence officers within our service have been intimidated by our own government. Foreign intelligence officers who have been sharing intelligence with us abroad are going to be much less forthcoming.” >> DATELINES CHURCHILL PROCEEDINGS COLUMBIA, MO., MAY 1ST— The WINTER, 1987-88— Winston Churchill Memorial and Library at Westminster College in Fulton has a new moniker to gain more national recognition. Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R.-Mo.) sponsored a House resolution recognizing the property as “America’s National Churchill Museum.” Every member of Missouri’s House delegation co-sponsored the resolution, passed in June. The memorial was dedicated at Westminster in 1969 in commemoration of Winston Churchill’s historic 1946 speech on the campus. The memorial and library underwent major renovations in 2005 and reopened the following year. (Cover story, FH 128.) In a prepared statement, Westminster College President George Forsythe said the national designation would raise the museum’s profile and help attract visitors from all over the world. —COLUMBIA DAILY TRIBUNE CHURCHILL ON BURKE BOSTON, MAY 23RD— Edmund Burke, the 18th century Irish political theorist, statesman, essayist, orator and philosopher, was a genius looking at the chaos and iniquities of his time and acting against them. He fought for justice, liberty, and responsible government. He fought against the Penal Codes enacted against Catholics, the abuses of the East India Company, government corruption, and the chaos of the French Revolution. He believed that British colonial possessions were a “trust” with one objective, to prepare their colonies for freedom. Churchill wrote of Burke in “Consistency of Politics” [one of the four essays to be discussed at our San Francisco conference]: “His soul revolted against tyranny, whether it appeared in the aspect of a domineering Monarch and a corrupt Court and Parliamentary system, or whether, mouthing the watchwords of a non-existent liberty, it towered up against him in the dictation of a brutal mob and wicked sect….” —The Catholic Citizen HTTP://THECATHOLICCITIZEN,WORDPRESS.COM “Functions in Britain and the USA during last year resulted in eight speeches of varying length….Since publishing all these in Finest Hour would require the bulk of two full issues, we have decided to publish them as a group, in a booklet called Churchill Proceedings.” —Finest Hour 58. Since 1987, we have published eight editions of Churchill Proceedings with some of the best speeches and papers we have ever heard: Alistair Cooke, Robert Hardy, Sir Fitzroy Maclean, Grace Hamblin, William F. Buckley, Jr., William Manchester, Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. and many more. We have a large supply of most editions and they cost $5 each. Please email or phone the editor, who will be happy to supply them to you. A synopsis of contents is available by email. Some readers ask why we dropped these separate booklets in favor of publishing Proceedings as part of Finest Hour (color-bordered pages). It was a Hobson’s Choice. The booklets made nice collections, but publication was delayed by as much as three years. Expanding FH to include Proceedings allows us to publish Proceedings within a year of the event, to add illustrations, and to fast-track them to our website. The final reality was the editor’s time. Finest Hour 58 numbered thirtytwo pages. With FH now comprising up to eighty pages and the Chartwell Bulletin added, it was just too much to work up a third separate publication. We will eventually transfer all the Proceedings to the new website, but the job of transferring is huge and webmaster John Olsen would like to parcel it out. (Volunteers?) If readers have particular HAIR CLUB FOR MEN?: “It worked so well that I bought the company.” What would WSC have looked like with hair? (A barber once asked how he wanted his hair cut: “A man of my modest achievements cannot be choosy.”) The Daily Telegraph version looks like U.S. postwar radio personality Arthur Godfrey. FINEST HOUR 143 / 10 speeches or papers they would like to see posted first, email John or the editor, and we will give them priority. OFFICIAL BIOGRAPHY Hillsdale College has reached Volume V and its hitherto rare companion volumes in its noble reprint of Sir Martin Gilbert’s ultimate authority for every phase of Churchill’s life Not only are these books affordable (biographic volumes $45, companions $35) but you buy all eight Biographics for $36 each and all twenty (eventually) Companion Volumes for $28 each by subscription. Better yet, if you subscribe for all thirty volumes, you get the biographic volumes for $31.50 and the companions for $24.50. That includes the three 1500-page companions to Volume V, first editions of which have been trading for up to $1000 each. How can you not afford these books? Order from the Hillsdale website whttp://xrl.us/ben4r9 or telephone tollfree (800) 437-2268. ERRATA Finest Hour 141: Page 10, column 2 (on Don Carmichael), line 4: for “develed” read “delved.” Page 20, column 2, third paragraph, last line: close quote. Finest Hour 142: Pages 3 and 6: Alderman Ross, as the cover illustration indicates, was Chairman not President of the Early Closing Association. Page 5 Essay, six lines from bottom: for “leadership or” read “leadership of.” ✌ DAILY TELEGRAPH, LONDON NEW NAME FOR FULTON RIDDLES, MYSTERIES, ENIGMAS Send your questions to the editor Uniform vs. Mufti Q Why did Churchill so often appear in military uniform during World War II when he was Prime Minister? PMs since have not to my knowledge been so inclined. —Joshua Wasylciw A The general answer is that he was proud of his military career and titles, including honorary titles, and often wore uniform at meetings with Stalin, Roosevelt and Truman. Stalin, of course, never appeared in mufti, while the American Presidents always did. Senior Editor Paul Courtenay replies: Although he did not serve as a commissioned officer in WW2, Churchill had several military titles, including Honorary Air Commodore of 615 (County of Surrey) Fighter Squadron, Royal Auxiliary Air Force; Colonel, 4th Queen’s Own Hussars; Honorary Colonel of three Royal Artillery units, of 6th Royal Scots Fusiliers, of a battalion of the Essex Regiment (his Epping and Woodford constituency was in that county); and—notably—of 5th (Cinque Ports) Battalion, The Royal Sussex Regiment. He sometimes chose the RAF uniform when abroad, e.g., Teheran and in France from 1944 In 1947, his wife argued that he should wear civilian dress in Paris to receive the Médaille Militaire, instead of his RAF Honorary Air Commodore's uniform. But an on-the-spot photograph, taken on the day and published in Finest Hour, indicated that WSC had for once rejected her advice, choosing the uniform of The 4th Queen's Own Hussars, his old regiment. British Army regiments (and some battalions) each have a Colonel of the Regiment or Honorary Colonel. This is an unpaid position and not in the military chain of command; that is to say, he does not give orders to anyone and does not command his men in the field. The post is an honour for the individual and the regiment or battalion concerned. He has the role of a father figure, protecting the regimental ethos, and can often help his regiment with advice on regimental finance and personnel matters. He is consulted on which applicants are accepted for commissions, but plays no part in military training or operations, and is usually concerned with the welfare of retired members (i.e., “old comrades”). A typical Colonel of Regiment will have spent much of his early period of service in the regiment concerned and become a Commanding Officer within it. He may then have been promoted above the regimental level and perhaps become a General. He may hold the post of Colonel of the Regiment whether he is still on the active list and filling a senior post somewhere in the army; or he may have retired from the army and started to follow a civilian career. Churchill was not a typical Colonel of Regiment. He was appointed to anumber of colonelcies, most especially two, whose uniforms he frequently wore during World War II. The first of these was Colonel, 4th Queen’s Own Hussars, the regiment in which he had spent four years as a junior officer in 1895-1899.It was a great thrill for him (and for 4th Hussars) when he was appointed Colonel of the Regiment in 1941. He rarely is shown in this uniform. The second was Honorary Colonel, 5th (Cinque Ports) Battalion, The Royal Sussex Regiment. This appointment was also made in 1941, soon after he had become FH 84, Autumn 1994 Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports in that year. The post of Lord Warden is a great honour, bestowed on someone of exceptional distinction. The Cinque Ports were Hastings, New Romney, Hythe, Dover, and Sandwich, later supported by Rye and Winchelsea. The 5th (Cinque Ports) Battalion, The Royal Sussex Regiment, was a Territorial Army unit (part-time reservists mobilised for war service), many of whose men came from the Cinque Ports area. He wore this uniform in Italy, Moscow, Yalta, the rhine Crossing, Berlin and Potsdam. Following army tradition, part-time squadrons in the Royal Auxiliary Air Force acquired Honorary Air Commodores. In 1939 Churchill was appointed Honorary Air Commodore, 615 (County of Surrey) FINEST HOUR 143 / 11 Fighter Squadron, Royal Auxiliary Air Force. The probable reason is that the unit was based at Kenley, only about ten miles from Chartwell; Churchill could easily visit them and often did so. This was the RAF uniform he sometimes wore. This letter is in Martin Gilbert, Winston S. FH 110, Summer 2001 Churchill, vol. 8, “Never Despair” (London: Heinemann, 1988), 328-29: Winston, I would like to persuade you to wear Civilian clothes during your Paris visit. To me, air-force uniform except when worn by the Air Crews is rather bogus. And it is not as an Air Commodore that you conquered in the War but in your capacity and power as a Statesman. All the political vicissitudes during the years of Exile qualified you for unlimited and supreme power when you took command of the Nation. You do not need to wear your medals to shew [sic] your prowess. I feel the blue uniform is for you fancydress and I am proud of my plain Civilian Pig. Clemmie. Sir Martin Gilbert writes: “Churchill seemed to accept his wife’s advice, instructing his valet: ‘I shall wear civilian clothes and take no uniform at all.’ Before leaving, Churchill invited to Chartwell, and FH 20, Jul-Aug 1971: greeted there, Lord Warden court dress members of the Guinea Pig Club, a club consisting of burnt and disfigured air crews. ‘I believe it was the highlight of their visit,’ wrote Archibald McIndoe, the plastic surgeon who had done so much to heal their wounds. But at the Médaille Militaire ceremony, he showed up in uniform.” ✌ 125-100-75-50 YEARS AGO 125 years ago Spring, 1884 • Age 9 “He has no ambition” A t the end of the summer term, Winston’s parents removed him from St. George’s School in part because his nanny, Mrs. Everest, saw evidence of the canings Winston had received at the hands of the school’s sadistic Headmaster, Sneyd-Kynnersley, whose assessment of the young man on June 20th was that “He has no ambition.” His final report on July 21 grudgingly admitted: “He might always do well if he chose,” noting that Winston’s diligence was “fair on the whole,” but that he still “occasionally gives a great deal of trouble.” It is more than likely that Winston was happiest at St. George’s School while he was giving the Headmaster “a great deal of trouble.” Lord Randolph and the Fourth Party were once more at odds with their leaders in the Conservative Party who were seeking to amend the Reform Bill on voter eligibility to exclude Ireland. During his formative years, Winston read and re-read all of his father’s speeches. The following excerpt from Lord Randolph’s biting comments on the subject illustrates that, as a speaker, Winston’s acorn did not fall far from his father’s oak: The Tories had argued that no votes should be given to Irish peasants because they lived in “mud cabins.” Lord Randolph replied: “I have heard a great deal of the mud-cabin argument. For that we are indebted to the brilliant, ingenious and fertile mind of the Rt. Hon. Member for Westminster. I suppose that in the minds of the lords of suburban villas, of the owners of vineries and pineries, the mud cabin represents the climax of physical and social degradation. But the franchise in England has never been determined by Parliament with respect to the character of the dwellings. The difference between the cabin of the Irish peasant and the cottage of the English agricultural labourer is not so great as that which exists between the abode of the Rt. Hon. Member for Westminster and the humble roof which shelters from the storm the individual who now has the honour to address the Committee.” Winston later noted in his biography of his father that “cheers and laughter” had greeted Lord Randolph’s comment WSC’s recent speech in Edinburgh in July, where Churchill had criticized the House of Lords for threatening to reject Lloyd George’s “People’s Budget”—which included, among other things, a 20 percent tax on increased land values. Churchill wrote defending himself, enclosing a speech he had given in Birmingham in January with which Asquith had expressed satisfaction. “Nothing in my speech in Edinburgh goes beyond this. Indeed it seems to me to be a mere restatement.” Churchill wrote, quoting this excerpt from the Birmingham speech: by Michael 100 years ago Summer, 1909 • Age 34 “It was a great coup” C hurchill became a father for the second time on July 11th with the birth of his daughter Diana, whom he nicknamed “the cream-gold kitten.” Three weeks later, Churchill’s personal intervention in the coal miners’ strike produced a satisfactory resolution, as he wrote his mother on 4 August: I had a great triumph….We had 20 hours negotiations in the last two days and I do not think a satisfactory result would have been obtained unless I had personally played my part effectually. I had a nice telegram from the King, and letters from Asquith and Grey all very eulogistic. It was a great coup, most useful and timely. Prime Minister Asquith may have been eulogistic over Churchill’s settling of the strike, but the same was not true of FINEST HOUR 143 / 12 I do not, of course, ignore the fact that the House of McMenamin Lords has the power, though not, I think, the constitutional right, to bring the government of the country to a standstill….If they really believe, as they so loudly proclaim, that the country will hail them as its saviours, they can put it to the proof….And, for my part, I should be quite content to see the battle joined as speedily as possible [cheers], upon the plain simple issue of aristocratic rule against representative government [cheers], between the reversion to protection and the maintenance of free trade [cheers], between a tax on bread and a tax on—well, never mind. [Cheers and laughter.] 75 years ago Summer, 1934 • Age 59 “First requisite of peace” O n June 30th Churchill’s first cousin, “Sunny,” the Ninth Duke of Marlborough, died. Churchill wrote of him in a subsequent letter to The Times as my “oldest and dearest friend.” By a gruesome coincidence Sunny died on the same day as the true face of National Socialism was revealed in Germany during the “Night of the Long Knives,” when Hitler ordered the wholesale slaughter of his 1928: Hitler and Goering (lower left, medals decorating his ample bosom) with the SA at a Nazi Party rally in Nuremberg. (Wikimedia) nation, seventy millions of the most industrious, valiant, gifted people in the world, in the hands of a small group of fierce men. When shall we learn that Britain’s hour of weakness is Europe’s hour of danger? When shall we comprehend that for so great and wealthy a power with such rich possessions to remain in a position where it can be blackmailed is to commit an offence against the cause of peace? political adversaries, including Ernst Röhm, head of the SA, and all of his top lieutenants. Even political retirement did not spare those who had incurred Hitler’s enmity, including the Nazi Party’s former number two man, Gregor Strasser—or Hitler’s predecessor as Chancellor, General Kurt von Schleicher, who, along with his wife, was murdered by no fewer then six gunmen from Himmler’s SS. Hitler biographer Ian Kershaw estimates the death toll at between 150 and 200. Sunny’s death deeply affected Churchill and may explain why, in the days that followed, Churchill did not explicitly condemn Hitler’s cold-blooded killing of his political enemies. But, in a long article in The Daily Mail on 9 July, Churchill left no doubt about the implications for the future peace of Europe. No one else in England or anywhere else for that matter had by that time so succinctly summarized what Germany had become under National Socialism: Surely at the very least we ought to put ourselves in as good a position as we were before the Great War. Then, we were at any rate under the shield of the Navy. We could enter or stand outside Continental struggles as we pleased. The first requisite of peace is that Britain should be capable of self-defence. In England’s balmy summer of 1934, few were listening. 50 years ago Summer, 1959 • Age 84 “The greatest Englishman” I n July, 1959, Churchill was cruising near Greece and Turkey aboard Aristotle Onassis’ yacht Christina, accompanied by, among others, his That mighty race who fought and almost vanquished the whole world is on the march again. The whole nation is inspired with the idea of retrieving and avenging their defeat in the Great War. They have arisen from the pit of disaster in a monstrous guise: hatred internal and external, organized as if it were a science; debts repudiated to buy the means of making cannon; treaties broken to construct a gigantic Air Force; schools placarded with maps of territories to be regained; all Parliamentary safeguards, all internal criticism trampled down; even Christianity itself conscripted to a tribal purpose; the whole German FINEST HOUR 143 / 13 physician Lord Moran, Anthony Montague Browne and his wife, and Onassis’ mistress, the opera singer Maria Callas. During the tour, Sir Winston met both the Turkish and Greek Prime Ministers. Later that summer, Churchill was invited by President Eisenhower to meet him during his state visit to London. They were together at two dinners on 31 August and 1 September. Earlier, in the South of France, Churchill invited the Israeli Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion, to lunch after learning that Ben-Gurion was also in France. Unfortunately, by the time the invitation arrived, Ben-Gurion’s ship had already departed for Israel. Ben-Gurion wrote to Churchill: I need hardly assure you that I should have been delighted to accept the invitation, if only it had found me still in France. Like many others in all parts of the globe, I regard you as the greatest Englishman in your country’s history and the greatest statesman of our time, as the man whose courage, wisdom and foresight saved his country and the free world from Nazi servitude [as well as] one of the few men in the free world to realize the true character of the ✌ Bolshevik regime and its leaders. 29 MAY 1958: Sarah Churchill and Prime Minister Ben-Gurion unveiling the plaque in the Churchill Auditorium, Mt. Carmel campus of the Technion, Israel Institute of Technology. (Wikimedia Commons) COVER STORY Churchill in Nazi Cartoon Propaganda RANDALL BYTWERK “I ALWAYS LOVED CARTOONS,” CHURCHILL WROTE IN 1931. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN ASKING A LOT FOR HIM TO LOVE THE ONES THE GERMANS GENERATED A FEW YEARS LATER: A GRAPHIC REMINDER OF WHAT HE WAS UP AGAINST. Above: Die Brennessel (The Stinging Nettle) #54, 18 December 1934: The first known Churchill cover in the Nazi press, following his earliest warnings on Germany’s rearmament. The caption reads: “Winston Churchill juggles figures on ‘German aircraft’: ‘Toss me another zero—it won't make much of a difference.’” C hurchill’s attacks on the Nazis are masterpieces of invective, and the Nazis returned fire. To Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s Minister of Propaganda, he was “the biggest and most experienced liar in modern history,” and that was one of Goebbels’ gentler attacks. In Hitler’s speeches WSC was “whisky-besotted,” and he was often portrayed in Nazi cartoons with a drunk’s red nose. Churchill’s place in Nazi propaganda varied directly with his threat level. At first he was a minor target, an irrational Englishman pushing for needless war with Germany. Between May 1940 and the invasion of Russia, he was the main enemy, the drunken demagogue at the head of British plutocracy who stood in the way of Germany’s desire for a just world order. After June 1941, he was the puppet of Roosevelt and Stalin, and the Jews who controlled them from behind the scenes: a character of the past who would ruin England in a vain attempt to defeat Germany. But Goebbels, Hitler’s propaganda minister, came to have a grudging respect for Churchill’s ability as a propagandist. Die Brennessel #46, 15 November 1938: Eden and Churchill, the warmongers after Munich, sitting at the feet of Mars. Dr. Bytwerk is Professor of Communication at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan, and author of Julius Streicher and Bending Spines: The Propagandas of National Socialism and the German Democratic Republic. In his Landmark Speeches of National Socialism (2008) he writes: “The Germans claimed that they did not know what was happening—that was not persuasive. Everything that Nazism intended was revealed in its rhetoric. He who had ears could have heard.” FINEST HOUR 143 / 14 Early on, Churchill received attention only when he made the news. A December 1934 cartoon in Brennessel, the Nazi Party’s humor weekly, had him juggling false statistics on German aircraft production. Four years later, Brennessel showed Eden and Churchill sitting at the feet of Mars, who approves of their opposition to Chamberlain’s appeasement policy at Munich.1 With the outbreak of war and Churchill’s return to the Cabinet, he became a central figure. Nazi speakers were told to say that he was now an “untiring warmonger,” the chief English opponent of peace with Germany.2 Through May 1940, as First Lord of the Admiralty, Churchill was presented as the bumbling victim of German military brilliance. A January 1940 cartoon had him knocked over by a boxing ball. In April, he was shown behind bars looking hungrily at a well-stocked table, the victim of the U-boat blockade (back cover). Goebbels at that time did not think much of him, commenting in his diaries that Churchill was energetic, but rash.3 Once Churchill became prime minister, he was the personification of evil for the year when Britain stood alone against Germany. In July 1940, Goebbels ordered Nazi propagandists “to attack only Churchill and his clique of plutocrats but never the British nation as such. Churchill himself had burnt all bridges behind him so that there can be no question of any arrangement with Britain so long as he is at the helm.”4 In caricatures, Churchill was now less a clown than a criminal, a big-mouthed blowhard with nothing to back up his words. A 1940 cartoon showed a sweating Churchill awaiting the gallows, looking at a list of bombed cities. >> The humor weekly Lustige Blätter (Funny Pages) was a relentless foe. Above: WSC smashed by the New World Order, 26 January 1940. Below: Awaiting the Deutschland knife (following previously defeated foes Schusschnigg, Beneš, Chamberlain, Daladier, Reynaud and others), 19 July 1940. Left: Facing the noose, the condemned prisoner with a list of British cities bombed in the Blitz, January 1941. FINEST HOUR 143 / 15 PROPAGANDA CARTOONS... A few months later, he was being led around the world by a Jew—part of the message that as evil as Churchill was, he was only a servant of the Jews, an argument that became more pronounced after 1941. As the Blitz mounted, Churchill was the madman who had brought ruin to England (as the Nazis always called Britain). A cartoon in November 1940 showed Churchill the “madman” watching from a window as London burned. (The Nazis didn’t realize his preferred perch was the Air Ministry roof.) Goebbels turned up his wrath as Britain failed to buckle. His weekly columns in Das Reich, a widely circulated prestige weekly, increasingly attacked Churchill. In January 1941, he accused WSC of the Big Lie: “The astonishing thing is that Mr. Churchill, a genuine John Bull, holds to his lies, and in fact repeats them until he himself believes them.”5 A month later, Churchill was “the first violin in the hellish concert that the whole demo-plutocratic world is playing against the Axis powers.”6 Goebbels mocked Churchill’s claim that all he could offer was “blood, toil, tears and sweat.” It was clever propaganda, he asserted. After all, if things got bad, one could claim to have predicted it, and if things got better, one could take the credit. A cartoon soon made the point: the British lion was ill after drinking Churchill’s cocktail of “blood, sweat and tears.” Perhaps when the war is over, Goebbels speculated, Churchill would be forced to read aloud all of his speeches Above, Lustige Blätter, 25 October 1940: Hitler had postponed Operation Sea Lion, but Churchill was now being led around the world by Ahasver, the legendary "Wandering Jew." Below, Der Stürmer (The Attacker), February 1940: “Churchill, the Braggart. The ruler of all the seas weeps many a bitter tear. The poor man can hardly grasp it, that this is the end to the dream of ‘the supremacy of the seas.’” Above, Illustrierter Beobachter (Illustrated Observer) #25, June 1941: The Nazis picked up on WSC’s habit of dictating from his bath: "Take this down: In my current situation, I fear German U-boats even less than before." FINEST HOUR 143 / 16 in public. “He would then enjoy the most original death a mortal ever had: he would drown in the world’s laughter.”7 Goebbels later wrote: “We can only be thankful that we have Churchill. One may not wish he were not there. One should take good care of him, because he is the trailblazer for our complete and radical victory.”8 Nazi propaganda suggested that Churchill was falling under American control to get the money he needed to continue the war. A 1941 cartoon had him hauling England into a Jewish pawnshop. Not only would Churchill lose the war—he would sell the Empire to the Americans in the process. >> Left, Illustrierter Beobachter, March 1941, reprinted from an Italian newspaper: “Churchill's last speech, from the front of the façade.” The façade looks a lot like Buckingham Palace; at any rate, the Royal Arms are over the door. Below, Lustige Blätter, 14 February 1941. Churchill and the King haul “England” (as the Germans always referred to Britain) to a Jewish pawnshop. The canny artist even picked up their smoking habits. FINEST HOUR 143 / 17 Left, Simplicissimus, 22 October 1939. “Zircus Churchill” approaching the Maginot Line, with the Gallic cock and Neville Chamberlain as the British lion. WSC: “You jump through the hoop first, dear cock, I shall follow after.” As we now know, nobody thought of jumping through. Left, Lustige Blätter, 15 November 1940. WSC looks out his window on the fires of London: “The philosophy of a madman: ‘Our Empire is so large that it hardly makes a difference if a small island burns.’” Left, Lustige Blätter, 23 April 1942: the British lion after a Churchill cocktail of blood, sweat and tears. About the time this cartoon was published, Joseph Goebbels told his colleagues how Churchill's famous promise would work: If things got worse, he could say that's just what he had predicted; if things got better, he could take the credit. Above, Der Stürmer, #6, February 1943: “In the name of Humanity.” High Priest Roosevelt: “The staff has broken, too much of her spoken.” Stalin wields the axe. As the tide turned and the Allies began to push German armies ever closer to the Reich, the theme became “Jewish Bolshevism.” Above: Simplicissimus #14, April 1944: Two months before D-Day, Roosevelt and Churchill are entwined by Stalin: “How neatly you have gotten caught in my web. Now all I need to do is wrap you up!” (www.simplicissimus.com) Der Stürmer, 13 February 1941: “Why does Britain wage this war? Churchill dares not make a reply. He remains dumb. We know quite well why one avoids giving a straight answer to these questions—we, however, need not make a secret of the aim for which we strive, we fight for a free German life!” PROPAGANDA CARTOONS... Following the invasion of Russia and the turning aside of the German onslaught on Britain, the full force of Nazi propaganda focused on Bolshevism and the Jews. Churchill now became a secondary figure. Just after the German defeat at Stalingrad, Goebbels launched a major campaign against Jewish Bolshevism. Churchill and Roosevelt were “to be presented as accomplices and toadies of Bolshevism…which is the most radical expression of the Jewish drive for world domination.”9 This theme dominated Nazi propaganda for the remainder of the war. Churchill nevertheless remained a villain. In August 1944, a cartoon titled “Churchill’s Debts” showed him looking at the list of European cities Britain had bombed, an interesting comparison to the earlier cartoon in which he was held responsible for bombed English cities. A late 1944 mass pamphlet quoted his famous words from 1941: “Nothing is more certain than that every trace of Hitler’s footsteps, every stain of his infected and corroding fingers, will be sponged and purged and if necessary blasted, from the surface of the earth.”10 This was cited as evidence that Churchill, like his master Stalin, intended to wipe out Germany and its people. In private, however, Goebbels gradually came to have respect for Churchill’s abilities. In December 1941, he told his associates that Churchill’s strategy of promising only ”blood, sweat and tears” had been correct.11 And as the war situation turned, he increasingly followed Churchill’s example of admitting difficulties while confidently predicting final victory. Churchill, however, turned out to be the more accurate prophet. FINEST HOUR 143 / 18 Left, Der Stürmer, September 1943: “Plutocrats’ Domination: The Master’s Chair. Churchill is annoyed at the decoration on the throne.” Right, Simplicissimus, 21 May 1941, after the British debacle in Greece, a potsherd from a Grecian urn shows Churchill the “strategic genius” running away two-faced, crying, “Help” and “Victory.” Simplicissimus, shut down in September 1944, along with many other German magazines and party organs, owing to the consequences of what had now become total war. It was revived in 1954-67. Below: Lustige Blätter, #33, 18 August 1944, one of its last issues: “Churchill’s Debts.” In an interesting contrast with the 1941 cartoon of Churchill with a list of ruined British cities (page 15), an arm marked “V1” forces WSC to look at the cities and cultural treasures of Europe destroyed by British bombs. It is an enlightening fact that Churchill was indeed saddened by the destruction of the war—a sentiment expressed by no other leader on either side. Endnotes 1. For a wide range of Nazi propaganda on Churchill, see the German Propaganda Archive (GPA) http://bytwerk.com/gpa/winstonchurchill.htm. See also Fred Urquhart, W.S.C.: A Cartoon Biography (London: Cassell, 1955), which contains about a dozen Nazi cartoons on Churchill. 2. A translation is available on the GPA: http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/rim1.htm. 3. Georg Reuth, Joseph Goebbels Tagebücher 19241945 (Munich: Piper, 1999), 1373. 4. Willi A. Boelcke, The Secret Conferences of Dr. Goebbels (New York: Dutton, 1970), 64-65. 5. Joseph Goebbels, Die Zeit ohne Beispiel (Munich: Eher Verlag, 1941), 364. 6. Ibid., 381. 7. Ibid., 395. 8. Joseph Goebbels, Das eherne Herz (Munich: Eher Verlag, 1943), 218. 9. The document is translated on the GPA: http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/bolshevist.htm. 10. Heinrich Goitsch, Niemals! (Munich: Eher Verlag, 1944). A translation is available on the GPA: http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/niemals.htm. 11. Boelcke, 192. ✌ FINEST HOUR 143 / 19 Top Cop in a Top Hat CHURCHILL AS HOME SECRETARY 14 FEBRUARY 1910 - 25 OCTOBER 1911 RICHARD A. DEVINE he traditional image of Winston Churchill is that of the courageous wartime Prime Minister, or the lonely voice in the 1930s warning about Nazi Germany, or perhaps that of the twice-First Lord of the Admiralty. Few think of Churchill in the role of law enforcer, but for approximately twenty months in 1910 and 1911 that’s essentially what he was. Roy Jenkins described the Home Office as “a plank of wood out of which all other domestic departments have been carved. Ministries like Agriculture, Environment and Employment have left big holes in the coverage of the Home Office. Apart from its central responsibility for police, prisons and the state of the criminal law it also retains a pile of semi-archaic responsibilities, often merely for the reason that no one has thought it worth while to put in a bid for yet another item....”1 Churchill was appointed Home Secretary when he was 35: the youngest person other than Robert Peel to hold the position. The then-wide ranging office made him a police superintendent, the head of prisons, a key decision-maker on clemency and commutation questions, and the head of probation services, to name a few of his duties. He was the “Top Cop” and more. The Home Office then had responsibility for the regulation of working conditions and administration of workmen’s compensation, but then, as now, public safety issues made the headlines: By the time his service as Home Secretary was over, Churchill had been assailed by striking workers, attacked by women suffragists, challenged by decisions on capital punishment, and blamed for the fiery and dramatic deaths of anarchist robbers. As with most of his life, when Winston was around, things were far from dull. T _______________________________________________________________________ Mr. Devine is a member of the Chicago law firm of Meckler Bulger Tilson Marick and Pearson. He served as State’s Attorney of Cook County, Illinois from 1996 to 2008. This article is based on his remarks to Churchllians of Chicagoland. In its preparation the author gratefully acknowledges the advice and assistance of Linnet Myers. FINEST HOUR 143 / 20 Budget Day, 27 April 1910 Though Churchill had little background in law enforcement, he was a man of ideas who never hesitated to express them at length and with vigor. The Permanent Under-Secretary for the Home Office, Sir Edward Troup, captured a glimpse of his chief which prefigured the comments of Churchill’s generals in World War II: Once a week or oftener, Mr. Churchill came into the office bringing with him some adventurous or impossible projects; but after half an hour’s discussion something evolved which was still adventurous, but not impossible.2 Strikes and Strikers Given Churchill’s irrepressible nature, it is not surprising that he was a major player in significant events. There was a good deal of labor unrest, and in May 1910, a dispute erupted at the Newport docks. Feelings ran high. One of the employers, F.H. Houlder, said approvingly that in Argentina they would send in “artillery and machine guns” to handle the matter properly.3 To help maintain order local officials requested that the Home Office agree to the dispatch of both troops and additional police. Churchill agreed to provide 250 foot and fifty mounted policemen. Troops were kept in readiness nearby, but Permanent Under-Secretary Troup notified the War Office that Churchill was “most anxious” that the military not be used.4 Neither police nor troops were needed. The Mayor of Newport telegraphed the Home Office on 22 May that the dispute had been settled by negotiations. Even though law enforcement was largely in the background, it was generally agreed that the Home Office had played a responsible role in resolving the Newport labor dispute.5 In November, 1910, there was a major dispute in the Rhondda Valley, Wales concerning different pay scales for miners, about 25,000 of whom went on strike. Even though the Chief Constable of Glamorgan had about 1400 police officers under his command, he asked for troops and additional police. Troops were sent to the area but held in reserve. The responsibility for maintaining law and order was left with the local constabulary and the 300 Metropolitan police officers ordered to the area by Churchill. On 7 November rioting broke out in Tonypandy, one of the towns in the Rhondda Valley. Sixty-three shops were damaged, and one person was killed by accident. According to later reports, the police behaved with restraint, utilizing only rolled-up mackintoshes in attempting to control the rioters. Churchill was both criticized and praised for the handling of the disorder at Tonypandy. The Times charged him with weakness in failing to call in the troops, while the Manchester Guardian argued that his decision probably “saved many lives.”6 Interestingly, in later years Churchill was criticized for authorizing the use of troops at Tonypandy when, in fact, he had not done so. (One commentator believes Tonypandy is erroneously referenced because it is one of the few Welsh towns the English can pronounce.)7 In June 1911, strikes broke out in the Southampton docks and spread to other locations. As the situation deteriorated, there were fears of a possible national railway strike. This led Churchill to suspend the rule that troops could be provided only at the request of the local civic authority. He authorized the deployment of forces at the discretion of military commanders in the area. The strikes ended with the intervention of Lloyd George. On 22 August 1911, Churchill spoke in the House of Commons, defending his actions. He said it had been vital to keep the railroads running to protect the food supply, arguing that a national railway strike would have hurled the whole area into an “abyss of horror which no man can dare to contemplate.”8 He believed that the Metropolitan Police were not a strong enough force to prevent or quell disruptions that might have occurred anywhere in the country. Churchill acknowledged that there was some loss of life but argued that, in the long run, lives were saved.9 Mobilizing the military outside of normal procedures upset a number of people in Churchill’s Liberal party, despite the Home Office’s measured response to previous labor problems. In this instance his oratorical strengths may have contributed to an image more antilabor than his actions suggest. The Battle of Sidney Street Churchill’s work in law enforcement was not confined to labor disputes. In December 1910, a group of foreign anarchists was discovered digging a tunnel into a jewelry shop in London. The police arrived on the scene, and during the ensuing confrontation three police officers were killed and two were wounded. The criminals escaped but were traced on January 3rd to a house on London’s Sidney Street. The police on the scene were armed but needed heavier weapons, so they requested approval from the Home Office to use an armed platoon of Scots Guards. Churchill was summoned from his bath to be briefed on the events at Sidney Street and to sanction the use of the military. Although some believed he’d have been wiser to stay in his tub, Churchill decided to go to the scene himself. He arrived at Sidney Street—not surprisingly a conspicuous presence. His level of involvement in directing the police has been the subject of debate, but Churchill always maintained that he left the management of the siege to the officer in charge. At some point a fire started in the building the suspects had occupied. Churchill confirmed a police order to the fire brigade to let the house burn rather than risk the lives of firefighters to protect those of criminals. >> FINEST HOUR 143 / 21 Arthur Balfour: “I understand what the photographer was doing, but what was the Rt. Hon. Gentleman doing?” Sidney Street, 3 January 1911, WSC in top hat. HOME SECRETARY... (Churchill denied that he gave the initial order.) Eventually two bodies were found in the building. One or two of the criminals were never accounted for, including the leader, “Peter the Painter,” who escaped and was never heard from again.10 A newsreel camera captured Churchill at the scene, and one of the newspapers had a picture of him in top hat and fur collared coat, along with that of a photographer who was covering the event. Referring to the photo, Arthur Balfour stated in the House of Commons: He was, I understand, in military phrase in what is known as the zone of fire—he and a photographer were both risking valuable lives. I understand what the photographer was doing, but what was the Rt. Hon. gentleman doing? 11 Churchill conceded that Balfour’s comment was not without some justification. Suffragettes and Dirty Curs One of the characteristics Churchill brought to public life was stating his views with clarity. He was not one to be all things to all people or to adopt a position because it was the least offensive. Churchill’s record on the issue of women’s suffrage could not, however, be said to fit that description. The issue was emotional and resolution more complex then one might first think from the vantage point of the 21st century. It was not simply a matter of giving the vote to females on the same basis as males. In the early 1900s the male vote was limited to householders. If the same standard had been applied to women, the vote would have been given to only a small percentage of unmarried or widowed women.12 With the hope of finding a way through a difficult issue, a Conciliation Committee was established in the spring of 1910. The Committee’s leadership was seeking to remove the issue from the clamor of partisan politics and find a solution that would be acceptable to a majority in the Commons. Churchill was approached and agreed to the use of his name as a supporter of the undertaking. The result of the Committee’s work was introduced in the House of Commons in July 1910. Despite his support of the Committee, Churchill spoke against the bill. This resulted in a heated exchange of correspondence between WSC and H.N. Braidsford, Honorary Secretary of the Committee, who referred to his conduct as “treacherous.” Churchill replied that his support had been limited to the creation of the Committee, not any end product. Further letters followed. Braidsford and Lord Lytton claimed that Churchill had made positive comments to them about the specific proposal in private meetings. Churchill pointed out that in addition to being private, those were preliminary discussions and that Braidsford and Lytton should have understood that his final views had to await analysis by experts in the Home Office. Reviewing the correspondence gives a sense that Braidsford and Lytton were most offended by Churchill’s taking an active role in the debate and using his oratorical skills against a cause they strongly supported. They might have understood and accepted a quiet neutrality, but were upset by WSC’s statements and opposing vote. For Churchill’s part, he was deeply upset that private conversations had been used against him in public, especially by Lytton, who had been a personal friend. It also bothered him that supporters of suffragettes would accuse him of treachery when he had offered help to a group that had badgered and bullied him during the course of several election campaigns. Churchill wrote a private memorandum on 19 July 1910, outlining his recollections of his meetings and conversations on the suffrage issue. At paragraph 15 he noted that in a meeting he had told Braidsford he could not vote for the bill but also “expressed his intention of not voting against the Bill.”13 This suggested he wasn’t going to vote at all—but FINEST HOUR 143 / 22 he changed his mind two days before the proposal’s second reading. He decided to speak and vote against the measure for two reasons. First, research by his staff and his own study of the bill revealed serious problems that made it a bad piece of legislation and “deeply injurious to the Liberal cause.”14 Second, he understood that both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would oppose the proposal in public. Because emotions ran high, and there had even been threats of violence, Churchill said he would have considered it cowardly to have sat on the sidelines. Whatever Churchill’s rights and wrongs on the Franchise Bill, he managed to alienate a number of people, including some supporters. In a political sense, he owed nothing to the suffragettes. As he noted, they had long made his life miserable by regularly disrupting his speeches. Yet he had given his support to the Committee, so his subsequent conduct, even if justified in the particulars, left him open to the claim that he was saying one thing and doing quite another. The Franchise Bill ultimately failed, and it soon became clear that Parliament would not take up the issue any time in the near future. This led to a demonstration in Parliament Square by suffragettes and their backers on what came to be known as Black Friday (18 November 1910). Not surprisingly, feelings continued to run high, and eventually there were clashes between the police and demonstrators. Over 100 arrests were made.15 There was substantial criticism of how the police handled the situation, including a letter from Churchill himself, who wrote the head of the Metropolitan Police expressing his concern that officers had been slow in making arrests. It was true that the police did not act quickly to arrest the demonstrators, but that approach was consistent with past practice. At the last minute Churchill had suggested a change in that practice but too late, according to the police commander, to get the message to the officers on the scene. Press accounts focused on police excesses in first trying to control the crowd and then in making arrests. Even though Churchill promptly ordered the release of the arrestees, many suffrage leaders blamed him for the violence and even accused him of ordering the releases to prevent the truth from being stated in court. A few days later, as the so-called Battle of Downing Street took place, Churchill again appeared at a demonstration in support of votes for women, and ordered the arrest of a participant. A few days later Hugh Franklin, a suffrage backer, attacked Churchill with a whip, shouting “Take that, you dirty cur!”16 Franklin was charged with assault and sentenced to six weeks in prison. Suffrage continued as a problem for the Liberal Party until the outbreak of World War I in 1914 put the matter on the back burner. Prisoners and Sentences Among the Home Secretary’s duties was reviewing death sentences considering mercy. Churchill took this obligation seriously and, by all accounts, gave close attention to each of the forty-three capital cases presented for review. He reprieved twenty-one, which was a higher rate than the 40 percent reprieved during 1900-09.17 Even though Churchill was not reluctant to show mercy in individual cases, he remained a supporter of the death penalty throughout his life. He did, however, view the ultimate punishment in a rather unusual light. In a letter to Sir Edward Grey he stated, “To most men— including all the best—a life sentence is worse than a death sentence.”18 If this seems odd, it fit Churchill’s persona. He led an adventurous life and appeared to have no fear of being killed. A long term of imprisonment would have been much worse than death for a man of his temperament. Whether “most men” felt that way is another question. To the Home Secretary’s responsibility for England’s prison system Churchill brought a unique perspective— he was the only Home Secretary who was ever incarcerated. In My Early Life he entitled the chapter on his 1899 captivity by the Boers “In Durance Vile.” At the time Churchill took office, England was sending a large number of people to prison. In 1908-09 over 180,000 people were incarcerated, over half for failure to pay a fine, and a third for drunkenness.19 The great percentage of convicts were from the poorer classes, a fact which did not escape Churchill’s notice. He studied prison issues for several months after taking office. On 20 July 1910, he told the House of Commons that one of the main principles for a good prison system was to “prevent as many people as possible from getting there.”20 Some 90,000 people had been sent to prison in 1909 for failure to pay fines. Many would never have gone to prison at all if they had been given a reasonable period of time to pay their fines. Churchill advocated extending the time for payment. Even though his proposal didn’t become law, the concept of more time was accepted as national policy, reducing the number of people sent to prison. The changed approach had a dramatic effect on those charged with drunkenness. In 1908-09 over 62,000 were imprisoned for failing to pay fines imposed for that offense. By 1918-19 the number was only 1600.21 Churchill also worked to extend the Children’s Act to those who were 16-21 years old, placing a greater emphasis on rehabilitation and alternative punishments such as “defaulters drill” for petty offenses. He was reluctant to send any young person to prison unless a serious offense was involved. To his credit, Churchill’s attitude was affected by the reality that those who were sent away were almost always sons of the working class. He pointed out that many of the same acts, if committed by a >> FINEST HOUR 143 / 23 HOME SECRETARY... young man at Oxford, were not punished in any way.22 As a result of Churchill’s efforts, far fewer young people entered the country’s prisons. One of Churchill’s duties was to write regular memos to the King on House of Commons activities. Though this falls outside the law and order category, it is worth a discussion because of WSC’s approach to the task. On 10 February 1911, Churchill wrote the King: “…as for tramps and wastrels there ought to be proper labour colonies where they could be sent….it must not, however, be forgotten that there are idlers and wastrels at both ends of the social scale.”23 Greatly offended, George V concluded that WSC’s view was “very socialistic.”24 The King’s reaction prompted a series of notes between Churchill and Lord Knollys, the King’s private secretary. At one point Churchill suggested that the duty of updating the King should perhaps “be transferred to some other minister.” He finally calmed down when the King, through Lord Knollys, assured him that he wanted Churchill to continue, and that his letters were “always very interesting.”25 The exchange was enough for Knollys to comment that Churchill “means to be conciliatory I imagine, but he is rather like ‘a bull in a china shop.’”26 Knollys might have overstated things, but there’s no denying that wherever Churchill served, there was action and controversy. Summing Up Even though his time as Home Secretary was a brief and little-known part of his public life, Winston was still Winston. The issues he faced provoked controversy and intense feelings. His actions prompted both praise and stinging criticism. Even when his actions were reasonable and temperate, his oratorical flourishes could at times leave the impression he was following an extreme course. Whatever else might be said about Churchill’s time at the Home Office, there can be no dispute that his unique personality and strong views guaranteed interesting times. After approximately twenty months as Home Secretary, the controversial Churchill went on to become First Lord of the Admiralty—and times remained as interesting as ever. Endnotes 1. Roy Jenkins, Churchill (Macmillan, 2001), 170. 2. Paul Addison, Churchill on the Home Front 1900-1955 (London: Pimlico, 1995), 128. 3. Randolph S. Churchill, Winston S. Churchill, Companion Volume II, Part 2, 1907-1911 (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1969), 1172. 4. Randolph S. Churchill, Winston S. Churchill, vol. II, Young Statesman 1901-1914 (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1967), 358. 5. Ibid., 363. 6. Ibid., 364. 7. “Leading Churchill Myths,” Finest Hour 140, Autumn 2008, 11. 8. Young Statesman, 367. Hendon Aviation meeting, 12 May 1911: Churchill, second from right, chats with newspaper magnate Lord Northliffe; Mrs. Churchill shades her eyes at left. Although still Home Secretary, WSC was now takng a serious interest in aircraft and flying, which would bear useful fruit in World War I. 9. Ibid., 371-372 10. Ibid., 394. 11. Ibid., 395. 12. Addison, 132. 13. Randolph S. Churchill, Winston S. Churchill, Companion Volume II, Part 3, 1911-1914 (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1969), 1452. 14. Ibid., 1453. 15. Addison, 136. 16. WSC, Companion Volume II, Part 3, 1911-1914, 1459. 17. Addison, 119. 18. Young Statesman, 403. 19. Ibid., 373. 20. Addison, 114. 21. Young Statesman, 375. 22. Ibid., 376. 23. Ibid., 418. 24. Ibid., 419. 25. Ibid., 423. 26. Ibid., 423. Other Sources Winston S. Churchill, Thoughts and Adventures (Wilmington, Delaware: ISI Books, 2009). Ted Morgan, Churchill: Young Man in a Hurry (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1982). Donald Rumbelow, The Siege of Sidney Street (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1973). Maxwell P. Schoenfeld, Sir Winston Churchill: His Life and Times (Malabar, Fla.: Krieger, 1986). Websites Churchill Centre: “Action This Day, A Daily Chronicle of Churchill’s Life; Young Statesman: 1901-1914” (http://www.winstonchurchill.org). Churchill Archives Centre, Cambridge: Chartwell Papers, ✌ CHAR 12: Home Office (http://www.chu.cam.ac.uk). FINEST HOUR 143 / 24 Wit & Wisdom “Grasp the Larger Hope” Once he found a felicitous phrase, it stuck... I n writing the footnotes for James Muller's new edition of Thoughts and Adventures (reviewed on page 45), I came across this line in Churchill’s article, “The Irish Treaty”: “Both are needed to explain the perplexities of the British Government and the causes which led them ‘to grasp the larger hope.’” I traced the likely source (“trust the larger hope”) to Alfred Tennyson (1809-92), who became First Baron Tennyson in 1884. He was appointed Poet Laureate in 1850. The poem is IN MEMORIAM A.H.H - OBIIT MDCCCXXXIII. It was written by Tennyson in memory of his close Cambridge friend Arthur Henry Hallam, who died suddenly in 1833 of a cerebral haemorrhage, aged 22; he had been engaged to marry Tennyson's sister. Tennyson was so affected by the loss of Arthur Hallam that he spent the next seventeen years writing this long work, which consists of no fewer than 131 separate poems presented as one. It was published in 1850. Section LV (55) consists of five verses, “the larger hope” coming from its final lines: PAUL H. COURTENAY tepid water with lime-juice or tepid water with whisky. Faced with these alternatives I ‘grasped the larger hope.’ I was sustained in these affairs by my high morale. Wishing to fit myself for active-service conditions I overcame the ordinary weaknesses of the flesh. By the end of these five days I had completely overcome my repugnance to the taste of whisky.” 1931 In a speech on the Statute of Westminster Bill, 20 November 1931 (Complete Speeches, V: 5099) Churchill spoke of continued Empire unity: “I feel that we are bound, where the great self-governing Dominions of the Crown are concerned, boldly to grasp the larger hope, and to believe, in spite of anything that may be written in Acts of Parliament, that all will come right, nay, all will go better and better between Great Britain and her offspring.” 1934 In Arms and the Covenant, the collection of Churchill speeches leading up to World War II, is his speech of 8 I stretch lame hands of faith and grope, March 1934, “The Need for Air Parity” And gather dust and chaff, and call (see also Complete Speeches V: 5330): To what I feel is Lord of all, “We all hope [war] will never take And faintly trust the larger hope. place, and I am not at all prepared, standing here, to assume that it will The phrase rang a loud bell and I recalled inevitably take place. On the contrary, I that Churchill had also deployed it in My still grasp the larger hope and believe that Early Life and The Gathering Storm. With we may wear our way through these diffithe editor's help I found it to have been culties and leave this grim period behind.” one of his favourites, having been used in a variety of contexts as follows: 1937 Step by Step, Churchill’s collection 1930 of articles about foreign affairs, includes Churchill in My Early Life, “How to Meet the Bill,” first published Chapter X, writes amusingly about 22 January 1937: acquiring his taste for whisky: “I personally grasp the larger hope; “I now found myself in heat but, however this grim issue in world which, though I stood it personally fairly destiny may be decided, it is evident that well, was terrific, for five whole days and Great Britain should finance the expanwith absolutely nothing to drink, apart sion of her defence programmes to the from tea, except either tepid water or fullest possible extent….” FINEST HOUR 143 / 25 1938 Sir Martin Gilbert in Churchill: The Wilderness Years, (London: Macmillan, 1981, 240), seems to be quoting Churchill post-Munich, though this does not come up in the official biography: “In many letters [Churchill] referred to his deep distress and in one he explained why he felt he was ‘groping in the dark.’ Until Munich the ‘peace loving powers’ had ‘been definitely stronger than the Dictators,’ but in 1939 ‘we must expect a different balance.’ It was this new situation, he wrote, which ‘staggered’ him and momentarily caused him to despair. But, in his characteristic way he immediately struggled to grasp the ‘larger hope’ and turned to the possibility of greater United States involvement in Europe.” 1948 In The Gathering Storm, Chapter 20, Churchill writes of what he calls “The Soviet Enigma”: “Statesmen are not called upon only to settle easy questions. These often settle themselves. It is where the balance quivers, and the proportions are veiled in mist, that the opportunity for worldsaving decisions presents itself. Having got ourselves into this awful plight of 1939, it was vital to grasp the larger hope.” 1948 Speaking of European Unity at The Hague on 7 May 1948 (Europe Unite, 317), Churchill used the phrase with a plural: “...if we all pull together and pool the luck and the comradeship…and grimly grasp the larger hopes of humanity, then it may be that we shall move into a happier sunlit age...” ✌ “CORRERAI ANCOR PIU VELOCE PER LE VIE DEL CIELO.” Jack French Kemp 1935-2009 RICHARD M. LANGWORTH O n Eleuthera, where we live from December to April, there was vast fascination, as one might expect, over the recent U.S. Presidential election. One of the virtues of this Bahamas Out Island is that racism, in the sense we all know it in the so-called First World, doesn’t really exist. On our easygoing strand, amid the smiles of friendly locals and old friends, it doesn’t seem to matter whether the face in front of you is black or white. So it was natural for the wife of our local grocer to ask me in all innocence and without rancor: “Is it possible for a nonwhite to be elected President?”… …And for me to reply instantly: “It was possible twelve years ago, if the ticket had been Colin Powell and Jack Kemp.” I am convinced it was possible—not only because Colin Powell, Honorary Member of The Churchill Centre, is a man vast numbers of people like or admire; but because Jack Kemp, Trustee of The Churchill Centre, though they say he ran a bum campaign, was equally so: a politician who, like Churchill, never wrote off any voter, who believed that his libertarian philosophy could appeal to all, that it was the height of patronization to single out a minority and declare that they must have more government because they cannot get by with less of it. Jack was a man who lived life at maximum rpm, whether as champion quarterback for the Buffalo Bills, as a Congressman who promoted enterprise zones in inner cities, as a empowerment-advocating Housing Secretary, or as a candidate for Vice President who described himself as a “bleeding-heart conservative.” But you can read all about those achievements by Googling his name. I’d rather write about what he meant to his fellow Churchilllians. The Tenth Churchill Conference in Washington in 1993 was a stellar occasion. Co-sponsored by Senators Boxer and Feinstein, we welcomed Lady Thatcher, Winston Churchill, Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick, Celia Sandys and Gen. Colin Powell. At the Navy Yard Chapel we reprised the services at Argentia in August 1941, with readings by veterans of USS Augusta and HMS Prince of Wales. Ambassador Alan Keyes not only sang five national anthems including God Defend New Zealand, but all six verses of The Battle Hymn of the Republic—sans music in freezing cold on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. As Churchill wrote of Argentia: “Every verse seemed to stir the heart. It was a great hour to live.” Jack Kemp was our keynote speaker at that conference. We republish here what he said: words of wisdom and inspiration, delivered with his accustomed vigor, and not without humor. When his introducer made so bold as to compare him to a former Congressman named Lincoln, Jack rose red-faced to disclaim even the slightest similarity. After her appreciation following his speech, Jeane Kirkpatrick and Jack embraced: old colleagues, veterans of political wars, together again, even though (as Jeane told me at dinner), they had differed fervently over the 1982 Falklands War, with Jack firmly on the side of Margaret Thatcher and Great Britain. Jack and his wife Joanne were with us again at the commissioning of USS Winston S. Churchill in 2001, and we dined together in the wardroom (Finest Hour 111). His last campaign was six years past, but he was still passionate about what The New York Times called his “most important idea….the theory that deep cuts in taxes would lead to such an economic boom that much if not all of the revenue lost from lower taxes would be offset by the additional tax receipts that resulted from greater earnings.” FINEST HOUR 143 / 26 “What was it Churchill said about Supply-Side economics?” Jack asked between bites. “He didn’t say anything about Supply-Side economics,” I winked. “He was a Liberal.” “Yes, he did!” Jack retorted. “You know, about keeping money in people’s pockets.” Later I looked it up and sent it to him, because he was right, and Churchill’s words ring as true now as when Churchill spoke them, on 16 August 1945: “What noble opportunities have the new Government inherited! Let them be worthy of their fortune, which also is the fortune of us all. To release and liberate the vital springs of British energy and inventiveness, to let the honest earnings of the nation fructify in the pockets of the people….” In January Jack Kemp announced that he had been diagnosed with cancer. Four months later he was gone. Immediately I thought of the words Churchill offered, as only he could, quoting from Adam Lindsay Gordon’s grand poem “The Last Leap,” upon the death of his dearest friend, Lord Birkenhead: “The summons which reached him, and for which he was equally prepared, was of a different order. It came as he would have wished it, swift and sudden on the wings of speed. He had reached the last leap in his gallant course through life. All is over! Fleet career, Dash of greyhound slipping thongs, Flight of falcon, bound of deer, Mad hoof-thunder in our rear, Cold air rushing up our lungs, Din of many tongues.” Oddly too, remembering the rapidfire way Jack lived and spoke and thought, I thought of another figure in a galaxy far away, the immortal Tazio Nuvolari, the greatest racing driver who ever lived. In Mantua, Italy, where passing drivers in the Mille Miglia would raise a hand in mute salute as they raced through “Nivola’s” home town, his tombstone bears this epitaph: Correrai ancor piu veloce per le vie del cielo. You will travel faster still upon the highways of heaven. Godspeed, my friend. ✌ REMEMBERING JACK I have three abiding memories of Jack Kemp. The first was his visit to the Churchill Archives Centre, when he stood in the middle of our reading rooms, a bust of Sir Winston at his back, and insisted not just on reading but on declaiming one of the great wartime speeches from Churchill's original speaking notes, at full volume, with full emphasis, as if delivering it to an election rally: one master orator paying tribute to another. My second memory is walking with him to the reception after the commissioning of USS Winston S. Churchill, watching him engage in lively banter with the crowd, with a natural ease and without airs or security. But my most important memory is of the meeting I had with him in his office in Washington, D.C. I thought it was a courtesy call and I briefed him on the reason for my trip, and the fact that I was having meetings with key staff at the Library of Congress to discuss a possible Churchill exhibition. I had underestimated his interest and his networks, for on the back of my brief visit he picked up the phone to his friend, Dr. James Billington, Librarian of Congress. Suddenly doors began to open. The exhibition that followed in 2004 might never have happened without this crucial political intervention. —Allen Packwood, Director, Churchill Archives Centre, Churchill College, Cambridge C “Never Splash in Shallow Waters” The Hon. Jack Kemp Tenth International Churchill Conference Mayflower Hotel, Washington, 7 November 1993 hurchillians are a diverse group with a common purpose. By your reenactment of the 1941 Atlantic Charter services today at the Navy Chapel, you bring to mind again Churchill’s memories of that scene: “It was a great hour to live. Nearly half those who sang were soon to die.” Through experiences like these we can better understand our world today, and the unique set of challenges we face. No one has made that more clear to me than Sir Martin Gilbert. As exemplified by his address this weekend, “Churchill and the Holocaust,” he has set an unequaled standard of scholarship. Martin has also written of Churchill’s “uncanny understanding and vision of the future unfolding of events.” This is why Churchill speaks to us so clearly across the years. Over the past eighty years the Western democracies have overcome unprecedented challenges. Two >> FINEST HOUR 143 / 27 JACK KEMP... Charles de Gaulle said that a great leader “must world wars destroyed nations, empires, millions of lives. aim high, show that he has a vision, act on the grand A cold war haunted us with nuclear nightmares, and scale, and so establish his authority over the generality of men who splash in the shallow water.” Churchill always turned suddenly hot in places like Berlin, Korea, swam in deep waters. The essence of his vision was Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Vietnam, Cambodia and liberty. His greatest contribution was to preserve it from Afghanistan. Whole nations became prisons where words extinction by rallying people behind a noble cause. But of freedom were spoken only in private, and in fear. today his legacy is under attack by authors who “splash Many in the intellectual community, from Oswald in shallow water.” Some argue that Spengler to Jean-François Revel, predicted Chamberlain, Baldwin and the democracy’s demise. appeasers were just “pragmatic The man who experienced realists,” Churchill an ideoall the trials of our century logue willing to sacrifice also foresaw their end. Britain’s Empire for the Speaking at M.I.T. in futile cause of 1949, Churchill foredefeating Hitler. shadowed the The Fuehrer, after triumph of all, only wanted freedom: “The Lebens-raum; he machinery of had no propaganda designs westmay pack ward. their minds Churchill with falseadvocated hood and Services aboard HMS Prince of Wales with the President and Prime Minister, Argentia, 10 August 1941. “peace deny them Reprised by The Churchill Centre, Washington Navy Yard Chapel, 7 November 1993 through truth for Lesson read by David Robinson, USN (ret.), USS Augusta strength.” many genBe strong and of a good courage: for unto this people shalt thou divide for an inheritance the land He spent erations of which I sware unto their fathers to give them. This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; ten years time, but but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is warning of the soul of written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success. Have I not commanded thee? Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou disNazi rearman thus mayed; for the Lord thy God is with thee, whithersoever thou goest. —Joshua 1: 6, 8-9 mament and frozen in a the dangers of long night can Prayer read by Raymond Goodman, RN (ret.) HMS Prince of Wales isolationism. be awakened by Save us and deliver us from the hands of our enemies; abate their pride, assuage their malice, He challenged a spark coming and confound their devices; that we, being armed with Thy defence, may be preserved ever the government’s from God knows more from all perils, to glorify Thee, who art the only giver of all victory. Stablish our hearts, O God, in the day of battle, and strengthen our resolve, that we fight not policies of appeasewhere, and in a in enmity against men but against the powers of darkness enslaving the souls ment and bluntly moment the whole of men, till all the enmity and oppression be done away and the asked whether Britain structure of lies and peoples of the world be set free from fear, to serve one another was doing all it could to oppression is on trial for as children of our Father, who is above all and through defend democracy. Two its life.” all and in all, our God for ever and ever. Amen. years before the Munich pact We have weathered this dismembered Czechoslovakia he century’s violent storms. At the end spoke of “simple uncounted truths today of each, there have been both opportunities for which better men than we are have died on the and tests. Consider the tragic mistakes and the terrible scaffold or the battlefield.” Yet without him, the new consequences which could have been averted. At revisionists would have us believe Britain would have Versailles, we tried to create a new world. We created thrived under Hitler’s boot. That’s more than bad instead the seeds of another war. At Yalta, we tried to history; it is a dangerous blindness. construct a stable peace. We raised an iron curtain. Today we are engaged in a fresh debate over We have won “the long twilight struggle” against America’s role in the world. On the political right, some Communism. The history of the response is now to be want to turn inward, believing there are no great threats written. What new challenge may lie ahead? to our security. They say, “Come Home, America!” In shaping this response, we can learn from the Behind this lies a timid nationalism based on fear that man who both made and wrote history: from internaAmerica can’t compete. I disagree. I believe America has tional relations to trade, economic policy to social policy. FINEST HOUR 143 / 28 a vital national and world interest in expanding liberty. Wherever they exist, democracies give rise to peace and progress. But there is also a passion to foreign policy that goes beyond a narrow Realpolitik. There is a moral commitment, enshrined, as Churchill declared, in the Declaration of Independence and Magna Carta: “Ought we not to produce in defence of right, champions as bold, missionaries as eager, and if need be, swords as sharp as are at the disposal of the leaders of totalitarian states?” The defining principle of Western foreign policy must be freedom. Achieving it will not be through hollow words or shallow idealism. Churchill said, “Virtuous motives are no match for armed and resolute readiness.” The first obligation is the defense of the nation. The breaking up of empires is always a moment of heightened danger. It is certainly true in the fragments of the Warsaw Pact and the collapse of the Soviet Union. Parts of the world are again in the grip of nationalist, religious, and ethnic violence. Missiles and nuclear technology spread easily from hand to hand, to places like North Korea and Iran. The CIA estimates that fifteen or twenty “developing” nations will have ballistic missiles by the end of the century. We still face a world of risk. Who knows where it will rise from next? I am concerned, in particular, about the determination to gut the Strategic Defense Initiative. When weapons of mass destruction proliferate, regional conflict can quickly become global. Churchill understood the need to protect free peoples against the terrible weapons of the modern age. That is why he always championed new technology against objections from politicians and the military. In World War I, he was the chief advocate for the tank and military aircraft. During his political wilderness, he challenged the British government to maintain its technological edge. As Prime Minister, he saw the vital importance of radar. But freedom, Churchill knew, must also be protected by collective security: maximum power in the hands of democratic nations. Recent events have proven the point. American troops in Somalia were left without clear objectives. Their goals were muddied by multilateralism, not aid by allies. Churchill hated military action without strategy. But that is exactly what we’ve seen too often lately, from leaders who view collective security as an excuse for inaction and indecision. This is not collective security. It is collective ineptitude. F or Churchill, freedom was also his lodestar in domestic politics, finding its most consistent expression in his commitment to capitalism. He sought no “third way” between capitalism and socialism. He believed capitalism was inextricably linked to human freedom. More than a utilitarian economic structure, it was a prerequisite for a free society. Socialism, he thought, would bring the slow death of democracy. “We are for the ladder,” he said. “Let all try their best to climb. They [socialists] are for the queue. Let each wait his place until his turn comes.” For Churchill, a thriving democratic-capitalist system was based on three fundamental principles: the rule of law, low taxes, and Free Trade. Months before he crossed the floor of the House of Commons on the issue of Free Trade, he gave an impassioned speech ridiculing the growing protectionist sentiment in the Tory party: “It is the theory of the protectionist that imports are evil....we free-traders say it is not true. To think that you can make a man richer by putting on a tax is like a man thinking that he can stand in a bucket and lift himself up by the handle.” The debate of 1904 divides nations and my party today, and the stakes are as high. The outcome of the North American Free Trade Agreement will determine more than my country’s economic future; it will determine its future character. It will determine whether we turn inward or look outward, whether we try futilely to preserve the past or boldly seek a greater future; whether we view the global economy with fear or confidence. Churchill also believed in a tax system where rates were low and incentives high: “The idea that a nation can tax itself into prosperity is one of the crudest delusions which has ever fuddled the human mind.” Low taxes, he said, were the key to upward mobility for the disadvantaged in society. One of the first changes he announced as Chancellor of the Exchequer was a ten percent reduction in income taxes for the lowest income groups, to “liberate the production of new wealth [and] stimulate enterprise and accelerate industrial revival.” Churchill’s was not a Darwinian vision where the strong thrive and the weak suffer. He fought to establish a system that doesn’t surrender control to bureaucracy, but shows compassion for the least fortunate in society. We call it a safety net, but Winston Churchill described it like this: “We want to draw a line below which we will not allow persons to live and labour, yet above which they may compete with all the strength of their manhood. We want to have free competition upwards; we decline to allow free competition to run downwards. We do not want to pull down the structures of science and civilization, but to spread a net over the abyss.” These are the direct and vital contributions of Churchill to the debates of today. We have lived to see a world revolution of liberty, but freedom’s march is not complete and its success is never assured. America and the West must do more than just stand against something. All defenders of freedom stand on Churchill’s shoulders. Thank God we have this organization to perpetuate his legacy and relevance: to ✌ remind us never to “splash in shallow waters.” FINEST HOUR 143 / 29 GLIMPSES MADE A SLIGHT BOW AND SAID, ‘HOW DO YOU DO, SIR.’ HE WAS ABOUT TO LEAVE THE HOUSE AND HAD HIS COAT ON. THE BUTLER WAS HANDING HIM HIS BLACK HOMBURG AND SILVERMOUNTED WALKING STICK. HE LOOKED ME RIGHT IN THE EYE—A STARE FAMILIAR TO EVERYONE WHO WORKED FOR HIM. FINALLY HE ASKED: “‘DID YOU FLY?’ “‘YES, SIR.’ “‘HMMPH.’ “...AND AWAY WE WENT TO CHARTWELL...THE FIRST OF MANY SUCH JOURNEYS.” “I ABERDEEN, 27 APRIL 1946: WSC traveled to Scotland to receive the Freedom of Aberdeen and an honorary LLD. To WSC’s left: Sir Thomas Mitchell, Lord Provost of Aberdeen, and Vice-Chancellor and Principal of Aberdeen University Sir William Hamilton Fyfe. (The Chancellor, Field Marshal the Viscount Wavell, was absent in India where he was Viceroy.) Behind them, with RAF moustache and raincoat, is the author. GUARDING GREATNESS RONALD E. GOLDING • PART I or several years before The Second World War I served in the Special Political Branch of New Scotland Yard. In 1946, after five years in the RAF, I returned to the Yard to take up my civilian duties again. It was still a pretty grim period in England, particularly in London, for there was severe rationing and a bitterly cold winter. I had a trying time getting accustomed to normal life once more. At the Yard too there was an air of general disillusionment. The Special Branch had sent many men to the war, mainly as combatants, some on intelligence duties. Twentythree had been killed. Those who returned represented all three services and ranked from Brigadier to Flight Lieutenant. For many, returning to police duties meant a tremendous cut in salary. In order to complete our rehabilitation, the police sent us on a special course lasting six weeks or so to become reacquainted with our normal police work. I had been back in the Branch only two or three weeks when I was summoned by the Superintendent. F “Golding, how are you settling down now?” “Not badly I suppose, sir.” “Hmmph. I want you to go on protection duty.” I raised my eyebrows. “We’re putting another man on Winston Churchill. He’s a terribly difficult man as you know, but it’ll be a good experience for you.” I should just think it would! I had been seriously thinking of resigning from the Police Force and emigrating to Canada. This, however, was something different. A few days later I went to 28 Hyde Park Gate, Churchill’s London home. I was introduced. At the time I still affected a rather outsize Air Force moustache. The senior officer said, “Mr. Churchill, this is Detective Sergeant Golding. We are seconding him to your staff and he’ll be responsible for looking after you. Golding has recently returned from the RAF.” I made a slight bow and said, “How do you do, sir.” Churchill was about to leave the house and had his FINEST HOUR 143 / 30 coat on. The butler was handing him his black Homburg and silver-mounted walking stick. WSC looked me right in the eye, a stare familiar to everyone who worked for him. Finally he asked: “Did you fly?” “Yes, sir.” “Hmmph.” I followed him out to the car. The chauffeur, whose name was Bullock (WSC referred to the limousine as “The Bullock Cart”) opened the door, Churchill got in the back, 1 got in the front, and away we went. In the police car following immediately behind were my colleague Sgt. Williams, the butler and the cook—the renowned Mrs. Landemare. And so we travelled thirty miles down to Chartwell, Churchill’s country estate in Kent. This was the first of many such journeys. Churchill loved Chartwell and spent as much time there as he could— every weekend at least. He was forced to spend a lot of time in London because of the many functions he needed to attend, particularly his duties as Leader of the Opposition. There was no doubt that his defeat in the 1945 general election had come as a shattering and unexpected blow. My first few days at Chartwell were a bit of a nightmare because there were sixty to eighty German prisoners of war working in the grounds and on the farm. Sullen and subdued looking, they were armed with pick-axes and shovels, with only one English foreman to look after them. Churchill was completely unconcerned. He would say “good day” to them when he went by. They would stop and look up from their digging; I’m quite sure they were absolutely amazed over where they were. I was fairly athletic in those days and, mainly to impress the prisoners, used to run round the grounds, particularly in the early mornings, wearing a white sweater and shorts. I tried to look as fierce as possible, hoping that I would give the impression that I was a superman! I was indeed worried. If any of those prisoners had wanted to hit the old man with a shovel or pick-axe, it would have been very difficult to stop them. The manor had started as a hunting lodge for Henry VIII. It had been much enlarged over the years, and by 1946 was quite a beautiful mansion. It is a two-storeyed building, and I was given a small flat on the ground floor which opened onto lawns. The property was lovely, neatly divided farmland stretching over both sides of a small valley. Fascinated by water, Mr. Churchill had spent years engineering his system of ponds and rivulets. His source was a small spring, the Chart Well (hence the estate’s name), that rises near the house. He ran it through the grounds by pipes and spillways to artfully constructed small waterfalls, emptying into pools of various sizes. The water was then piped to the large lake at the bottom of the valley. A powerful pump forced the water back up from the lake so that it could run down again, reinforcing the natural supply and providing a fine display over the waterfalls. To have a constant show of moving water, he needed a sufficient supply. In summer, the level of the Chart Well and the lake would fall. So Churchill built a reservoir on the far side of the valley, piping its water into the lake. Nearby was a large, heated swimming pool, fed from the lake and filtered. The system had required many years to complete, and was always a source of great interest and endeavour. The lake at the valley’s bottom was a quarter-mile long, picturesque and stocked with fish, which were occasionally poached by herons. On the lake were a pair of black swans, a gift from Western Australia after the war (see “Black Swans Return,” page 8). When Mr. Churchill came within a certain distance of the shoreline he would give a loud and rather weird “swan-noise” and the birds would invariably answer. Whilst he continued down to the lake, a veritable conversation would ensue between him and the swans! This was a regular performance whenever he was showing guests around, and it never failed to impress. Mr. Churchill was given credit for another wonderful gift: the ability to commune with wildlife. I was very taken by this until one day I went down to the lake on my own, and the swans started to cry and call at me. By experiment I found they would call whenever a human came within a certain distance. Now, if one was clever enough, one could cry out just before getting to this critical distance; the swans would appear to reply if one continued to walk, and the “conversation” came naturally. Some time after this discovery I was walking down to the lake with Mr. Churchill. I was a little in front, and watched carefully for the critical spot. I then called out in “swan-talk” and the birds dutifully replied. Mr. Churchill stopped dead. I turned round and he looked me full in >> THE AUTHOR: Mr. Golding’s memoirs ran in Finest Hour 3435, 1981-82: so long ago that we respond to several requests to republish and archive them on our website. FINEST HOUR 143 / 31 GLIMPSES CHARTWELL ROCKERIES: From a fickle and insipid stream, whose source was the Chart Well, Churchill developed an extensive and elaborate system of waterfalls and rocky brooks, which bubbled down the hillside into his ponds, where powerful pumps sent the water back up to the top. After the war, Gavin Jones Nurseries Ltd. overhauled the display, in which they obviously took great pride. GUARDING GREATNESS... the eye for a moment or two. Then the faintest suspicion of a smile appeared and he walked on in silence. No comment was ever made that this secret was shared. During the war, Churchill had shut Chartwell for the duration. Golden Orfe from the small ponds were tipped into the lake where they would get enough food, and left to take their chance against herons and other marauders. In 1946 I had the interesting task of fishing in the lake (with very light tackle of course), pulling out the goldfish, now six years older and enormous. They were put in pails and taken back to their original homes in the smaller ponds. It was Mr. Churchill’s great pleasure to feed them regularly. They came to his hand after a while and this pleased him. He was very fond of demonstrating his “oneness” with nature. He laid down a very lovely butterfly and moth “farm” at Chartwell in 1946 (See “Butterflies to Chartwell,” Finest Hour 89, Winter 1995-96). When he got the idea he sent for an expert, who bred very beautiful specimens. Churchill, of course, always had world-famous people to advise him on his hobbies and other interests. The pattern of conversation was typical when the butterfly man came. He took the breeder for a walk round the grounds and gave a general idea of his plans; the expert then gave advice and went into technical details. Mr. Churchill said very little. Rather like a penny dropping in the butterfly man’s mind, you could almost hear him thinking: “Ah, I’ve got the old boy. He’s not nearly as clever as I thought. This is one sphere in which I know a lot more than he does.” The butterfly man became just the slightest bit patronizing and boom! Mr. Churchill came back at him with very lucid comments showing that he was fully acquainted with everything being said. Visibly shaken, the expert never tried to “talk down” again. It was a pattern of conversation I’d noticed with other experts. I can’t help feeling that WSC pretended ignorance to a certain extent, then came down like a ton of bricks if there was any attempt to patronize him. A very successful scheme was put in hand and some of the rarest butterflies and moths of the greatest beauty were hatched out. By careful provision of the right flowers and bushes, the butterflies were kept well fed. Churchill was usually always successful in his hobbies. His pigs and sows were famous throughout the land; a Guernsey cow, given him by the people of that island, won all the awards available. Whilst I was with him he bought his first race horse. I think it won just about every time it came out and was always very heavily backed by the public. I thought this was unfortunate because I used to back it too, and because of its favoritism, the odds were never very high. On another occasion that I remember during wheat harvesting, Mr. Churchill’s farm manager and others were rabbit shooting. They had gone the whole morning without bagging a rabbit. About noon, I drove WSC up in a Land Rover, which he frequently used to get round the farm. We stopped at a field which was almost harvested, with just a small square of wheat in the middle. Mr. Churchill clambered slowly out of the Jeep—he was about seventy-three years old at the time. Just as he got his feet on the ground there was a shout from the others and a rabbit darted from the center of the field. In a flash Mr. Churchill raised his gun and fired one barrel. The rabbit keeled over dead. It was a wonderful shot, the usual Churchill luck. The others had been waiting for hours for the opportunity. Concluded next issue ✌ LAND ROVER ENTHUSIAST: Churchill also got round Chartwell in an old Morris, but as former secretary Grace Hambin related, it often became stuck in the valley’s wet grounds. A four-wheel-drive vehicle was the clear solution. This photograph is from 1954, so whether UKE 80 was the same Land Rover from which WSC alighted to shoot the rabbit during Ronald Golding’s tenure is unclear. FINEST HOUR 143 / 32 LEADING CHURCHILL MYTHS (18) Myth: “We Don’t Torture” Fact: We Did. “Churchill nonetheless knew” appears suddenly and with no evidence to back it up. Sullivan makes no other reference to Churchill, or to how he n a 29 April press conference, in response to a question on releasing top divined Churchill’s views. It seems that Sullivan picked up secret memos about “enhanced interthis impression in a 2006 article about rogation methods,” President Obama cited an article he’d read, that “during Camp 020’s chief interrogator, Col. Robin “Tin Eye” Stephens. In “The World War II, when London was being Truth that Tin Eye Saw,” by Ben bombed to smithereens, [the British] had Macintyre (London Times Online, 200 or so detainees. And Churchill said, http://xrl.us/beqyfc), Stephens was iden‘We don't torture,’ when the entire tified as an MI5 officer who extracted British—all of the British people—were confessions out of Nazis: “a bristling, being subjected to unimaginable risk and threat.... Churchill understood—you start xenophobic martinet; in appearance, with his glinting monocle and cigarette holder, taking shortcuts, over time, that corrodes he looked exactly like the caricature what's best in a people. It corrodes the Gestapo interrogator….he deployed character of a country.” threats, drugs, drink and deceit. But he Whether his thesis is right or never once resorted to violence....His wrong, the quotation is incorrect and gives a false implication. While Churchill motives were strictly practical. ‘Never strike a man. It is unintelligent, for the did express such sentiments with regard to prison inmates, and the lack of torture spy will give an answer to please, an answer to escape punishment. And in World War I, he said no such thing having given a false answer, all else about prisoners of war, enemy combatdepends upon the false premise.’” ants or terrorists, who were tortured by Nowhere did Macintyre mention British interrogators during WW2. or quote Churchill. Incidentally, after the “Torture” appears 156 times in war, Stephens was cleared of a charge of digital transcripts of Churchill’s 15 million published words (books, articles, “disgraceful conduct of a cruel kind” and told he was free to apply to rejoin his speeches, papers) and 35 million words former employers at MI5. about him. Not one appears in the The CIA argues that “enhanced context the President stated. Similarly, interrogation” works, others that it does key phrases like “character of a country” not. Whoever is right, the “Tin Eye” or “erodes the character” do not track. Mr. Obama was misled by Andrew Stephens story is just another red herring—because according to recent Sullivan’s Atlantic article, “Churchill vs. research the British did use such Cheney” (http://xrl.us/beqyfx), which methods: in the “London Cage,” a POW calmly urged that former Vice President camp in London, “where SS and Gestapo Cheney be prosecuted.1 captives were subject to beatings, sleep Most enemy spies, Sullivan wrote, deprivation and starvation.”2 “went through Camp 020, a Victorian Churchill spoke frequently about pile crammed with interrogators. As torture, mostly enemy treatment of civilBritain's very survival hung in the ians or conquered nations. Cdr. Larry balance, as women and children were being killed on a daily basis and London Kryske reminded us of this example, turned into rubble, Churchill nonetheless from WSC’s World War I memoirs: “When all was over, Torture and knew that embracing torture was the Cannibalism were the only two expediequivalent of surrender to the barbarism ents that the civilized, scientific, he was fighting….” I _________________________________________________________________________ For twenty-five years Finest Hour has skewered world-famous fictions, fairy tales and tall stories. For lists see FH 140:20, or www.winstonchurchill.org/learn/myths/myths. Grateful thanks to Alex Spillius, “Obama Likes Winston Churchill After All,” Daily Telegraph, 30 April 2009 (http://xrl.us/beqyft), to Telegraph readers responding, and to Cdr. Larry Kryske. FINEST HOUR 143 / 33 Christian States had been able to deny themselves: and these were of doubtful utility.”3 The general sentiment is clear enough, though combined with “Cannibalism” it seems likely to refer to the practices of conquering armies. The situation was more acute in World War II, when Britain was being bombed and threatened with invasion and Churchill had plenary authority. Certainly it is hard to imagine him being unaware of activities at places like the “London Cage,” or not condoning what went on there. Lady Soames once said, “He would have done anything to win the war, and I daresay he had to do some pretty rough things—but they didn't unman him.” If Churchill is on record about “enhanced interrogation,” his words have yet to surface. The nearest I could come to his sentiments on the point refers not to terrorist fanatics but to prison inmates. In 1938, responding to a constituent who urged him to help end the use of the “cat o’nine tails” in prisons, WSC wrote: “the use of instruments of torture can never be regarded by any decent person as synonymous with justice.”4 If that line appeals to Mr. Obama, he can certainly deploy it with confidence. —EDITOR Endnotes 1. Longtime members may recall that Sullivan appeared at our 1987 Dallas conference, made friendly conversation, then wrote a long polemic in The New Republic about our “weird mix” of Churchill worshippers, as “the damp seam of détente seeps into the Reagan Administration.” We reprinted it, noting twenty-four “terminological inexactitudes,” in Finest Hour 58, Winter 1987-88. 2. Ian Corbain, “The Secrets of the London Cage,” The Guardian, 12 Nov05 (http://xrl.us/beqyue). The Cage was kept secret, Corbain wrote, though a censored account appeared in the memoirs of its commandant, Lt. Col. Alexander Scotland. Corbain does not mention Churchill, but to believe Churchill wasn’t aware of this activity would be asking a lot. 3. Churchill, The World Crisis, vol. 1, 1911-1914 (London: Butterworth, 1923), 11. 4. Martin Gilbert, ed., Winston S. Churchill, Companion Volume V, Part 3. The Coming of War 1936-1939 (London, Heinemann: 1982), 1292. n. 2. ✌ STUDENT ESSAY HOW A YOUNG MAN’S WRITINGS SHAPED A HERO FROM PEN TO PARLIAMENT L ess attention is paid to Churchill’s literary works than to his statesmanship, but his literary influence is notable, and its bearing on the intellect undeniable. What would our heritage be without the timelessly inspirational “This Was Their Finest Hour”? Would World War II have ended differently had he not “mobilized the English language,” as Murrow and Kennedy said, “and sent it into battle”? By their titles alone his great wartime speeches show the quality and authority of Churchill’s work. Seventy years since the height of his career he remains a hero, but his political achievement rests on the foundation of his writings. Beyond his speeches, his books and articles left few historical stones unturned. For his literary genius, Winston Churchill is a premier example of the greatness of British Literature. Long before he became a statesman, Churchill was an author. Many new to him are surprised to learn that he had no university education. His father, who saw no promise in his son at Harrow, found no reason to send him to Oxford or Cambridge. Instead he became a soldier. It was left to young Winston to educate himself, which he did through the epic histories of Macaulay and Gibbon. Stationed in India in 1896, he “embarked on that process of self-education which was to prove so serviceable a substitute for the opportunities which he had neglected or rejected in his formal education...within a few months of his arrival in Bangalore he was making insatiable demands upon his mother for more books.”1 Studying the history of ancient wars and governments, parliamentary debates and his father’s speeches would serve Churchill well in future writings. Self-education made him a master of prose, and by the time he began writing seriously, his stylistic patterns were formed. Churchill wished to establish himself as a respected and intelligent author among the statesmen whose role he _________________________________________________________ Ms. Hay is a graduate with distinction from the University of Oklahoma, where she was a Letters major under Professor Ronald Schleifer. She begins law school this autumn at OU. ALLISON HAY craved for himself. But the war dispatches he wrote from Cuba, India, the Sudan and South Africa from 1895 to 1900 did not satisfy his ambitious desire to be noticed. His first book, The Story of the Malakand Field Force, was hastily written in five weeks and shipped to his mother with a note on the last day of 1897: “I don’t want anything modified or toned down in any way. I will stand or fall by what I have written. I only want bad sentences polished & any repetitions of phrase or fact weeded out.”2 Although the story was embarrassingly full of errors, Churchill achieved a taste of success and established his approach to writing history: a combination of personal experiences and a realistic description of what he believed had happened. This method made his stories come alive for readers far beyond those interested in the war tales.3 The Malakand Field Force sold well, bringing Churchill to the attention of publishers and the general public. There followed The River War, whose two volumes made Churchill known as a legitimate and trusted military reporter. Reviews were not all positive, but most agreed that he was “an astonishing young man,” his book “an astonishing triumph. It is well-written, it is impartial, it is conclusive, and we do not think that any other living man could have produced it. Of course, it has its faults. It is far too long, for instance.”4 Length never seemed to bother Churchill; his best books usually ran in multiple volumes; nor were his speeches ever described as models of brevity. With two books complete, Churchill began to write with more confidence and quickly produced three more books, including his only novel, Savrola. To call it entirely fictitious would be misleading, since the main character resembles Churchill in an ideal manner. Savrola is a man who champions politics, specifically a republic, as a saving force of justice. He becomes disillusioned with politics and prefers philosophic contemplation and a love for the beautiful things in life.5 Winston himself was often disillusioned with political FINEST HOUR 143 / 34 developments, though not politics itself. He was blunt in such moments, as evidenced by remarks about politicians as, “He is asked to stand [for office], he wants to sit and he is expected to lie.”6 The year 1900 marked Churchill’s shift from the military to the political sphere. After publication of two accounts of the Boer War, he entered Parliament and began to criticize his own party to such an extent that he soon changed sides over the issue of Free Trade. He published several volumes of notable speeches and an African travelogue, fast shaping his leadership style. Although the issues then were not as serious as what was to come, they gave him the experience of persuading others to understand his opinions. Churchill wrote his speeches, and would often spend eight to ten hours perfecting one. He wrote out the full text to guard against any lapses, speaking in a professional and persuasive manner.7 He was developing an ability to conceive large ideas and to express them inspirationally, so listeners could clearly understand his position. A leader without such ability would certainly be unable to unite a country in war. World War I was next on Churchill’s learning curve as a writer. The Admiralty, Munitions Ministry and War Office gave him an insider’s perspective on the actions and realities of war, deftly conveyed in his multi-volume (five volumes in six) memoir, The World Crisis. Nowhere is Churchill’s political awareness better expressed than in his fourth volume, Part II, at the end of the war in 1918: Is this the end? Is it to be merely a chapter in a cruel and senseless story? Will a new generation in their turn be immolated to square the black accounts of Teuton and Gaul? Will our children bleed and gasp again in devastated lands? Or will there spring from the very fires of conflict that reconciliation of the three giant combatants, which would unite their genius and secure to each in safety and freedom a share in rebuilding the glory of Europe? 8 During the publication of the first two World Crisis volumes Churchill was out of office, and had begun his skein of hundreds of articles for newspapers and magazines by which he earned a living in the 1920s and 1930s. All too soon they began to warn of German rearmament. Reading them today, one is conscious of his prophecy. His aim was clear: warn the country. Although in the 1930s he had no office and few backers, he tried to make his voice heard—to be noticed, just as when he was a young soldier in India. Churchill’s looks into the future were complemented by his writings of his past, notably the life of his ancestor John Churchill, First Duke of Marlborough, in four massive volumes between 1933 and 1938. This great work “took him back not to the politics of his youth but to the global conflict of another century and his required mastery of the spirit of a remote age.”9 Churchill invested nearly a million words in Marlborough; it was significant not just as a biography but as a description, then only hopeful, of what he saw as his destiny. Reading its account of an English patriot confronting a continental tyrant who seeks England’s ruin, it is easy to find the genesis of the immortal speeches of 1940. Churchill’s affinity for Marlborough’s wars compares vividly to his abhorrence of 20th century war in The World Crisis. Then came the Hitler war and the year Churchill said “nothing surpasses.” On 13 May 1940, as Britain faced a seemingly all-powerful enemy, came his first speech as Prime Minister: one of the most resolute, honest and inspiring ever delivered by a politician. The speech itself is posted on our website (http: //xrl.us/beuner). Let us consider only its best-known sentence: “I would say to the House, as I said to those who have joined this Government: ‘I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears, and sweat.” 10 I disagree with his sentiment— Churchill did have more to offer: inspiration, eloquence, leadership—but how modest and honest these words are. The famous phrase had a long and somewhat complicated gestation, and Churchill, like all good writers, developed it over time. He first used “blood and sweat” speaking with a friend in 1900; mentioned “their sweat, their tears, their blood” in regard to the Russians in 1931, and “blood, sweat and tears” later in the Daily Telegraph.11 Now the words came together as he rallied his country, despite his concern that it might be too late: “If this long island story of ours is to end at last,” he told Cabinet privately, “let it end only when each one of us lies choking in his own blood upon the ground.”12 They responded with cheers and roars, but how many would have had the same thoughts had Churchill not crystallized the words? Churchill is the reason Britain continued to fight. His words and spirit gave strength to the people. Because he was courageous, they were. Words rallied a nation desperately short of weapons. Ronald Golding, a Royal Air Force squadron leader later WSC’s bodyguard (see previous article) said of the famous voice crackling over the radio: “After those speeches, we wanted the Germans to come.”13 Churchill, the orator without speechwriters, was Britain’s source of courage. More powerful and rousing speeches followed, like “Be Ye Men of Valor” a few days later on Trinity Sunday: “Side by side, unaided except by their kith and kin in the great Dominions and by the wide Empires which rest beneath their shield—side by side, the British and French peoples have advanced to rescue not only Europe but mankind from the foulest and most soul-destroying tyranny which has ever darkened and stained the pages of history.”14 Brtain’s task was not for herself but for the world: “Arm yourselves and be ye men of valour,” Churchill quoted from the Book of Macabees, words familiar to his nation. As France fell and doubts rose again, Churchill responded directly: “…we shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be….we shall never surrender.”15 Churchill had learned reading Gibbon and Macaulay years before that the Romans and Greeks won wars by staying the course. In what was arguably his most desperate >> FINEST HOUR 143 / 35 STUDENT ESSAY speech, on 18 June 1940 with France defeated (“another bloody country gone west,” he remarked), he took on the tangible and real threat to Britain herself. With utter frankness he declared, “The whole fury and might of the enemy must very soon be turned on us.” But then he added: “Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, ‘This was their finest hour.’”16 Brace they did. A point often missed in the soaring rhetoric of this speech was its appeal to patriotic duty, a reference to such Britons as the wardens who ushered people into bomb shelters, the blackout curtains, the fire brigades and the Home Guard. Churchill was making a call to duty for all citizens to perform the patriotic duty requested of them, which gave them a sense of power over the enemy. The enemy might come—but their visit would not go unanswered. Churchill admitted that things would get worse before they got better, and chaffed over the continued aloofness of America. His 9 February 1941 world broadcast shows how passionately he was campaigning for American aid, even if he had to shame Americans into it: “Give us your faith and your blessing, and, under Providence all will be well. We shall not fail or falter; we shall not weaken or tire….Give us the tools, and we will finish the job.”17 When he put it that way, it did not seem as if he was asking for much. Of course, he was asking for a great deal: Roosevelt was limited by the fact that only Congress could declare war. Churchill chose simple language so there would be no misunderstanding; coal miner and statesman alike could understand. We all know how the story ended. The Allies won the war and Churchill was voted out of office. The whys and hows of that episode have already been discussed in these pages (“Why Churchill Lost,” Finest Hour 140:74). But consider the consequences, which were not all bad. In defeat Churchill had time to do more of what he did best: writing. Between 1948 and 1958 he published six volumes of war memoirs, five volumes of speeches, four volumes of his History of the English-Speaking Peoples, even a book on his hobby of painting. At Fulton in 1946 he warned of the dangers of a new war, and suggested how to prevent it. Throughout those years he stressed the common heritage of Britain and America, and how their bonds should be as he said, “cemented.”18 His writings described the mistakes of the past, and warned against repeating them. In 1953 he received Nobel Prize for Literature “for his mastery of historical and biographical description as well as for brilliant oratory in defending exalted human values.”19 It has been said of his writing style that he was not afraid of repetition: “Once a felicitous phrase had occurred to him, Churchill never hesitated to reuse it, resulting in a remarkable consistency over half a century.”20 His photographic memory stood him well throughout. He often used old-fashioned phrases, like something your grandfather said as you bounced on his knee. I believe Churchill saw in old expressions an association with a better or at least more settled time; surely his use of them was not accidental. Churchill did minimize his affinity for language by using a simplified syntax, hoping to drive people not to dictionaries but to courage and heroism. As a professional writer he knew how to connect. His words humanized him, connecting him with people of all classes. This tactic is the capstone of the Churchill style, whether to tug our heartstrings, to gain sympathy, or to inspire action or devotion. He was always, triumphantly, in touch. Churchill himself was humble about his war speeches. “The people’s will was resolute and remorseless,” he recalled in 1954. “It fell to me to express it, and if I found the right words you must remember that I have always earned my living by my pen and by my tongue.”21 It was a remarkable triumph for a young man, unschooled and self-educated, who went on to become the foremost statesman of the 20th century. Churchill the writer should be known at least as well as the statesman and the war leader—for “the incandescent quality of his words,” as President Kennedy said, which “illuminated the courage of his countrymen.”22 Endnotes 1. Randolph S. Churchill, Winston S. Churchill, vol.1: Youth 1874-1900 (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1966), 307, hereafter Youth. 2. Youth, 353. 3. Maurice Ashley, Churchill as Historian (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons), 41. 4. Youth, 442. 5. James W. Muller, ed., Churchill as Peacemaker (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 79. 6. Richard M. Langworth, ed., Churchill by Himself: The Definitive Collection of Quotations (New York: Public Affairs, 2008), 392. 7. Rufus J. Fears, “Churchill” (Teaching Company, 2001). 8. John Lukacs, Blood, Toil, Tears and Sweat: The Dire Warning (New York: Basic Books, 2008), 13. 9. Manfred Weidhorn, Sword and Pen: A Survey of the Writings of Sir Winston Churchill (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1974), 110. 10. David Damrosch and Kevin J. H. Dettmar, The Longman Anthology of British Literature, 3rd ed., (New York: Pearson, 2006), 2799. 11. Langworth, 4. 12. Gretchen Rubin, Forty Ways to Look at Winston Churchill (New York: Ballantine, 2003), 53. 13. Langworth, 2. 14. Ibid., 4. 15. Ibid., 5. 16. Ibid., 5. 17. Ibid., 7. 18. Ashley, 210. 19. The Nobel Prize in Literature 1953, “Winston Churchill,” Nobel Prize.org, http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/1953/index.html/. 20. Langworth, ix. 21. Ibid., viii. 22. John F. Kennedy conveying Honorary American Citizenship on Sir Winston Churchill, the White House, ✌ Washington, 9 April 1963. FINEST HOUR 143 / 36 http://xrl.us/beuiy6 For years, Churchill Centre editors and webmasters have wished to post material on our website that is either too long for Finest Hour or of such immediate interest as to deserve a faster track than Finest Hour can provide. Webmaster John Olsen has now done it with FINEST HOUR ONLINE (FHO): fresh articles which bring an added dimension to Churchill Studies. The following article by Justin Lyons is an abridgement of his full paper, which you can read on FHO—together other pieces of high merit. Please tell us how you like this new service. Winston Churchill’s Constitutionalism: A Critique of Socialism in America JUSTIN D. LYONS hile Churchill’s heroism in World War II was the high point of his career, he was Prime Minister twice, held every major Cabinet post except the Foreign Ministry, and was prominent for over sixty years. This extensive political experience produced in him a deep and often underappreciated reflection on political matters. Churchill’s wartime leadership was not unreasoned or incoherent—and would have been unsuccessful if it were. It depended, he stressed, upon consistent, coherent thought: W Those possessed of a definite body of doctrine and of deeply rooted convictions will be in a much better position to deal with the shifts and surprises of daily affairs than those who take short views, indulging their natural impulses as they are evoked by what they read from day to day.1 Churchill’s convictions flowed from the Anglo– American constitutionalism of which he was so proud and devoted an heir. His attachment to the principles of political freedom guided his decisions and was the heart of his Justin Lyons is Associate Professor of History and Political Science and Adjunct Fellow in the John M. Ashbrook Center for Public Affairs at Ashland University, and a valued part of Churchill Centre educational activities. This is an excerpt from his article first posted by the Heritage Foundation (http: //xrl.us/bev4gv) which is now found also on Finest Hour Online (http: //xrl.us/beuiy6). profound ability to inspire, but it was not merely instinctive or inherited. Rather, it was the product of reason and experience. Churchill reflected broadly and deeply on both the domestic and international issues of his day. Indeed, it is indicative of his comprehensive understanding that he never lost sight of the connections between those spheres. In the Twenties and Thirties in particular, he surveyed with unease the collectivist trends already sapping the internal strength of his own country and threatening to create instability abroad. He opposed such programs, whether originating on the Left or on the Right of the British political spectrum, as destructive of freedom. It is well worth the effort to examine his thoughts on these matters, both for his diagnosis of political ills and for his prescriptions for political health. Because scholars have paid so much attention to the working relationship between Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt in matters of foreign policy, we tend to assume that they were entirely agreed on domestic policy. But by viewing Churchill’s thoughts on America as shown through the great issue of the day—the New Deal—we see that Churchill was an opponent of FDR’s centralized administrative philosophy of government and that his opposition was grounded in a recurrence to our founding principles. >> 1. Winston S. Churchill, The Second World War, vol. 1, The Gathering Storm (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1948), 210. FINEST HOUR 143 / 37 FINEST HOUR ONLINE SOCIALISM IN AMERICA... A Unity of Spirit At a time when America was undergoing significant political change following the Great Depression and New Deal, Churchill had much to say about political change in the United States. While the governing forms of the United States and Britain differed, Churchill saw the governing principles as built upon identical principles of freedom. Speaking to a joint session of Congress as the United States entered World War II in December 1941, he noted that both Congress and Parliament were animated by essentially the same principles, and strove for the same ends: Therefore I have been in full harmony all my life with the tides which have flowed on both sides of the Atlantic against privilege and monopoly, and I have steered confidently towards the Gettysburg ideal of “government of the people by the people for the people.” In my country, as in yours, public men are proud to be the servants of the State and would be ashamed to be its masters.2 Despite certain “historical incidents,” the War of Independence primary among them, Churchill viewed the American Declaration of Independence from Britain as in perfect harmony with British political principles.3 Indeed, he argued that the Declaration belonged not to America alone but to all of the children of the English common law: “The Declaration is not only an American document. It follows on Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights as the third great title deed on which the liberties of the Englishspeaking peoples are founded.”4 In the war years to come, Churchill never tired of stressing the harmonious political and legal doctrines of the two nations and the common traditions and goals of the two peoples.5 He continued to do so even after the war. Speaking to the American Bar Association in 1957, for example, Churchill maintained that, though their laws were somewhat different in form, they were united in principle: In the main, Law and Equity stand in the forefront of the moral forces which our two countries have in common. …National governments may indeed obtain sweeping emergency powers for the sake of protecting the community in times of war or other perils. These will temporarily curtail or suspend the freedom of ordinary men and women, but special powers must be granted by the elected representatives of those same people by Congress or by Parliament, as the case may be. They do not belong to the State or Government as a right. Their exercise needs vigilant scrutiny, and their grant may be swiftly withdrawn. This terrible twentieth century has exposed both our communities to grim experiences, and both have emerged restored and guarded. They have come back to us safe and sure. I speak, of course, as a layman on legal topics, but I believe that our differences are more apparent than real, and are the result of geographical and other physical conditions rather than any true division of principle.6 “I GREW UP IN MY FATHER’S HOUSE to believe in democracy. ‘Trust the people’—that was his message. I used to see him cheered at meetings and in the streets by crowds of working men way back in those aristocratic Victorian days when, as Disraeli said, the world was for the few, and for the very few.” —WSC before Congress, 26 December 1941. Churchill was not engaging in sentimental reflection when he gave such speeches. The unity of principle he pointed to was, and always had been in his view, the basis for unity of action. “What Good’s a Constitution?” In The Age of Roosevelt, Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. quotes Churchill’s 1936 article “What Good’s a Constitution?,”7 introducing the former Prime Minister as “an eminent English observer.” But Schlesinger gives a false impression of his message, quoting only the last few paragraphs, suggesting that Churchill fully supported Roosevelt’s views of the Constitution and the need to overcome the Supreme Court’s opposition to New Deal policies: “This is an age in which the citizen requires more, and not less, legal protection in the exercise of his rights and liberties.” The reader quite naturally takes away the impression that Churchill, like FDR, believes the conditions of modern industrial society—especially the concentration of economic power in large corporations—require a much greater degree of governmental intervention and control to secure the liberties of the common man. But this is not Churchill’s meaning. Reading the entire article, it is clear that he means quite the opposite— that liberty is best protected by the established boundaries of the constitutional order. “The rigidity of the Constitution of the United States is the shield of the common man,” writes Churchill. Here, too, Schlesinger misleads the reader by rendering it as follows: “The Constitution, he said, was ‘the shield of the common man.’”8 The surreptitious substitution of “was” for “is” serves the New Deal understanding that the Constitution is no FINEST HOUR 143 / 38 longer an adequate framework for meeting the challenges of American life and economic crisis. Churchill’s article is in fact much less favorable to the New Deal understanding than Schlesinger admits. Churchill begins his discussion of constitutionalism by suggesting that a person must first consider “the fundamental issue….Does he value the State above the citizen, or the citizen above the State? Does a government exist for the individual, or do individuals exist for the government?” The world is divided on this question, Churchill writes, but Russia, Germany, and Italy have definitely chosen “to subordinate the citizen or subject to the life of the State.” All three have adopted, in peacetime, a level of subordination of the individual proper only to a time of war, and seek to direct their national life permanently on that basis. What these three nations have in common, Churchill notes, is the doctrine of socialism, which argues that economic crises are “only another form of war,” which justifies governmental controls. But Churchill rejects the comparison of economic war: “One of the greatest reasons for avoiding war is that it is destructive to liberty. But we must not be led into adopting for ourselves the evils of war in time of peace upon any pretext whatever.” Churchill was to combat this tendency personally during the 1945 British election. The government had assumed many extra controls during the war. Churchill warned that if the Labour or Socialist party won, government’s grip on the individual citizen, far from being loosened, would grow ever tighter: ...even today they hunger for controls of every kind, as if these were delectable foods instead of war-time inflictions and monstrosities. There is to be one State to which all are to be obedient in every act of their lives. This State is to be the arch-employer, the arch-planner, the archadministrator and ruler, and the arch-caucus-boss.9 Of course, this economic-crisis-as-war language was frequently employed by the New Dealers, including Franklin Roosevelt himself.10 Socialism, Churchill noted, grafts itself onto nation- 2. “A Long and Hard War,” 26 December 1941, in Robert Rhodes James, ed., Winston S. Churchill: His Complete Speeches 1897–1963 (London: Chelsea House, 1974), III:6536. Cited hereafter as Complete Speeches. 3. “The Declaration was in the main a restatement of the principles which had animated the Whig struggle against the later Stuarts and the English Revolution of 1688, and it now became the symbol and rallying centre of the Patriot cause.” Winston S. Churchill, A History of the English Speaking Peoples, vol. 3, The Age of Revolution (New York: Barnes & Noble, 1993), 189. 4. “The Third Great Title-Deed of Anglo–American Liberties,” 4 July 1918, Complete Speeches, III:2614. 5. See for example “A New Magna Carta” (Lend-Lease), 12 March 1941, Complete Speeches, VI: 6360, and “The Task Ahead,” 27 June 1942, ibid., 6644: “The day will come when the British and American armies will march into countries, not as invaders, but as liberators, helping the people who have been held under the cruel alism and the features of nations it infects. Weimar Germany was destroyed and Hitler propelled to power through patriotism, tradition, and pride, combined with discontent over inequalities of wealth. Russian Communism was buttressed by national sentiment and imperialist aspirations. The next country Churchill mentions, in a shift that must be shocking, is the United States, which he says has experienced developments similar to those inspired by socialism in the dictatorships: In the United States, also, economic crisis has led to an extension of the activities of the executive and to the pillorying, by irresponsible agitators, of certain groups and sections of the population as enemies of the rest. There have been efforts to exalt the power of the central government and to limit the rights of individuals. The combinations at work in the United States, however, are different. Passions and economic jealousies have been unleashed—not with imperial ambition or twisted racism, but with a sense of public duty and the desire for national prosperity. But the result, Churchill warns, can be just as dangerous: “It is when passions and cupidities are thus unleashed and, at the same time, the sense of public duty rides high in the hearts of all men and women of good will that the handcuffs can be slipped upon the citizens and they can be brought into entire subjugation to the executive government.” After describing trends in Germany, Russia, Italy, and U.S., Churchill takes “the opposite view.” He had always rejected any policy or propaganda that would use crisis to extend the power of the state as subverting individual liberty and perverting the purpose of government: I hold that governments are meant to be, and must remain, the servants of the citizens; that states and federations only come into existence and can only be justified by preserving the “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” in the homes and families of individuals. The right and power rest in the individual. He gives of his right and power to the State, expecting and requiring thereby in return to receive certain advantages and guarantees. >> barbarian yoke….Also, it will open the world to larger freedom and to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as the grand words of your Declaration of Independence put it.” 6. “Liberty and the Law,” 31 July 1957, Complete Speeches, VIII:8682–83. 7. Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., The Age of Roosevelt, vol. 3, The Politics of Upheaval (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1960), 495, quoting from Winston S. Churchill, “What Good’s a Constitution?” Collier’s, 22 August 1936. 8. Ibid. 9 “Party Politics Again,” 4 June 1945, Complete Speeches, VII:7171–72. 10. To give one example: “I shall ask the Congress for the one remaining instrument to meet the crisis—broad Executive power to wage a war against the emergency, as great as the power that would be given to me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe.” Franklin D. Roosevelt, “First Inaugural Address,” Washington, 4 March 1933. FINEST HOUR 143 / 39 FINEST HOUR ONLINE SOCIALISM IN AMERICA.. Churchill then gives the tests by which he judges the civilization of any community: What is the degree of freedom possessed by the citizen or subject? Can he think, speak and act freely under wellestablished, well-known laws? Can he criticize the executive government? Can he sue the State if it has infringed his rights? Are there also great processes for changing the law to meet new conditions? A vital support for freedom also lies in the independence of the courts, Churchill continues: In both our countries the character of the judiciary is a vital factor in the maintenance of the rights and liberties of the individual citizen. Our judges extend impartially to all men protection, not only against wrongs committed by private persons, but also against the arbitrary acts of public authority. The independence of the courts is, to all of us, the guarantee of freedom and the equal rule of law. In other words, the safeguard is to be found in a structural feature of American and British constitutional arrangements. These remarks hardly appear sympathetic to FDR’s frustration with the Supreme Court’s repeated striking down of New Deal programs as unconstitutional, and his search for ways to limit the powers of the Court. Churchill did not hesitate to state his opinion on whether a fixed constitution is a “bulwark or a fetter.” He wrote: “I incline to the side of those who would regard it as a bulwark….” Yet it is very difficult, he writes, for those in England to comprehend the kind of governmental deadlock that has been reached in the United States. That major bills affecting the whole life of the people could be passed by Parliament only to be struck down and nullified by a court of law would be beyond imagination. The unwritten British Constitution thus has great flexibility: “There is no limit to the powers of Crown and Parliament. Even the gravest changes in our Constitution can in theory be carried out by simple majority votes in both Houses and the consequential assent of the Crown.” But limits on government and the separation of powers were central to America’s founding. The judiciary was to be independent, but whether the Supreme Court would have a veto over legislation passed by Congress was a matter of debate among the Framers. While the actual language of the Constitution gives no specific grant of such a power, the idea was advanced and became entrenched as an implied power very early.11 Churchill found the opportunity for a conflict between American branches of government remarkable: “…anyone may bring a test case challenging not merely the interpretation of a law, but the law itself, and if the Court decides for the appellant, be he only an owner of a few chickens,12 the whole action of the Legislature and the Executive becomes to that extent null and void.” Churchill recognizes and understands the American hesitancy to approve such arrangements as the “British democracy expressing itself with plenary powers through a Government and a Parliament controlled only by the fluctuating currents of public opinion…Yet all classes and all parties have a deep, underlying conviction that these vast, flexible powers will not be abused,” citing British respect for law and constitutional usage, the stability of a permanent civil service, and the attachment of popular opinion to the unwritten constitution. The Better System? Lest readers assume that Churchill believes the British system superior, he notes that the U.S. situation is quite different: The size and complexity of the United States makes the flexible British arrangement impractical and unwise: “the participants of so vast a federation have the right to effectual guarantees upon the fundamental laws, and that these should not be easily changed to suit a particular emergency or fraction of the country.” Thus Churchill concludes that the United States requires both federalism, in order to function properly, and the Supreme Court, to enforce the principle, especially in time of crisis. Roosevelt, however, was impatient with those like Churchill, who opposed an evolving interpretation of the Constitution that would permit the federal government to take an increasingly active role in the life of the states. In 1937, for example, FDR called for an “enlightened view” of the Constitution: “Difficulties have grown out of its interpretation but rightly considered, it can be used as an instrument of progress, and not as a device for the prevention of action.”13 The language of constitutional flexibility was common New Deal parlance to which Churchill in his essay takes great exception: “‘Taking the rigidity out of the American Constitution’ means, and is intended to mean, new gigantic accessions of power to the dominating centre of government and giving it the means to make new fundamental laws enforceable upon all American citizens.” Change, Freedom and Tyranny Churchill’s 1937 article, “This Age of Government by Great Dictators,” is a meditation on political change, an essay of sweeping historical breadth, starting with the ancient European kings, who were granted powers sufficient to remedy the defects of an earlier, chaotic age and were elevated to an almost godlike status. While this was an improvement on anarchy, the accidents of individual birth and character were unstable foundations on which to risk the fortunes of nations: “At one period Pericles or Augustus, at another Draco or Caligula!” Once society was set on a firm footing, Churchill explains, constitutions were invented to restrain the excesses of kings—particularly in England, which gave rise to the FINEST HOUR 143 / 40 hat is the degree of freedom possessed by the citizen or subject? Can he think, speak and act freely under well-established, well-known laws? Can he criticize the executive government? Can he sue the State if it has infringed his rights? Are there also great processes for changing the law to meet new conditions?” “W famous English Parliamentary system and constitutional monarchy….The English conception, wrought by the island nobility from Magna Carta to the age of Anne, spread over wide portions of the globe. The forms were often varied, but the idea was the same. Sometimes, as in the United States, through historical incidents, an elected functionary replaced the hereditary king, but the idea of the separation of powers between the executive, the assemblies and the courts of law widely spread throughout the world in what we must regard as the great days of the nineteenth century.14 But the point of this essay is to convey a modern warning. In the 20th century, he continues, just when the progressive faith was at its zenith—when the illusion of mastery over man’s fortunes had taken on its most vibrant hues—all those hopes failed: “Then came terrible wars shattering great empires, laying nations low, sweeping away old institutions and ideas with a scourge of molten steel.” The world now learned (or re-learned) that political change does not necessarily follow consistent directions. 19th century thinkers had hoped for the spread of democratic institutions, but as Churchill points out, democratic regimes are as subject to degradation because they, like other regimes, carry their own dangers with them: 11. Marbury vs. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803). 12. A reference to A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corporation vs. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935), in which the National Industrial Recovery Act was overturned by the Supreme Court. 13. Franklin D. Roosevelt, “Annual Message to the Congress,” Democracy has been defined as “the association of us all in the leadership of the best.” In practice it does not always work this way. Vast masses of people were invested with the decisive right to vote, while at the same time they had very little leisure to study the questions upon which they must pronounce; and an enormous apparatus for feeding them with propaganda, catchwords and slogans came simultaneously into existence. When responsibilities are shirked, Churchill continued, the control of the people will become an illusion and eventually vanish. Flatterers will sway the people. Demagogues will convince them to surrender their power for safety or comfort. Propagandists will play on their fears. Tyrants will be born: Alike in fear of anarchy and in vague hopes of future comforts a very large proportion of Europe have yielded themselves to dictatorship. Nations [have] made haste to rally in the parades and processions of a set of violent, wrathful, resourceful, domineering figures cast up by the bloody surge of war and its cruel lacerating recoil. We have entered the age of the dictators.15 Thus, the early 20th century witnessed political regression. Nations were subject to lords many times more powerful than the ancient kings. The reader recognizes the spirit of Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini, but Churchill’s warning is for those who have not yet fallen under the yoke of such men—for those countries which imagine themselves immune from such a transformation, including the Western democracies. Whatever political victories may have been won, the danger of tyranny is never removed. “Roosevelt from Afar” The common political heritage of America and Britain was the basis for Churchill’s appeal for aid from the United States in the Second World War. His initial success had much to do with his personal relationship with Roosevelt, which has rightly received a vast scholarly attention. Their disagreements over war policy and the Soviets are well documented. Almost completely ignored, by contrast, are Churchill’s comments on the political, economic, and social policies Roosevelt pursued—reflecting Churchill’s concern that even regimes built on the principles of freedom can become corrupted and lose their way. Churchill believed that the United States was not immune to the political degradation then affecting much of the world. In a 1934 essay on the New Deal, first entitled “While the World Watches” and later changed to >> 6 January 1937. 14. Winston S. Churchill, “This Age of Government by Great Dictators,” in The Collected Essays of Sir Winston Churchill, vol. 4, Churchill at Large (London: Library of Imperial History, 1976), 394. 15. Ibid., 394–95. FINEST HOUR 143 / 41 FINEST HOUR ONLINE Exchequer during the 1926 General Strike, knew whereof he wrote. Trade unionism, he wrote, SOCIALISM IN AMERICA.. “Roosevelt from Afar,”16 he warned that a moment of social and economic crisis is also a moment of political danger. Churchill admired Roosevelt’s desire to deliver his people from the problems of the Depression, but his essay had another purpose, as he wrote to the editor of Collier’s: to warn against the possible ill-effects of the New Deal: “I have tried to strike a note of warning while at the same time expressing my sincere sympathy with the great effort the President is making,”17 For a statesman to remark on the domestic policies and personalities of a friendly country without exciting resentment requires diplomatic skill, and Churchill was very careful. He went so far as to leave final judgment to his American editor: “…if there are any phrases which you think would cause offence…you are quite at liberty to soften or excise them without reference to me.”18 Yet despite his caution, “Roosevelt from Afar” conveys serious warnings about America’s Depression-era economic and social policies. Churchill admits that the new President faced a stiff challenge: “Everybody had lost faith in everything.” Roosevelt chose to seize direction of the whole scene, and “[s]ince then there has been no lack of orders.” (Roosevelt issued an extraordinary number of executive orders—more than all of his successors through Bill Clinton combined.) Using a word that must have shocked Roosevelt supporters, Churchill continued: “Although the Dictatorship is veiled by constitutional forms, it is none the less effective. Great things have been done, and greater attempted.”19 Churchill is careful to attribute possible excesses to misguided followers rather than to Roosevelt himself: But the President has need to be on his guard. To a foreign eye it seems that forces are gathering under his shield which at a certain stage may thrust him into the background and take the lead themselves. If that misfortune were to occur, we should see the not-unfamiliar spectacle of a leader running after his followers to pull them back.20 While Churchill describes these forces as dangers to Roosevelt’s “valiant and heroic experiments,” it is clear from the essay, as from New Deal history, that these are in fact dangers arising from those very experiments. Trade Unionism Churchill identifies two in particular: trade unionism and redistribution of wealth. While praising Roosevelt for his attempt to reduce unemployment by shortening working hours and thus to spread employment more evenly through the working class, he has “considerable misgivings…when a campaign to attack the monetary problem becomes intermingled with, and hampered by, the elaborate processes of social reform and the struggles of class warfare.”21 Churchill, who had been Chancellor of the has introduced a narrowing element into our public life. It has been a keenly-felt impediment to our productive and competitive power. It has become the main foundation of the socialist party, which has ruled the State greatly to its disadvantage, and will assuredly do so again. It reached a climax in a general strike, which if it had been successful would have subverted the Parliamentary constitution of our island.22 Churchill accepted that British trade unions had become a stable force, and were, in any case, much better for society than “communist-agitated and totally unorganized labour discontent.”23 But British trade unionism had developed over fifty years, allowing time for economic adjustments and abatement of passions. “But when one sees an attempt made within the space of a few months to lift American trade unionism by great heaves and bounds to the position so slowly built up—and even then with much pain and loss—in Great Britain, we cannot help feeling grave doubts.”24 The conflicts involved in such a transformation, he warns, could “result in a general crippling of that enterprise and flexibility upon which not only the wealth, but the happiness of modern communities depend.” Such sweeping decrees are exactly what characterized the Roosevelt Administration—as illustrated by the compulsory unionism of the National Industrial Recovery Act (1933) and the National Labor Relations Act (1935). Redistribution of Wealth The second great danger Churchill identifies in Roosevelt’s experiments is “the disposition to hunt down rich men as if they were noxious beasts.” This may be “a very attractive sport,” but redistribution through penalties on the wealthy does not benefit a society in the long run— instead it drains the wellsprings of economic development: The millionaire or multi-millionaire is a highly economic animal. He sucks up with sponge-like efficiency from all quarters. In this process, far from depriving ordinary people of their earnings, he launches enterprise and carries it through, raises values, and he expands that credit without which on a vast scale no fuller economic life can be opened to the millions. To hunt wealth is not to capture commonwealth….meanwhile great constructions have crumbled to the ground. Confidence is shaken and enterprise chilled, and the unemployed queue up at the soup-kitchens or march out to the public works with ever growing expense to the taxpayer and nothing more appetizing to take home to their families than the leg or the wing of what was once a millionaire….It is indispensable to the wealth of nations and to the wage and life standards of labour, that capital and credit should be honoured and cherished partners in the economic system. Yes, Churchill admits, there is some justification for the anger of the American people against their leaders of FINEST HOUR 143 / 42 the two systems—yet Churchill believed that the American people would never willingly accept the “dull brutish servitude of Russia,” though he also believed that a nation can slide into doctrines it would not accept with open eyes. Churchill concluded: “WE MUST NEVER CEASE to proclaim in fearless tones the great principles of freedom and the rights of man which are the joint inheritance of the English-speaking world and which through Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, the Habeas Corpus, trial by jury, and the English common law find their most famous expression in the American Declaration of Independence.” -WSC, 1946. Painting by John Trumbull. (Wikimedia Commons) finance. But “[t]he important question is whether American democracy can clear up scandals and punish improprieties without losing its head, and without injuring the vital impulses of economic enterprise and organization.”25 The U.S. is not the first country to deal with the question of whether “it is better to have equality at the price of poverty, or well-being at the price of inequality.” Churchill lamented the drift toward Socialism in Britain in the 1920s (and again in the 1940s), pointing out that these schemes produced little but economic disaster.26 Churchill strongly favored government action to ease the plight of the poor in modern industrial society; his whole career was marked by a concern for social justice, echoed in his cautious admiration of FDR. Ultimately, however, Churchill held that free markets should be allowed to operate without centralized, bureaucratic controls, which destroy the principle of competition that is the mainspring of economic health.27 The capitalist system can create concentrations of wealth, since free competition results in inequalities of property, but the removal of reward for investment and risk will stultify economic development and ultimately harm society as a whole. Throughout his discussion of the economic choices America faces, Churchill refers to “the Russian alternative”—nationalization of production, distribution, credit, and exchange to cure the abuses and inequities of the capitalist system. One cannot take a middle ground between 16. Winston S. Churchill, “While the World Watches,” Collier’s, 29 December 1934. Republished in 1937 as “Roosevelt from Afar” in Great Contemporaries, deleted from 1940-45 editions. Cited hereafter as Great Contemporaries (University of Chicago Press, 1973). 17. WSC to William Chenery, editor, Collier’s, 13 September 1934 (Chartwell Papers 8/493) in Martin Gilbert, Winston S. Churchill, Companion Volume V, Part 2, The Wilderness Years 19291935 (London: Heinemann, 1981), 870. 18. Ibid. 19 Great Contemporaries, 373–74. 20 Great Contemporaries, 381. 21 Great Contemporaries, 374-75. 22 Great Contemporaries, 374-75. 23. Great Contemporaries, 375. There it seems to foreign observers, lies the big choice of the United States at the present time. If the capitalist system is to continue, with its rights of private property, with its pillars of rent, interest and profit, and the sanctity of contracts recognized and enforced by the State, then it must be given a fair chance. Given the regulatory activities of the National Recovery Administration, increases in taxes on successful businesses, frequent anti-trust lawsuits, and FDR’s antibusiness rhetoric, Churchill’s words can only be read as a rebuke to the New Deal approach to reining in “the vital impulses of economic enterprise and organization.”28 Conclusion Churchill’s critique of the New Deal does not nullify his admiration for Roosevelt, especially as it developed into the “special relationship” in the Second World War and afterward. While they had their disagreements, Churchill’s gratitude to Roosevelt was immense. Speaking in the House of Commons a few days after Roosevelt’s death, he expressed that gratitude in some of his finest words: “For us, it remains only to say that in Franklin Roosevelt there died the greatest American friend we have ever known, and the greatest champion of freedom who has ever brought help and comfort from the new world to the old.”29 Churchill’s critique does, however, have importance. Written in the context of worldwide economic upheaval, and collectivist trends destructive of freedom, it reveals his opposition to the philosophy of the New Deal as equally dangerous to political and economic liberty. Churchill thought seriously, not only about the unity of spirit between Great Britain and the United States, but the ways in which both countries were subject to the dangers of abandoning the supports of law and liberty in times of crisis. The two countries were bound together in the defense of freedom; Churchill knew that freedom must be guarded internally as well as externally. ✌ 24. WSC would echo this concern in “Roosevelt and the Future of the New Deal,” The Daily Mail, 24 April 1935; Collected Essays II:372. 25. Great Contemporaries, 376–79. 26. “Socialism,” 12 February 1929, Complete Speeches, V:4551–52: “Show me the parts of the country which at the present time are in the deepest depression, show me the industries which are most laggard, and at the same time you will be showing me the parts where these withering doctrines have won their greatest measure of acceptance.” 27. See for example Liberalism and the Social Problem (New York: Haskell House, 1973; reprint of 1909 ed.), 82–83. 28. Great Contemporaries, 379–80. 29. 17 April 1945, Complete Speeches, VII:7141. FINEST HOUR 143 / 43 Books, A rts & C uriosities True Persona: Two Works of Genius RICHARD M. LANGWORTH 1 “Into the Storm,” with Brendan Gleeson as Churchill and Janet McTeer as Clementine. A television drama broadcast by the BBC and HBO, produced by Ridley Scott, directed by Thaddeus O’Sullivan, Screenplay by Hugh Whitemore. Then out spake brave Horatius, The Captain of the Gate: “To every man upon this earth Death cometh soon or late. And how can man die better Than facing fearful odds, For the ashes of his fathers, And the temples of his gods...” —“Horatius,” stanza XXVII in Lays of Ancient Rome, by Thomas Babbington Macaulay. Recited at the beginning and at the end of “Into the Storm.” H ere is a TV docudrama packing exceptional honesty. An old man, at an age when most retire (or in his time die), is handed command of his nation, when no one else wants it, in the greatest crisis of her history. They fight alone, save for their kith and kin, “the old lion and her lion cubs,” as he put it, “against hunters who are armed with deadly weapons.” And they win— only to see the old man dismissed in the moment of victory. The opening scene is Hendaye, France, July 1945, where Churchill, his wife and daughter Mary spend a week’s break between polling-day in the British General Election and the start of the Potsdam Conference (see FH 128:45). Anxious for election returns (delayed for a fortnight to count the service vote) Churchill relives the past five years in a series of flashbacks. This is the film’s one jarring element: the back-and-forth occurs without obvious transition, and you have to remind yourself whether you are in the past or present. But overall, the story is massive, the action real, the history honest, the dialogue convincing, the scenes artful, the acting superb. Brendan Gleeson is the best Churchill since Robert Hardy. He falls into none of the usual traps. Most impersonators overdo the accent or the famous lisp, the V-sign or siren suits, the caricatures painted by Lord Moran or Alanbrooke. Gleeson was praised by Lady Soames, the sternest of critics. Hugh Whitemore, who also wrote the script for the preceding film “The Gathering Storm” (FH 115:32), helps by not loading the dialogue with soaring rhetoric. “Papa spoke in private,” his daughter says, “much as he did in public.” And here is the private Churchill, with doubts about winning, fears of the future, and faults of his own—for he was as human as anyone, freely admitted it, and often apologized for it, especially to his wife. Several quotes are taken out of time or context, but Whitemore blends FINEST HOUR 143 / 44 them flawlessly into the story, and the student of Churchill’s words doesn’t mind. Several scenes—like the “naked encounter” with Roosevelt—didn’t happen that way, but are so seamlessly integrated and well acted as to make them acceptable. Churchill’s habits, like the siesta which enabled him to work into the wee hours, are deftly conveyed. History is not bent for the sake of drama. Only extreme pedants can object to the film’s artistic license. Janet McTeer is no Vanessa Redgrave, the archetypal Clementine in “The Gathering Storm,” falling short of the character described by her daughter and biographer. Though she gives Winston good advice, she seems more a neurotic scold than a pillar of strength. It doesn’t matter because Gleeson, “throws himself into the character and completely owns him,” as Daniel Carlson writes, “from the nonstop cigars to the famous cadence of his speeches. Gleeson is believably tough but doesn’t make Churchill a warmonger or bully; if anything, he’s burdened by the thought of the boys he has sent to die.” Carlson has his finger on the film’s greatest quality: its sensitivity to WSC’s true persona. Resisting opportunities for ignorant political posturing —the leveling of German cities, for example—Scott and Whitemore always have Churchill saying what he truly believed—culled in this case from My Early Life: “War, which used to be cruel and magnificent, has now become cruel and squalid.” “Into the Storm” packs less depth than “The Gathering Storm”—like the persecution of Ralph Wigram for sending WSC secret reports on German rearmament. But too much is happening for sidebars. This is World War II, remember: the French debacle, Dunkirk, the Battle of Britain, the Blitz, Pearl Harbor, Singapore, the fraught meetings with Roosevelt (Len Cariou) and Stalin (Alexy Patrenko), the all-or-nothing assault on Fortress Europe. Leadership is the plot, sub-plot and sidebar. Some Churchillians have asked why Ridley Scott couldn’t have stopped at Pearl Harbor and done a world slipping away.” Churchill thinks back: “I met him in South Africa, riding across the veldt. He was Col. Seely then. I saw him at the head of a column of British cavalry, riding twenty yards in front, on a black horse. I thought of him as the epitome of Imperial power.” Watching this film, I had the sensation that it was well Britain chose Yalta: Gleeson, Cariou, Patrenko World War II for what John Charmley called “The End of Glory.” A great third film later; why there couldn’t be country, focused one last time by a multiple parts; why it wasn’t a leader steeped in history and language, Churchill version of “Lord of the held the fort “till those who hitherto Rings.” The best editor I ever worked had been half blind were half ready.” for said: “A bore is someone who tells Better to go out in a flash of light than everything.” And we are not filmface the long decline that seems now to makers. We have no idea what constraints Scott labored under. We do attend another superpower. “The know that he had ninety minutes. And proud American will go down into his slavery without a fight,” Pravda (astonwhat he does in that time to portray the true Churchill is a work of genius. ishingly) declared recently, “beating his chest and proclaiming to the world The enduring impression of “Into the Storm” is of an old man, real- how free he really is.” That will take years. For Britain the End of Glory izing after the most heroic chapter in came in months. his country’s history that history itself “Yes, I’ve worked very hard and has passed him by, “the palmy days of achieved a great deal,” Churchill Queen Victoria and a settled world reflected at the end of his long life, order,” as he put it in 1947, gone “only to achieve nothing in the end.” A forever. The war is won, the country life that rose to the heights of fame, the lost in a Socialist dream. Hardly, alas, honors of the world showered upon unfamiliar: a signal message in 2009. him—for what? “I feel,” he said, “like A lot of us who grew up in Churchill’s time feel the way Churchill an aeroplane at the end of its flight, in does at the end of this film, as he reads the dusk, with the petrol running out, in search of a safe landing.” a sympathetic post-election note from Not only he. ✌ his old friend Jack Seely: “I feel our 2 Thoughts and Adventures, by Winston S. Churchill, edited with an introduction by James W. Muller. ISI Books, 380 pages, illus., softbound, $22. Member price $17.60. I f Churchill’s 1932 volume of essays on politics, cartoons, elections, hobbies and adventures is really an “undiscovered classic” (as stated on the back cover of this new edition) it will be news to generations of readers. Thoughts and Adventures (first published in the U.S. as Amid These Storms) has seen twelve or more editions in English, and translations into Danish, French, German, Korean, Spanish and Swedish. Four of its essays are the subject of the 2009 Churchill Conference. What makes the new volume so valuable, aside from its easygoing paperback price, is an outstanding new introduction by Churchill Centre Chairman of Academic Advisers James W. Muller, Professor of Political Science at the University of Alaska Anchorage. In a 28-page essay, Muller plumbs the depths of Churchill’s intellect, the raison d’être of a book which is far more than a haphazard collection of FINEST HOUR 143 / 45 Churchill Centre Book Club Managed for the Centre by Chartwell Booksellers (www.churchillbooks.com), which offers member discounts up to 25%. To order please contact Chartwell Booksellers, 55 East 52nd Street, New York, NY 10055. Email [email protected] Telephone (212) 308-0643 Facsimile (212) 838-7423 Thoughts and Adventures... “potboilers” (as WSC himself sometimes referred to his articles): “The essays...are meant to convey his practical wisdom about politics. In every essay, even the most unassuming ones or those a sophisticate would find most unpromising, Churchill explores the topography of life in a modern liberal democracy. He treats simple subjects that appeal to a practical man, but his essays take up questions that would puzzle a philosopher.” Armed with Muller’s introduction, the reader comprehends how deeply Churchill, despite no formal education, thought about transcendental matters, and why Churchill Studies remain evergreen. Here are his “big four” futurist essays—“Shall We All Commit Suicide?,” “Fifty Years Hence,” “Consistency in Politics” and “Mass Effects in Modern Life.” Here are “My Spy Story” and “The Battle of Sidney Street,” which use everyday experiences to treat issues of civil liberty and civilian control of the military and police. We witness Churchill’s collegial politics in his tolerant appreciation of opponents in “Election Memories” and “Cartoons and Cartoonists,” and meet those who influenced him in “Personal Contacts.” We see war as Churchill saw it in “With the Grenadiers,” “The UBoat War,” “‘Plugstreet’” and “The Dover Barrage.” We watch history made over his burly shoulder in “The Irish Treaty.” We find two of his heroes from the opposite ends of history in “Clemenceau” and “Moses.” We even learn how to relax, with “Hobbies” and “Painting as a Pastime.” All the while our wise editor is there with a modern interpretation of what Churchill tells us, and why it still matters. Nor is >> BOOK REVIEWS Thoughts and Adventures... the fastidious Professor Muller content with a foreword. He offers a host of new footnotes, largely written by Finest Hour senior editor Paul Courtenay, which aid the modern reader by describing events, people and places no longer familiar. Finally, in the back of the book, he appends a thick set of notes, investigating—with Ronald Cohen’s epic Bibliography of the Writings of Sir Winston Churchill at hand—the origin of each essay, its titular and textual variations, and in many cases how it came to be written. We learn for example that Churchill’s own foreword was not written by WSC (who was “in a nursing home recuperating from a relapse of paratyphoid in early October 1932”). It was penned for him by his longtime friend and secretary Eddie Marsh, who emulated the boss’s style so perfectly that Churchill wrote on his copy, “Rather good pastiche.” Muller’s notes record alterations in each essay, as Churchill, an indefatigable reviser, tweaked and molded his work to suit his audience. In “My Spy Story,” for example, Muller produces five lengthy paragraphs from the original appearance in Cosmopolitan which Churchill omitted from the book, describing a “much trusted” German spy in Britain, whose reports were studied in Berlin and Wilhelmshaven. (And, just to be sure you know, Muller adds that Wilhelmshaven, “named after Kaiser Wilhelm I in 1869,” was the “headquarters of Germany’s High Seas Fleet in World War I.”) Truly this is as eminent an edition of an ingenious book as we could hope for—a tribute to the editor as to the author. In keeping with ISI’s practice, it will be in print a long time, to educate and inform future generations of Churchill’s political instinct, judgment, foresight and magnanimity. ✌ The Stuff of History CHRISTOPHER H. STERLING Masters and Commanders: How Roosevelt, Churchill, Marshall and Alanbrooke Won the War in the West, by Andrew Roberts. Harper, 720 pages, illus., $35. Member price $28. T his immensely readable book tells a long tale of frustration and cooperation–often more the former than the latter—in the strategic planning of World War II. Here are four quite different personalities; Roberts considers how they interacted and struggled to establish the priorities that would eventually win the European war. This is ground treated by many others—including multiple biographies of each man discussed here—but nowhere else is the material as clearly focused on how their relationship evolved, and they only met face-to-face ____________________________________ Dean Sterling teaches Communications at George Washington University. in mid-1942. Much of their communication before and after was by means of tenuous telecommunication links, or through aides sent on perilous flights across the Atlantic. What they wrought was the stuff of history. Drawing on a host of diaries, many heretofore unpublished, Roberts provides an almost over-the-shoulder view of his subjects in action. (Indeed, his very effective use of these diaries makes me wonder how future historians will ever write of present-day events when so few keep diaries anymore.) Thanks to the pictures he paints in words, we are silent observers of exchanges by which the masters (Churchill and Roosevelt) and their commanders (Alanbrooke and FINEST HOUR 143 / 46 Masters and Commanders... Marshall, respectively) developed a winning strategy. The depth, high quality, and working habits of each of these leaders comes through clearly—as do their disagreements. So do their huge frustrations, especially early on, as the British and U.S. leadership teams struggled to carry out the policy of “Germany First.” The give-and-take on how to create a “second front” to siphon off pressure against the Soviets is a farrago of code-name references to potential military actions: “Bolero,” “Roundup,” “Sledgehammer,” “Gymnast,” and— eventually—“Torch,” the invasion of North Africa in November 1942. At times the four men did not even use the terms to refer to the same things, muddied the waters with “Super Bolero” and other variant code names. At the heart of the decisionmaking was tension between the newly arrived Americans, who wanted to attack via France as soon as possible, and the battle-tested British, who felt the need to wear Germany down at the margins (North Africa, Italy, maybe Norway) before a make-or-break crossChannel invasion. The British desire to strike at North Africa won out. As important was the very different working relationship between each “master” and his commander. Marshall sometimes went six weeks without seeing FDR directly, while Alanbrooke complained he rarely got six hours without some (often difficult) interaction with Churchill. As we know from many accounts, FDR didn’t like writing things down, preferring oral communications. Churchill on the other hand, while sometimes pushing odd tangential actions, committed his final orders to writing. Neither master directly overruled his senior commanders, especially when they presented a unified front. Out of such seemingly minor matters of communication and consistency arose some of the wartime controversies so well related and accessed here. Roberts capably reviews the emotional ups and downs for Brooke and Marshall concerning the coveted command of the Overlord invasion. Churchill promised Brooke the role on at least three occasions, though it was clear even by mid-1943 that it was not his to confer. Roosevelt, in his oblique fashion, considered Marshall but then he couldn’t be spared from his existing post. Eisenhower got the nod based on his experience with the North African, Sicilian, and Italian campaigns. Brooke never got over the slight, made worse in his mind because Churchill seemed not to notice. Roberts makes clear the constant and never-ending strategic debate between the British and Americans, which no one else has so clearly described. Every decision was battled out, the Americans steady winning the arguments by late 1943, since they had more men, aircraft, and supplies to bring to bear. Churchill is seen as petulant and argumentative as his secondary role to Roosevelt and Marshall. Fights over proposed southeast Pacific ventures to free occupied British colonies were refought, as were the August 1944 landing in southern France (Anvil, later Dragoon), because they pulled American troops from the difficult Italian theater. Reading about these conflicts today, the reader can’t conceive of just how tired all the principals were as the war wore on. Churchill’s famous long nights (he, of course, took naps others couldn’t) didn’t help the outlook of Brooke and his colleagues, all of whom made that clear in their ever-present (though illegal) diaries. This is a long book, but one filled with insight. Roberts’ extensive use of sources is evident but does not dominate the narrative. He clarifies many of the war’s strategic turning points with an even hand. He is eminently fair in his judgments about who said what to whom, and who was right. Sometimes the British come out on top; at least as often the Americans win, especially late in the war, when the American strategic view, so often dismissed by Brooke in the privacy of his diary, came to dominate events. This is a book to own. No matter what you think you know about Churchill or the war, you will learn fascinating new things here. ✌ Russia 1918: Folly or Opportunity? DAVID FREEMAN Churchill’s Crusade: The British Invasion of Russia 1918-1920, by Clifford Kinvig. Continuum, 374 pp., softbound, illus., $34.95. Member price $27.95. M ajor General Kinvig, a former senior lecturer at Sandhurst and Director of Army Education, has done prodigious research to piece together the full story of Churchill’s famous effort “to strangle Bolshevism in its cradle.” Previously, the best record of this story was in the official biography by Martin Gilbert, and Kinvig acknowledges his debt to Sir Martin. But whereas Gilbert related events largely from the political perspective of Churchill, Kinvig integrates the political background with a full military history, providing a broader understanding of why Churchill’s crusade was doomed to failure. British forces entered northern Russia late in the First World War out of fear that the Germans might capture Murmansk and use the port, which is ice-free year round, to break the Allied blockade already strangling the Central Powers. The operation was also a belated attempt to reestablish the semblance of an Eastern Front, drawing off German troops from France. But the German threat in the Arctic was never serious, nor did Allied forces (British, French, Canadian, Australian and American) in Murmansk and later Archangel have any success in luring more German troops to the east. Justification for the Allied presence in Russia ended with the war, but Churchill, now Secretary of State for War, envisioned using Allied troops to support the various anti-Bolshevik factions (known collectively as Whites) in the ongoing Russian Civil War. Kinvig shows that Churchill attempted to do too much with too little. The Allied presence in Russia, ____________________________________ Professor Freeman teaches history at California State University, Fullerton. FINEST HOUR 143 / 47 including political/military missions in the south and far east, were never more than a skeletal force, and unreinforceable; the best Churchill could do was cobble together volunteer-units by promising continued employment and good pay. Churchill did have the political support of the Conservative MPs who made up a free-standing majority within Britain’s governing coalition, but his policy was opposed by Prime Minister Lloyd George, who read the will of the nation better than the Tories or Churchill, the leading Liberal in the Cabinet after himself. Still, Lloyd George was politically constrained. He had to allow Churchill something of a free hand to appease his Conservative backers, while attempting to talk them out of what he saw as a futile campaign. In vain Lloyd George cited the example of British interference in the French Revolution as an action that only intensified the atrocities committed by the revolutionaries. Churchill responded by citing stories of atrocities committed by the Bolsheviks. We know now that Churchill was correct in foreseeing that a Communist Russia would inflict unprecedented horror on its people, but in 1919 the Russians could see only the disaster bequeathed to them by the incompetent, corrupt and callous regime of the late Czar. War-weary peasants could not be expected to support antiBolshevik forces led by unrepentant Czarists, who displayed toward their soldiers nothing but contempt. In Russia, British forces of all ranks, even those opposed to Bolshevism, grew to despise the Whites whom they were sent to assist. Czaristera officers, far from professional and hopelessly corrupt, drank and quarreled with one another while preferring >> BOOK REVIEWS Churchill’s Crusade... billets far from the front. Churchill labeled such reports as defeatist, but in truth he had no understanding of the real situation. Not once did he visit Russia during this time. The White forces of Admiral Kolchak and General Denikin committed atrocities every bit as horrific as those of the Reds. In the South the Whites and their Cossack allies unleashed terrible new pogroms against Russian Jews. In vain did Churchill plead for Denikin to halt such actions, which obviously undermined support for the anti-Bolshevik cause. The Whites also hampered their own efforts by unrealistically insisting upon maintaining the integrity of “Greater Russia,” forsaking any crucial assistance they might have received from Poland and Romania or the emergent nations of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Under Trotsky, Bolshevik armies had difficulties of their own, but the Red war effort, Kinvig says, “was a model of ruthless efficiency compared with the performance of its opponents” (319). Yet the Allied troops managed to do surprisingly well, despite limited supplies and the extreme climate. A young Brig. Gen. Edmund Ironside commanded at Archangel, and two Victoria Crosses were awarded—both to Australians. In the first half of 1919 the ring of anti-Bolshevik forces even came tantalizingly close to victory. Once the Versailles Treaty was concluded, however, Allied support for the campaign evaporated. Withdrawals began at the end of the summer. Following the Dardanelles debacle, Churchill famously remarked that he had attempted to do too much from a subordinate position. Incredibly he made the same mistake in Russia. He was labeled a military adventurer and blunderer, a reputation that made it easy for many people to disregard his later warnings about the Nazis. Kinvig describes Churchill’s own account of his Russian adventure published in The Aftermath (1929) as “among the more fanciful of his historical writings” (xviii). Unfortunately for the Russian people, Churchill’s fears were not fanciful at all. ✌ PAUL H. COURTENAY is now identified as a World Heritage Site.” Beyond the iconic images familiar to many, there are hitherto unseen family photographs of recent times, which give a glimpse of everyday life in such historic surroundings; these are accompanied by the author’s personal recollections. It is almost impossible to list any points with which to quibble: I found just one of modest substance, a misidentified photograph: Queen Mary is mistakenly stated to be Princess Alice (actually Her Majesty’s sister-in-law and second cousin once removed, who is not portrayed). This is a trifle in a book of great interest to those who have visited Blenheim, and to those who still have this treat coming. ✌ A Sight for Lore Eyes Blenheim and the Churchill Family: A Personal Portrait, by Henrietta SpencerChurchill. Cico, 218 pages, hardbound, illus., $50. Member price $40. L ady Henrietta Spencer-Churchill is the elder daughter of the Eleventh and current Duke of Marlborough; having grown up at Blenheim Palace, she has an intimate knowledge of and feel for its history and contents. Her book is filled with a large number of fine photographs, accompanied by a lively commentary. Here you will find a wonderful display of all parts of the Palace including the famous tapestries and many historic paintings. As the Duke says in his foreword, the book “brings out vividly how eleven generations of my family have, in their various ways, contributed to a house designed not only as a family home, but also as a monument of such significance that it Too Many Errors You Shouldn’t Know 274 Things You Should Know About Churchill, by Patrick Delaforce. O’Mara Books, 188 pages, hardbound, $25. Member price $20. T his slim volume is strictly for those who are new to the Churchill story; there is little in it which would be unknown even to semi-informed readers. Having said that, the story unfolds in a readable way. The author has chosen 274 topics which, packaged as 274 short, headed paragraphs, follow a reasonably chronological route from Lord Randolph Churchill to his son’s State funeral. The author is of an age to have served in 11th Armoured Division in Normandy, where he was wounded, and certainly knows the general outline of Churchill’s life. But he reveals it in a way which casts doubt on his detailed ____________________________________ Mr. Courtenay is a FH senior editor. FINEST HOUR 143 / 48 awareness of much which occurred. It is, after all, easy to pick plums from a biography and to publish these in the way they are presented here, which is not to suggest plagiarism. As I read, my reactions oscillated between approval and disapproval. The first sentence aroused my suspicions: “With grateful thanks to Dominique Enright…” Enright wrote The Wicked Wit of Winston Churchill, published by the same O’Mara Books. In my review in FH 115 (http://xrl.us/bejq4v) I quoted her statement that “some of the stories are definitely authentic, but there are no doubt many that have been embellished….they have been selected for their Churchillian flavour.” So I was primed to look for flaws—which came thick and fast. 274 Things You Should Know... Leaving aside a number of typographical errors, which should have been eliminated by the publisher, I counted over forty errors of fact, ranging from incorrect dates through wrongly identified names to strange improbabilities. A few examples: 4th Queen’s Own Hussars was part of the Army in India (not the Indian Army); Churchill sailed from Lourenço Marques to Durban (he did not use a train); in 1914 Kitchener was Secretaryof State for War (not Commander-in Chief of the Army); in early 1915 the C-in-C of the British Expeditionary Force was French (not Haig); in 1916 Balfour was a former not future prime minister; in 1945 Churchill is said to have flown from Berlin to Potsdam (perhaps the aircraft taxied all the way); the 1945 nuclear test did not take place “in Mexico”; Lady Soames will be surprised to learn that she spent Christmas 1943 with her father in Carthage (it was her sister Sarah). These examples give a flavour of the careless research and editing, which are balanced by only one amusing and original comment. Relating how Churchill ordered that code-names should not be overconfident, gloomy or frivolous, but that constellations and racehorse names were among the acceptable, Delaforce writes: “Race horses yes—but race meetings?….This author fought in Epsom, almost in Goodwood and was wounded in Ascot!” For this remark, I can forgive him almost anything: call it a draw. ✌ Churchill as a Literary Character WSC IN FICTION (2) • MICHAEL T. McMENAMIN Novels are rated one to three stars on two questions: accuracy of portrayal and reading value. Churchill was always a controversial figure and many simply didn’t like him. If a novel attempts to see Churchill though the eyes of someone who doesn’t like him, the portrait may be disagreeable to his admirers; but that doesn’t make the portrait inaccurate, unless the author ascribes to him words or actions that are inaccurate. Two novels reviewed in the first column in this series (FH 141:48) portrayed Churchill in a relatively positive and accurate light, through characters who viewed him benignly. The two novels reviewed here do not. The Man from St. Petersburg, by Ken Follett (Signet, 1983). Portrayal ★★★ Worth Reading ★★★ N o library of any Finest Hour subscriber should be without Ken Follett’s historical thrillers (Eye of the Needle, etc.), the best of which are set in World War II. Follett is an excellent writer and all of his books, including this one, are still in print in paperback and available. The Man from St. Petersburg is unusual for a thriller in that it takes place in the days before World War I and features Churchill as a major player in a conspiracy to conclude a secret naval alliance between Britain and Russia in the spring and summer of 1914. Churchill is seen through the eyes of the Earl of Walden, a Conservative Party stalwart and general good guy who has been a “semi-official diplomat” for Lord Salisbury and Arthur Balfour. He can’t stand Churchill. In those days, few Tories could. Churchill is an archetypal character, the one who sets the plot in motion and keeps it moving, with several appearances from time to time. While the hero Walden obviously dislikes WSC, he doesn’t let it show. Bad form y’know. And he relishes the role Winston has given him to lead, at the Czar’s request, British negotiations with the young Russian Admiral Orlov, head of the Russian team and, not coincidentally, nephew to both the Czar and to Walden’s FINEST HOUR 143 / 49 The Man from St. Petersburg... attractive Russian-born wife Lydia. That way, the young admiral’s visit can be passed off as a holiday in England with family. Alack! Felix, the assassin sent by Russian anarchists to kill Orlov (“the man from St. Petersburg”) was once Walden’s wife’s lover, and he is not fooled. As with most Follett villains, Felix has sympathetic human traits which help explain why he and Lydia were lovers when they were young. Let’s just say things get complicated after that for Walden, Lydia, her idealistic teenage daughter Charlotte and Felix who, between attempts to kill Orlov, seeks out Charlotte, whom he believes to be his daughter. Vintage Follett, the pace rarely lets up. If Orlov is killed, the Czar won’t sign the treaty. That’s the reason for the three stars under “Worth Reading.” Three stars also go for the portrayal of Churchill, because anything negative about him comes from the viewpoint of the biased Walden. But it’s all historically accurate: Tories of his age and class did think Churchill was an impulsive demagogue. Yet Follett, in portraying Churchill, has him do or say nothing that rings false. WSC is, in turn, shown by Follett to be charming, manipulative and ruthless. There’s one scene where he is impulsive, but Walden’s restraint prevails. In a final twist, where all seems lost and the bad guys have won, Churchill comes up with the (somewhat cold-blooded) solution that saves the day. Read it; you won’t be disappointed. ✌ Imperial Kelly by Peter Bowen (Crown, 1992). Portrayal ★★ Worth Reading ★★ aveat. The ratings for this book—no longer in print but easily found online for less than $10—are based on the assumption that you’ve read and enjoyed any of the Sir Harry Flashman novels by the late continued on page 62... C CHURCHILL PROCEEDINGS Churchill and the Anglo-Irish War 1919-1922 COGADH NA SAOIRSE, THE IRISH WAR OF INDEPENDENCE, WAS THE UNFORTUNATE CULMINATION OF BRITAIN’S 700-YEAR ATTEMPT TO FIND A CONSTITUTIONAL RELATIONSHIP WITH IRELAND THAT MADE SENSE TO BOTH SIDES ALAN J. WARD ntil 1800, Great Britain and Ireland shared a crown but had separate parliaments. With the Union of 1801, the two parliaments were merged and this should have led to the substantial political integration of the two countries; but by an extraordinary oversight, the new relationship between Britain and Ireland was not defined precisely. Some elements of the old order persisted along with Ireland’s new representation at Westminster: the Irish Executive, which had represented the Crown in Ireland before the Union, continued. A Lord Lieutenant resided in Dublin in vice-regal pomp, with responsibility for law and order. The senior minister for Ireland, the Chief Secretary, sat in the Cabinet in London, but his under- and assistantsecretaries presided over a rambling Irish administration in Dublin Castle which included thirty-six independent Irish government departments.1 Wales and Scotland were certainly not governed in this way after their unions. Order in Ireland was the responsibility of two police forces, the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Dublin Metropolitan Police. There was also a 100,000-strong military contingent in 1919, primarily a reserve force of recruits in training for operations elsewhere. Only about ten percent were available for operations in Ireland when the Anglo-Irish War began in 1919.2 Thereafter, the army never had sufficient men or equipment to crush the enemy and its military intelligence was woefully inadequate. U ______________________________________________________ Dr. Ward is Class of 1935 Professor of Government Emeritus at the College of William and Mary. His four works on Irish History include The Easter Rising, 1916: Revolution and Irish Nationalism (1980, 2nd ed. 2003) and The Irish Constitutional Tradition: Responsible Government and Modern Ireland, 1782-1992 (1994). Our thanks to Professor Warren F. Kimball for editing this paper The police were similarly unprepared for the kind of conflict that emerged in 1919. The responsible British Cabinet and Irish Executive were never properly integrated with the police and military into a single command. Lines of authority were always blurred, and multiple intelligence services were extremely inefficient. At the end of World War I, Churchill had no significant voice in Irish affairs, but in January 1919 he entered the Cabinet as Minister for War, and was responsible for the British garrison in Ireland and the Irish police. Moving to head the Colonial Office in 1921, he remained in the Cabinet, and was part of the team that negotiated and signed the Anglo-Irish Treaty which ended the war in December 1921. The Cabinet was woefully ignorant about Irish affairs. No one, including Churchill, intuitively understood the Irish or really appreciated what had been happening there since the Easter Rising of 1916. Within two years the Catholic or Nationalist parts of the country had steadily fallen under the control of a republican political organization Sinn Fein (“Ourselves Alone”), which won seventy-three of Ireland’s 104 seats in the House of Commons in the December 1918 UK general election. The remaining seats were won by Protestant Unionists. Sinn Fein boycotted Parliament after the election and, on 21 January 1919 established a renegade Irish Parliament in Dublin, called Dáil Éireann, which appointed an Executive. As its first act, Dáil Éireann affirmed that an Irish Republic had been declared in Dublin on 24 April 1916, the first day of the Easter Rising. The Dáil was suppressed by the UK government but it managed to create an Irish executive and a parallel system of government departments and courts, and in the 1920-21 FINEST HOUR 143 / 50 GIVING NO QUARTER: British auxilliaries, left, known as the Black and Tans. Michael Collins, Commander-in-Chief of the National Army, right, at President Arthur Griffith's funeral in August 1922, ten days before his own death. (Wikimedia Commons) local elections, Sinn Fein won control of every town, county and rural council in the Catholic-majority regions.3 Parallel to Sinn Fein’s growing influence, from January 1919, was an Anglo-Irish War, which started with sporadic acts of republican violence against the Irish police. An Irish Republican Army was created out of several militias, secretly commanded by Michael Collins, then only 29. Churchill would come to know Collins extremely well in 1921-22, but thought of him as Minister for Finance in the Dáil Éireann Executive, and later as Chairman of the Free State Provisional Government formed to implement the Anglo-Irish Treaty. Churchill never appreciated Collins’ secret role as commander of the IRA, which operated independently of Dáil Éireann until a faction of the IRA became the Irish Free State army in 1922.4 There were no major battles in the Anglo-Irish War, but the IRA’s hit and run attacks and selective assassinations of police and informers were difficult to contain. The war accelerated in 1920 when outlying police barracks were abandoned as indefensible, and the court system in Ireland was paralyzed by jury tampering and jury bias.5 Built on a long tradition of rebellion and agrarian outrage in Ireland, the IRA’s guerrilla tactics had considerable popular support. It could not defeat the British militarily, but the British could not defeat the IRA without a substantial commitment of military and police power. The Cabinet long could not quite agree on what it faced in Ireland. Was the problem the Sinn Fein “murder gang” that could be routed by a determined police force? Or was Ireland in the grip of a war with broad support which could only be won by a major military operation? The Cabinet could use the police to crush the “murder gang,” and then discuss political reforms. This was Churchill’s preference; he was considered one of the “hard” ministers, certainly among the Liberals, in Lloyd George’s coalition government. Or the Cabinet could suppress the rebels with police while simultaneously engaging the Sinn Fein moderates. The Cabinet adopted the latter strategy, but with no great confidence. It was not until the summer of 1921 that the Cabinet began to accept that Ireland was engaged in war against an organized army, and that the response had to be primarily military. It was not clear that the Lloyd George Cabinet had the unity or even the time to decide what Britain faced in Ireland. The Prime Minister was engaged with the Paris peace settlement for most of 1919. As Minister for War, Churchill was supervising Britain’s postwar demobilization and the replacement of its armed forces, and also planning to mobilize the army against widespread labor unrest in Britain.6 He also forcefully urged Britain’s intervention in the Russian civil war, which continued until October 1919.7 Then, as Colonial Secretary from February 1921, >> 1. Alan J. Ward, The Irish Constitutional Tradition, 1782 to 1992 (Washington: The Catholic University of America Press, 1994), 30-37. 2. Charles Townshend, The British Campaign in Ireland, 19191921 (London: Oxford University Press, 1975), 12. 3. Ibid., 67-8. 4. Ibid., 17. 5. Charles Townshend, Britain’s Civil Wars: Counterinsurgency in the Twentieth Century (Boston: Faber and Faber, 1986), 56. 6. In 1921, after Churchill had left the War Office, four battalions of troops were withdrawn from Ireland because of industrial unrest in Britain at a time when the army could not mount major operations outside Dublin. See Townshend, The British Campaign in Ireland, 175. 7. Clifford Kinvig, Churchill’s Crusade: The British Invasion of Russia, 1918-1920 (New York: Hambledon Continuum, 2006). FINEST HOUR 143 / 51 CHURCHILL PROCEEDINGS CHURCHILL AND THE ANGLO-IRISH WAR... Churchill found himself constructing a new Middle East in the League of Nations mandated territories that Britain and France had acquired from the Ottoman Empire.8 Ireland was an awful distraction. Churchill’s frustration was heard in Parliament, when he spoke about the incessant boundary arguments for the Irish Free State: “...as the deluge [of World War I] subsides and the waters fall short we see the dreary steeples of Fermanagh and Tyrone emerging once again. The integrity of their quarrel is one of the few institutions that has been unaltered in the cataclysm which has swept the world.”9 The Lloyd George Cabinet was an uneasy coalition. The Prime Minister and Churchill were Liberals, whose party had proposed Home Rule with a Dublin Parliament under the Crown since 1886. In 1911 as Home Secretary, Churchill had supported “home rule all round,” a scheme to grant home rule to Ireland, Scotland and Wales.10 He introduced the second reading of the Third (purely Irish) Home Rule Bill in 1912. If the British and Empire interests were protected, Churchill had no objection to domestic self-government for Ireland.11 But the Coalition also included Tory Unionists who had opposed Home Rule thrice over the past three decades. (See Shannon and McMenamin on the origins of Home Rule in our previous issue. —Ed.) While many had come to accept some sort of Irish self-government, they were skeptical of Irish republicans. Some were political associates of “die-hard” Unionists, many from Protestant Ulster, who opposed Irish self-government in any form. Lloyd George had to balance these interests if his government was to survive. Churchill became his most important ally. No fair review of the Coalition from its formation in December 1916 shows that it ever understood Irish complexities. It did not appreciate the extent to which Ireland turned towards Sinn Fein after 1916; this led to catastrophic Irish policies in 1918. Following the final German offensive of the war in March 1918, when, in Lloyd George’s words, the British Fifth Army in France “practically disappeared,” the Cabinet decided to conscript the only substantial body of men not yet drafted: 150,000 Irishmen. Churchill, then Minister for Munitions, supported the decision, but it went against almost all Irish advice, Nationalist and Unionist. Irish republicans, constitutional nationalists, labor unions and the Catholic Church united in massive opposition. To try to ameliorate the unrest, the Cabinet decided to couple conscription with a limited Irish Home Rule measure, but this was rejected by both Sinn Fein and the Ulster Unionists, the two parties whose support was absolutely essential. To try to turn public opinion away from Sinn Fein, the government arrested seventy-three of its leaders for their alleged participation in a “German plot,” on insubstantial and very dated evidence. When the first Dáil Éireann met in January 1919, over half its sixtynine members were still in prison. As the situation steadily worsened, the Cabinet appointed Lord French to be Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in May 1918. Here was a general with absolutely no understanding of Irish nationalism, who wrote in October 1918: Place [Irish conscripts] in suitable surrounding and they are just as easily roused into imperial enthusiasm as, in the contrary case, they are filled with hatred and anger by a few crafty sedition-mongers, or young priestly fanatics, amongst whom alone they live. Free them from the terrorism of the few self-seeking hotheads and the majority of them would make excellent soldiers.12 It was no surprise that in the December 1918 general election, Sinn Fein wiped out the Irish Parliamentary Party. But the Cabinet was unprepared, and nothing between then and the middle of 1921 suggests that it improved its understanding. It stumbled along, distracted by other matters, confused by contradictory advice and assessments from “advisers” in Ireland, and under intense pressure from the United States and Dominions to solve the Irish problem. But it was incapable of acting decisively. C hurchill shared in the malaise. As Secretary for War he had a role in Irish policy but his biographer writes that he wished to defer to the Lord Lieutenant and Irish Chief Secretary on most military matters, seeing the War Office’s job as to provide troops and equipment. However, he was not passive and his interventions, or mostly non-interventions, had serious effects.13 Churchill and most of the Cabinet shared the “murder gang” theory of the Irish war. If enemy thugs were engaged in selective terror, rather than a para-military organization fighting an insurgent war, there were several implications. First, there was no reason for Churchill to require the army to develop counter-insurgency tactics—and he did not. Late in 1920, Irish military leaders said, “There was no objective for operation, there was no defined theatre of war, there was no front line.”14 This describes what we now call insurgency warfare, which required a new strategic doctrine. Churchill did not recognize the need. Second, if the conflict in Ireland was not a war but a criminal conspiracy, the lead agency should be the police, not the army. As Minister for War, Churchill opposed attempts to militarize the war and agreed with Lloyd George that Ireland was “a policeman’s job supported by the military and not vice versa.”15 The reality, however, is that the war was not simply a criminal conspiracy. It was a well organized guerrilla campaign, difficult to win without the military. The “murder gang” theory tied the Cabinet’s hands. It could not win a war so long as it denied it was fighting one. It was not until December 1920 that the Cabinet agreed to the Irish Command’s request for martial law—and then only in four, and later eight, counties. Incomplete martial law lasted only six months. Civil trials and the usual trappings of martial law—mass internment of suspects, internal passports or identification cards, press censorship—were impractical unless the whole country was covered. FINEST HOUR 143 / 52 Unfortunately, Churchill had a poor relationship with the military commander in Ireland, General Sir Nevil Macready, who was appointed in 1920. Macready accused him of impetuosity and waywardness,16 and in his autobiography writes, “Mr. Churchill once told me he enjoyed taking risks. He ought assuredly to have enjoyed himself during the time he was responsible for Irish affairs at the Colonial Office.”17 Churchill would have preferred Field Marshal Sir William Robertson, but was talked into Macready’s appointment by Lord French.18 Macready had commanded the London Metropolitan Police and it was anticipated that he would support the integration of the military and the police under his command. But Macready refused the police assignment, believing that the reorganization of the police would take too much of his time.19 Churchill did not make integration a condition of Macready’s appointment, and without it the police and the military operated at cross purposes. The army saw its job as concentrating its forces to attack the enemy, largely in search and destroy missions; but the police dispersed its forces to protect outlying barracks.20 Having refused to command the police, Macready did not then work well with Churchill’s choice of Commander for both the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Dublin Metropolitan Police, General Tudor, who was appointed in May 1920. Churchill himself worked well with Tudor. n insurgency warfare the forces of the state must have a huge advantage in numbers over the insurgents. The latter are free to roam, hit and run anywhere at any time, but state forces have to defend every possible target. The army and the police never had the capability to defend and respond. The Royal Irish Constabulary, operating outside Dublin, numbered just over 10,000 in January 1919 and 14,200, in June 1921,21 but it was never well trained for paramilitary operations. In June 1920 the army’s effective strength outside Dublin for anti-insurgency purposes was only about 8000 men. Something had to be done to get more manpower into the field, and it was decided that it would be the police.22 Reinforcing the police rather than the army was driven by the “murder gang” theory. The Cabinet wanted to avoid militarizing the conflict; the IRA had to be defeated, but putting the whole country on a war footing would, it was thought, destroy any chance of a political settlement. The solution—to attach a number of auxiliary forces to the RIC—would have terribly damaging consequences to British prestige in Ireland and abroad. Churchill has been credited with conceiving the auxiliary program, and he certainly approved it, but its parentage is confused.23 A Cabinet colleague, Walter Long, had suggested something of the kind in May 1919,24 but the RIC commander, General Byrne, doubted that auxiliaries could be controlled by the police code of discipline.25 He was absolutely correct, but doubts were later pushed aside. Churchill tells us that the government “decided—or, rather, drifted into a decision—to meet force with force, or, to be more exact, to meet terror with terror.”26 The first auxiliaries in the south comprised about 1200 former army officers whose assignment was counterinsurgency. The second were 8000 former soldiers from the ranks who came to be known as Black and Tans because of the uniforms they wore.27 When these two auxiliaries went into action in 1920, it quickly became clear that they lacked police or military discipline. They became notorious for unauthorized reprisals against the Irish civilian population, including shootings and the destruction of buildings.28 The Black and Tans aroused particular public enmity for their brutality: as Townshend writes, “The Cabinet’s belief that the Black and Tans, being nominally police, would be less offensive to public opinio than outright military administration, was a monumental act of self-deception….”29 In September 1920 Sir Henry Wilson, Chief of the Imperial General Staff, discussed the Black and Tan reprisals in his diary: “Winston saw very little harm in this but it horrifies me.”30 The truth is probably less that Churchill saw little harm than that he had some sympathy with the Black and Tans, who were acting, he believed, under extreme provocation.31 In October 1920 the Cabinet ordered unofficial reprisals to end, but in November, at the request of the military, Churchill proposed a policy of official reprisals, which the Cabinet accepted in December. Houses, cooperative creameries and other buildings could now be destroyed >> 8. See David Freeman, “Midwife to an Ungrateful Volcano,” Finest Hour 132, Spring 2006, 26-33. 9. Parliament, House of Commons, Hansard, 16 February 1922. Speech on the second reading of the Irish Free State Bill. 10. Winston Churchill, “Devolution,” 1 March, 1911, CAB 37/1045/ no.16, Public Records Office, London. 11. Robert Rhodes James, Churchill: A Study in Failure, 54. 12. Alan J. Ward, “Lloyd George and the 1918 Irish Conscription Crisis,” The Historical Journal 17:1 (March 1974), 125. 13. Martin Gilbert, Winston S. Churchill (London: Heinemann, 1975) IV:447. 14. Quoted by Townshend, The British Campaign in Ireland, 157. 15. Townshend, Britain’s Civil Wars, 61. 16. General Sir Nevil Macready, Annals of an Active Life (New York: George H. Doran, 1925), II: 662, 665. 17. Ibid., 654. 18. Macready, Annals, 425-26; Townshend, The British Campaign in Ireland, 73-74. 19. Townshend, The British Campaign in Ireland, 60. 20. Ibid., 28-30. 21. Ibid., 28, 211-14. 22. Ibid., 87. 23. Tim Pat Coogan, Michael Collins: The Man Who Made Ireland (London: Hutchinson, 1990), 127. 24. Townshend, The British Campaign in Ireland, 25. 25. Ibid., 30. 26. Rhodes James, Study in Failure, 163. 27. Townshend, The British Campaign in Ireland, 56. 28. Rhodes James, Study in Failure, 162-63. 29. Townshend, The British Campaign in Ireland, 104. 30. Ibid., 116. 31. Gilbert, 455. I FINEST HOUR 143 / 53 CHURCHILL PROCEEDINGS CHURCHILL AND THE ANGLO-IRISH WAR... under military supervision, after populations had been removed. The program lasted for five months. Churchill later wrote, “Where no witnesses would give evidence or could give it only at the peril of their lives, where no juries would convict, the ordinary processes of law were non-existent.” But official reprisals were no more welcomed than unofficial ones, and there were public relations disasters in Ireland, Britain and the United States.34 A third auxiliary force that Churchill approved was attached to the RIC in Ulster from October 1920. There were actually three Ulster forces, known as A, B and C “Specials,” approved by Churchill and the Cabinet at the insistence of Ulster Unionist leader Sir James Craig. “A Specials” were full-time police auxiliaries, “B Specials” were part-time and locally based, and “C Specials” for emergencies and intelligence gathering. Macready and the civilian leadership in Dublin Castle vehemently opposed the establishment of these forces because they would be exclusively Protestant—and so they proved to be.35 Over the next fifty years the “B Specials” in particular became associated with the worst kinds of anti-Catholic discrimination in Northern Ireland. Their disbandment became a central objective of the Northern Irish Civil Rights movement in the 1960s.36 Neither the Black and Tans nor the “B” Specials brought any credit to Churchill. I n late 1920, attempts were made by the Catholic Archbishop of Perth, Joseph Clune, to secure a truce with the IRA, but the time was inopportune. Michael Collins opposed a deal, arguing that what would get Ireland a limited political settlement would also get it a republic. Sinn Fein rejected Britain’s condition that the IRA should surrender its arms before talks could begin, and insisted on immunity for Irish leaders—something the Cabinet would not offer.37 Churchill was not a diehard opponent of a negotiated settlement, but he could see no responsible Irish negotiating partner. In any case, the military leaders in Ireland urged a continuation of the war.38 But the war worsened significantly, the political geography of Ireland had changed in a way that favored a settlement. The result was the Government of Ireland Act. On 23 December 1920, the Government of Ireland Act received the royal assent.39 Lloyd George argued for it by asking: “…do we want peace or not? Are we to stamp out the very embers of rebellion or is the policy a double one to crush murder and make peace with moderates?”40 He endorsed the double policy and offered moderates home rule in the Government of Ireland Act. This created two Home Rule parliaments in Ireland, one in Belfast for six counties of Northern Ireland, and one in Dublin for the twenty-six southern counties. Both parliaments were subordinate to Westminster Parliament, whose ultimate supremacy was explicitly stated. The proposal had emerged from two 1919-20 Cabinet committees chaired by the Unionist Walter Long and dominated by hawks, one of whom was Churchill. It was an evolution of Churchill’s prewar proposal for “home rule all round,” what he mistakenly called federalism.41 Instead of Home Rule for each part of Britain, it proposed Home Rule for each part of Ireland, leaving regional parliaments elsewhere for later discussion. Dividing Ireland was meant to solve the problem without provoking civil war in Ulster. It was hoped that this would appease public opinion in the USA and the Dominions, which strongly supported Irish self-determination. Northern Ireland Unionists were prepared to cooperate because they realized that a parliament that they would dominate was the surest way to ensure they would never have to join a Dublin parliament.42 Sinn Fein was prepared to cooperate, at least to the degree of holding elections to the southern parliament, because that would demonstrate their domination of Nationalist Ireland. In the elections, Unionists won forty of fifty-two seats in the north, Sinn Fein 124 of 128 seats in the south. The remaining four were elected by graduates of Trinity College, Dublin, a traditionally Protestant institution. There was an element of fantasy in all this because, as the Government of Ireland Act was being signed into law, the IRA was rejecting a truce, and martial law was being introduced in four southern counties. Nor was there any chance that Sinn Fein would accept a subordinate Dublin parliament. There were few moderates left, if by moderate we mean people who would accept Home Rule as a final settlement. Even Dominion status, the virtual independence enjoyed by Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa, was at the time unacceptable to Sinn Fein. Offering Dominion status to the whole of Ireland would have provoked an explosion in Ulster, but partition changed the situation. Hitherto, Ireland was always treated as a whole and Unionists were asked to accept a Dublin parliament. Now the Unionists were secure in their own province. Yet, as late as the spring of 1921, plans were made to govern the south of Ireland from Britain as a Crown colony and to impose martial law should Sinn Fein refuse to accept a southern parliament.43 (This changed once the province of Northern Ireland was in being.) B y the summer of 1921, fighting had worsened and the two sides were in stalemate. The Cabinet finally recognized that the war could not be won without substantial military intervention, and in June it agreed to send an additional sixteen battalions to Ireland. Lloyd George still argued that the war was the job of the police, supported by the army—not the other way round. Churchill still believed the police were doing a better job in Ireland than the army.44 Both recognized the need to expand the war if victory was to be achieved, but Churchill thought that, as a moral gesture, the Cabinet should first offer “the widest measure of self-government to Ireland.”45 On 22 June 1921 King George V opened the Northern Ireland Parliament with a speech calling for reconciliation, and the Cabinet made the effort. The moment was right. The IRA knew it could not win a conventional FINEST HOUR 143 / 54 CHURCHILL PROCEEDINGS war, and had no desire to fight an augmented British military. The British Cabinet had no desire for a costly total war, given so many other problems at home and abroad. Lloyd George had already brought Sinn Fein’s Eamon de Valera and the Unionist Sir James Craig together for secret meetings in May; on 24 June he publicly invited de Valera and Craig to talks. After further negotiations the British Cabinet and the Dáil Éireann executive agreed on a truce to begin on 11 July 1921. There now began the tough negotiation that led to the Anglo-Irish Treaty and the Irish Free State in 1921. Churchill was to be an extremely important player. 32. Churchill, p.303; Townshend, The British Campaign in Ireland, 118-22, 149; Coogan, Michael Collins, 149-50. 33. Winston S. Churchill, The Aftermath (New York: Scribners, 1929), 301. 34. It is interesting that after the truce in June 1921, Churchill sent many of the southern auxiliaries to Palestine. Townshend, Britain’s Civil Wars, 91. 35. Macready, 488. 36. Coogan, Michael Collins, 335-37. 37. Coogan, Michael Collins, 192-95. 38. Gilbert, 470-71. 39. Alan J. Ward, The Irish Constitutional Tradition: Responsible Government and Modern Ireland 1782 to 1992, (Washington: The Catholic University Press, 1994), 107-10. 40. Townsend, The British Campaign in Ireland, 140. 41. Ward, The Irish Constitutional Tradition, 107. This was not federalism in the technical sense. A federation is a system of coordinate local and federal legislatures, neither of which can be amended or abolished by the other. Federalism as used by Long is now called devolution, which describes the creation of local legislatures to which the central parliament assigns certain powers. The legislatures themselves, and the powers, can both be withdrawn or amended by the central parliament. 42. In 1934 Craig said to the Northern Ireland House of Commons, “They still boast of Southern Ireland being a Catholic State. All I boast of is that we are a Protestant Parliament and a Protestant State.” Quoted by Jonathan Bardon, A History of Ulster (Belfast: Blackstaff Press, 1992), 538-39. 43, Townshend, The British Campaign in Ireland, 184. 44. Ibid. 45. Churchill, 306; Townshend, The British Campaign in Ireland, 184. Why Ireland Won: The War from the Irish Side HOW A HANDFUL OF RADICALS, THROUGH VIOLENT ACTION, CO-OPTED IRISH CONSTITUTIONAL NATIONALISM, AND SET THE PATTERN FOR ALL SUCCESSFUL WARS OF NATIONAL LIBERATION IN THE 20TH CENTURY TIMOTHY D. HOYT t’s important to think about the Anglo-Irish War for a number of reasons, some of which are very contemporary. Here I would like to consider the Irish side. First and most important, this was the prototypical nationalist revolution: the model for the wars of national liberation that began after the Second World War in particular, as the European empires weakened. For the first time since the American Revolution Britain was up against a determined nationalist movement with transnational links and support. The methods and techniques used by the Irish Republican Army set the pattern for future organizations attempting to overthrow superior occupying powers. I ______________________________________________________ Dr. Hoyt is Profesor of Strategy and Policy, U.S. Naval War College, and has worked or consulted for U.S. government agencies on security issues. He is currently working on a history of the Irish Republican Army, as well as projects on U.S. military strategy in the 21st century and American relations with India and Pakistan. There are things we need to know about the origins of the Irish insurgency. The first is the myth that Ireland had been rebelling against England for 800 years. That’s partly true, but Ireland was never rebelling in a concerted, nationalist fashion. This was the first major national uprising with any chance of success, and it did work. It was based on a number of different factors and categories. The Cultural-Ethnic Divide Ethnic differences between the Irish and the English were an important element of the new nationalist themes discussed in Finest Hour 142: Home Rule and the revival of Gaelic civilization, art, and language. There’s also a difference of religion, which is important. In Ireland, politics are linked with religion. Ireland never fully succumbed to the Reformation, and in fact remained primarily a Catholic country. In an effort to squash Catholicism in Ireland, >> FINEST HOUR 143 / 55 CHURCHILL PROCEEDINGS WHY IRELAND WON... there were a series of Penal Laws in the 18th century, which some commentators have said made it illegal to be an Irish Catholic under British law. Resistance has always been linked in some way with religion. Although there are Protestant nationalists, for the most part national sympathy comes from the Catholic part of the population. There were profound social differences, and the Irish understood them, even if the English did not. Some 2500 years ago a Chinese war strategist named Sun Tzu said, “Know your enemy, know yourself, and you will win a hundred battles.” One of the reasons the Irish won is because they knew themselves well, and they had a better understanding of the English than the English had of them. Ireland has a long tradition of secret societies and rebellions. The early risings were local, primarily in the south and west, which in the 19th century maintained the last remnants of Gaelic civilization and Gaelic speakers. That area was devastated by the Irish famine, which formed the Irish population in Boston in the mid-19th century. They had deep resentments of British rule, of British imperialism, and of Britain’s failure to respond to a catastrophe which reduced the population of Ireland from eight to about four million in a decade through a combination of death and emigration. Last but not least, the British had a sort of contemptuous view of the Irish: they were not serious, and always making trouble. Any time there was trouble in Ireland, they looked at it as a minor problem. In the case of the Irish rebellion in the nineteen-teens, that was a serious mistake. Then and Now There’s a difference between the Irish rebellion and the all-out revolts we’ve seen more recently. The former was by no means all-pervasive. In fact, Belfast and County Cork had thirty-six acts of violence per ten thousand people over a six-year period, suggesting that this was not a very violent rebellion at all. Consider 1919-21, the height of the rebellion: in 1919, fewer than two dozen people were killed through acts of political violence. In 1920, that number rose to several hundred, and in the first six months of 1921 it rose to over 700. It was escalating quickly—yet the initial low figures suggest why the British government had difficulty comprehending the problem. It seemed very low-key until 1920. The Rand Corporation did a study which concluded that insurgencies generally average about nine years before they succeed or fail. It’s useful thinking about this, because the Irish insurgency really started in 1912 or 1914, with the failure of the Home Rule Bill. That was the point at which Irish politics shift from being constitutional to being at least quasi-militarized. The violent, coercive reaction and the threat of civil war that came about in British political society as a result of the passage of the Home Rule Bill of 1912 led to an unprecedented militarization of Irish politics. The Loyalist population, primarily Protestants in what is now Northern “KNOW YOUR ENEMY, KNOW YOURSELF, AND YOU WILL WIN A HUNDRED BATTLES.” —Sun Tzu Ireland, mobilized over 100,000 men in a militia who vowed to fight the British if they attempted to impose Home Rule. In response, a Catholic militia was formed in 1913 that eventually numbered 180,000. It lacked arms, but the fight for Irish nationalism was morphing, possibly into a battle for Ireland itself, which was only prevented by the beginning of the First World War. Britain, the “occupying power,” was concerned because Ireland had been used in past wars to threaten the homeland. The Spanish had invaded and were only defeated at the Battle of Kinsale in 1601. The French had invaded, and in 1798 actually landed a substantial force in Ireland, which was eventually defeated by the British. Britain’s enemies have provided support for Irish rebellion consistently throughout history. But Britain did not understand the impact of Irish militarization that came about through the failure of Home Rule. The Easter Rising, 1916 With the outbreak of war in 1914, both large militias patriotically disbanded, and many of their members enlisted in the British army. Men of the Ulster Volunteer Force joined the 36th Ulster Division. Some Catholic nationalists, the Irish Nationalist Volunteers, enlisted and were put into other army units. They did not really get a Catholic division of their own. But the 12,000 Irish Nationalist Volunteers were gradually infiltrated by a group called the Irish Republican Brotherhood. Formed in the United States in the 1850s, the Brotherhood was committed to violent overthrow of British rule. On Easter 1916, 1500 Volunteers seized the center of downtown Dublin and held it for about a week. In some ways it was one of the most pathetic military operations ever designed, in part because the leaders believed that it was only through their deaths that they would mobilize Irish opinion. They didn’t necessarily tell that to the troops; it might have been demoralizing! Yet they held out for about a week. About 2500 people were killed, and downtown Dublin was devastated as the British Army took the city back, block by block. As the Irish prisoners were marched away, Dubliners spat on them and pelted them with rotten vegetables. They had no sympathy whatsoever. Then the British imposed martial law and began executing the leaders one at a time. This turned the picture around, rallying sympathy for the rebels. In Parliament, the leader of the Irish Parliamentary Party said they would have FINEST HOUR 143 / 56 REVOLUTIONARIES TURNED STATESMEN: Sean Lemass, left, was Irish Prime Minister in 1959-66. Refusing to discuss what he did on “Bloody Sunday,” 21 November 1920, he would always reply, “Firing squads should not have reunions.” Eamon de Valera, right, a commander in the Easter Rising, escaped arrest over confusion as to whether he was an Amercan citizen. The dominant force in Irish politics for over half a century, he was both head of government and head of state, serving as Prime Minister three times between 1937 and 1959. Enraging Churchill, he maintained a determined Irish neutrality in World War II. done better to shoot them right away, and had it over with. But the executions dragged on, including some of the worst kind. One rebel was so badly wounded he couldn’t stand, so they tied him to a chair and shot him there. Suddenly these reckless revolutionary idiots of the Easter Rising became martyrs for a legitimate political vision— which had little support until the British began executions. Meanwhile, the prisoners not executed were shipped to Britain. Fron Goch, Wales, was a major facility for them. And here the future leadership of the Irish Republican Army was able to sit around and talk, decide what they’d done wrong, and plan how to do it better the next time. To this day the IRA refers to prison as “the revolutionary university,” the place where they learn from their mistakes. This is a problem for every country which has ever fought a sustained insurgency or counter-terrorist campaign. On the one hand, you have to put these people away somewhere; on the other hand, it’s easier to put them all in the same place. But in the same place, they have a chance to talk to one another, to reassess and think about how to do it better the next time. (The problem has its modern counterpart in the U.S. detainees at Guantanamo, though the “revolutionary university” is not among the reasons voiced for closing that facility. —Ed.) Sinn Fein Eamon de Valera, one of the commanders in the Easter Rising, survived because there was some question about whether he was an American citizen. He was imprisoned, then released, and soon became a figurehead. From 1908 to 1915, Sinn Fein (“Ourselves Alone”) had about as much support as Ralph Nader in American elections: roughly two percent of the vote in parliamentary elections, marginal, if highly idealistic. But after the Easter Rising Sinn Fein became the umbrella for everyone opposed to the status quo. Some would say it was hijacked, although it’s not clear that it really was. Its leader, Arthur Griffith, remained a major figure in the movement. On 25 October 1917 Sinn Fein, though a political party, declared that it would use “any and every means available” to achieve total Irish independence. The first objective was by-elections, held to replace Members of Parliament who die or leave office. Sinn Fein candidates vowed never to attend the Parliament at Westminster. Instead they proposed to create an Irish Parliament to make Irish law, the basis for an independent Ireland. Thirty percent of Sinn Fein’s leadership was Irish National Volunteers, who had their own constitution and goals. Richard Mulcahy, Chief of Staff of the IRA throughout the war, said that civil-military relations between nationalist forces were close. I would argue this was a rosy-colored view. What really happened was that people who supported violence dragged people who would otherwise have supported a constitutional movement along with them towards radical politics. We see here the emergence of the hard men, like Dan Breen, who was responsible for the murder of the first two policemen killed in the conflict, in January 1919. Breen later became a fascist. He’s not an attractive fellow. He and others in County Tipperary helped push Sinn Fein in the radical direction. Breen and others like him had no intention of allowing this to be a peaceful movement. They did not believe in peace. Michael Collins, then the IRA’s Director of Intelligence, said: “The sooner fighting is forced, and a general state of disorder created throughout the country, the better it will be for the country.” >> FINEST HOUR 143 / 57 CHURCHILL PROCEEDINGS THE FIRST DÁIL ÉIREANN, Mansion House, Dublin, 21 January 1919. First row, left to right: Laurence Ginnell, Michael Collins, Cathal Brugha, Arthur Griffith, Eamon de Valera, Count Plunkett, Eoin MacNeill, W.T. Cosgrave, Kevin O’Higgins. (Wikimedia Commons) WHY IRELAND WON... The Dáil Éireann The 1918 British general election was the first after the war and the first where women were allowed to vote. I have yet to find a good article on how they affected Irish elections, but suspect they did in some way. In any case, Sinn Fein received seventy-three of the 104 Irish seats in Parliament: 75 percent of Ireland’s representatives, who refused to attend Westminster and rejected the right of Britain to rule Ireland. One would think this would have been viewed with alarm in Britain, and it’s very interesting that it was not. In fact, when the Irish Parliament, the Dáil Éireann, met in Dublin in January 1919, over half of the delegates were not there. As the names of absent delegates were called, the Irish words were heard: “imprisoned by the foreign enemy.” What the Dáil did was to declare war: it created military organizations, a Ministry of Finance with Collins as its head, and other cabinet positions including Foreign Affairs and Information Ministries. These were very powerful tools, successfully spreading propaganda and information. But here, again, the Irish Minister of Defence reiterated the underlying program: “Kill them if you have to.” This was not a non-violent movement. The Easter Rising was run on a wish and a prayer, but now things were different. The revolution really began in 1919—precisely the time Winston Churchill was saying that there was no place in the world where there was less danger than Ireland. Britain’s response to the Sinn Fein vote, to the Dáil’s Declaration of Independence, was to say, “Well, that’s Ireland—it’ll be okay.” Alas it was not okay. The Offensive Against the Police Michael Collins now asked: “What is the center of gravity? What is the thing that England has that hurts us the most and helps them the most?” It was, he declared, British intelligence. And after spending some time and looking at it carefully, he realized that this was the place to hit the enemy. So Collins organized a sophisticated attack against the police and intelligence services in Dublin. It was largely non-violent, because the aim was to ostracize them from Irish society. The police force, the Royal Irish Constabulary, had fewer than 10,000 members, mostly Catholic: long-term beat cops who mainly patrolled the places where they lived, went to church, married and raised their families. Sinn Fein’s approach was simple and seductive. “You can’t talk to the Constabulary anymore,” it told the people: “They’re the enemy.” The villagers began to reject their own neighbors who enforced the law—incredibly powerful coercive pressure that moved Ireland in a very different FINEST HOUR 143 / 58 direction. It’s not hard to ostracize someone, but when you do it, you have become radicalized. Meanwhile, with the aid of a detective named Eamon Broy, Collins infiltrated the Dublin Metropolitan Police. Every night the detectives would hand their notebooks to Broy, an excellent typist, to transcribe. Broy would make a carbon copy which he would give to Collins, who read everything the Royal Irish Constabulary had about political opposition in Ireland, daily for almost three years. The Base of Insurgency ASSASSINS, SPIES AND COMMANDERS: Daniel Breen (poster above) touched off the war of 1919-21 by murdering the first two constables. The price on his head put Churchill’s Boer wanted poster in the pale. He later became a fascist. Eamon Broy, below left, a typist at Dublin police headquarters, shipped surreptitious carbon copies of every police note to Michael Collins. IRA Chief of Staff Sean McBride, below center, was the only man to win both the Nobel and Lenin Peace Prizes. Young Tom Berry, below right, a prominent guerrilla fighter, was against any negotiation with the British, believing that Ireland could win her independence militarily. By 1920, the base of this insurgency was secured. There was a political party which acted as the voice of the Irish people; an independent parliament; a crippled intelligence, an ostracized Constabulary. Sinn Fein was now even setting up courts, especially in the south and west where rebellion was strongest; soon they had judicial mechanisms in two-thirds of the counties. These courts were careful to be fair and impartial— even the Protestants respected them. When I lived in Belfast in the 1980s, I met an old fellow who had been summoned before one. He had carried out the Irish equivalent of the Boston Tea Party. On the west coast, he had stolen a truck filled with English Bass Ale and dumped it into the Atlantic Ocean. A local bar owner complained and he wound up in court. When this fellow saw the judge he cheered up: it was his brigade commander in the IRA! But the judge said, “I admire your political sentiment, lad, but it’s a waste of good beer,” fined him and made him pay damages to the bartender. That’s an example of how Sinn Fein legitimacy, not just as a political party but as a source of law and order, but an incredibly powerful element delegitimizing British rule and setting up alternative authority. With the other side relying on the “Black and Tans,” it was an easier sell than ever. The IRA itself pursued the strategy: “If we can’t beat them militarily, we’ll make their lives really difficult.” >> FINEST HOUR 143 / 59 CHURCHILL PROCEEDINGS Victory WHY IRELAND WON... It was in Churchill’s words “victory at all costs— Flying columns—platoon-sized organizations of fifteen to victory in spite of [or perhaps with the help of ] all terror.” thirty-five men—were formed in each county. Aside from The truce and treaty will be discussed next. I would point ambushing British troops or the police, they spent a lot of out, however, that Collins knew when he signed the truce time wandering through villages, a clear message that the that they could not then re-engage in military operations— British weren’t in charge. “We are going to harass and the British would reestablish their intelligence, and IRA demoralize the enemy without giving them an opportunity members who came out of hiding would be marked. This to strike back,” the IRA declared. “It’s more profitable to is one of the reasons he negotiated as he did in London. kill for Ireland than to die for her”—the exact opposite of Tom Berry, one of the IRA’s prominent guerrilla the leaders of the 1916 rebellion. leaders, was upset about the treaty negotiations—this was By now Churchill had changed his view of the Irish one of the reasons that there was a civil war afterwards. The situation, referring to the treacherous, assassinating, concommanders in the provinces, in Cork and Tipperary and spiring traits of the Irish people. (I take that personally.) Kerry, rejected negotiations; they thought the war was But it was clear that by 1920, the situation was much going rather well. Collins, in Dublin, had a different pergraver. On Bloody Sunday, 21 November 1920—eleven spective. As a result, there was civil war, and, after a pause days after Lloyd George had declared, “we have murder by of forty years, an IRA that exists even today in various the throat”—the IRA assassinated sixteen British military forms, still committed to the violent overthrow of British intelligence officers in downtown Dublin. Among the assasrule in the north. sins was Sean Lemass, who later became Prime Minister of Not surprising, and pleasant to remember, is that Ireland. Asked later why he never talked about his experiChurchill had the solution—largely embodied in the 1921 ences in the war he said, “Firing squads should not have Irish Treaty. It was not a bad solution. But the time to reunions.” impose it was in 1916, after the Easter Rising. There were By December 1920, the British government recogmany reasons it couldn’t be done then, but 1916 was the nized that Ireland was out of control. They imposed martial only point, I would argue, at which a negotiated solution law on substantial parts of the south and west: originally to was truly possible. four counties, growing to sixteen. By spring, a “surge” of Britain had many, many other things to think about British troops had achieved some success. between 1916 and 1920, and was never able to focus on But the election of May 1921 proved an absolute disthe Irish problem. And the result was that a small group of aster. Sinn Fein won 124 of 128 seats in the south; 112 of radicals, through violent action, co-opted Irish constituthose elected had either served time or were in jail; fifteen tional nationalism and made major achievements. ✌ were under sentence of death. It was the most direct repudiation of British rule imaginable, after the armed forces said they would succeed. This is how to fail at counCurt Zoller’s Annotated terinsurgency. Bibliography of Works About Sir Now the IRA changed tactics. Winston S. Churchill, at 410 Chief of Staff Sean McBride (an urban pages, is the most comprehensive guerrilla since sixteen, the only person bibliography of works about to win both the Nobel and Lenin Peace Churchill. It includes frank, forthPrizes) increased the attacks, so that right reviews on 700 books despite the British efforts, it seemed as specifically about WSC. Also listed though they were failing. There was a are works substantially about major raid on the Dublin Customs Churchill, articles, lectures, House in 1921, when the IRA Dublin reviews, dissertations and theses. brigade burned thousands of historical The book was a Farrow Award documents. The IRA also became winner in 2004. Selling for up to active in Britain itself—nothing like $189 on the web, it’s indispensable the provisional IRA campaigns of the for the serious Churchill library. 1970s and 1980s, but they did attack SPECIAL! We will include Curt’s the homeland to keep pressure on. unabridged Addendum (specify You could compare this phase of whether you want this by email or the war to the Tet Offensive in hard copy): $65 postpaid in USA. Vietnam fifty years later: It came by TO ORDER: Send check payable to The Churchill Centre, 200 surprise, it was very large, and even West Madison Street, Suite 1700, Chicago IL 60606 USA. Or phone tollthough it was hugely unsuccessful (the free (888) WSC-1874. Credit cards accepted: Visa, Mastercard, Amex entire brigade was captured), it played and Discover. Postage extra outside USA. well in the media. FINEST HOUR 143 / 60 THE CHURCHILL QUIZ JAMES R. LANCASTER FINEST HOUR 143 / 61 Answers (1) Hitler. (2) The Story of the Malakand Field Force 1897, in 1898. (3) From the Central Park side of Fifth Avenue, he looked left and walked halfway across. Then he forgot to look right at the cars coming up the Avenue. (4) October 1929. (5) Churchill. Half a crown is about $8 today. (6) Washington, DC. Level 2: 13. May 1906, “Who is this Effie Smith?” asked an old lady, “she can’t be Level 4: 1. Whom did WSC refer to as “a a modest girl to be talked about so haunted, morbid being” whose people much.” Who indeed? (M) 14. Who accused Gladstone in “have worshipped as a god”? (C) June 1886 of postponing important 2. Name Churchill’s first pubreforms “For this reason and no other: lished book. (L) To gratify the ambition of an old man 3. What mistake did Churchill in a hurry”? (P) make which resulted in his being 15. What good news was the knocked down by an automobile in Prime Minister able to announce on 27 New York on 13 December 1931? (P) 4. When did Churchill first tour May 1941? (W) 16. Which of Churchill’s books, the battlefields of the American Civil published in 1909, was applauded as War? (W) “The clearest, the most eloquent, and 5. “It is a horrible thought that while we have been frittering away our the most convincing exposition” of the time, —— has been piling up words at New Liberalism? (L) 17. In which speech, followed by half a crown each.” Whom was Lord a broadcast, did WSC say “Hitler Riddell referring to in 1920? (L) 6. Where was WSC when he told knows that he will have to break us in this island or lose the war”? (S) his doctor Lord Moran in June 1954, 18. Who was the first American “There is something in the magnetism President to write a letter to WSC? (L) of this great portion of the earth’s surface which always makes me feel Level 1: buoyant”? (P) 19. In July 1941, whom did Churchill instruct to “Tell the children Level 3: that Wolfe won Quebec”? (S) 7. After seeing the play “St. 20. When he was in the Eastern Helena,” WSC wrote a letter to The Cape in 1940-41, who used to “huddle Times on 15 February 1936: “Here is around an old radio and listen to Winston the end of the most astonishing Churchill’s stirring speeches”? (S) journey ever made by mortal man.” 21. Whom did WSC describe, Who was this “mortal man”? (M) after making friends with him on the 8. Why was Sunday, 11 July steamer home after Omdurman in 1909, a special day for Winston and 1898, as “The most brilliant man in Clementine? (P) journalism I have ever met”? (C) 9. “I am an officer, and I place 22. What spiky animal did myself unreservedly at the disposal of the Military authorities, observing that Randolph Churchill take to bed with him during the summer months of my regiment is in France.” To whom 1963? (M) did Churchill write these words? (W) 23. Name the friend and col10. “He has the farthest vision; league of WSC who was sent down he is the greatest man I have ever from Balliol College, Oxford, in 1884 known.” Whom was Churchill referfor “incorrigible idleness,” and who, in ring to? (S) 1928, was elected Chancellor of 11. After meeting him at Oxford University “to universal Buckingham Palace on 26 July 1945, King George VI said, “He looked very applause.” (C) 24. Who said of WSC in South surprised indeed.” Who looked very Africa in 1900 “He really is a fine surprised? (M) fellow...I wish he was leading regular troops instead of writing for a rotten paper?” (W) ✌ (7) Napoleon. (8) It was the day their first child, Diana, was born. (9) To Prime Minister H.H. Asquith on 11 November 1915. (10) Franklin D. Roosevelt. (11) Clement Attlee. After Churchill left the Palace in his chaffeur-driven Humber, Attlee arrived in a Standard Ten driven by his wife. (12) Lord Halifax. 12. Of whom did WSC once say, “He is one of those Christians who ought to be thrown to the lions”? (C) (13) Winston’s friend F.E. Smith, Lord Birkenhead. (14) Lord Randolph Churchill. (15) The sinking of the Bismarck. (16) Liberalism and the Social Problem. (17) The “Finest Hour” speech on 18 June 1940. (18) Theodore Roosevelt. On 6 January 1909 he wrote to Churchill thanking him for a copy of My African Journey. ach quiz includes four questions in six categories: contemporaries (C), literary (L), miscellaneous (M), personal (P), statesmanship (S) and war (W), easy questions first. Can you reach Level 1? (19) R.A. Butler, newly appointed President of the Board of Education. (20) Nelson Mandela. (21) G.W. Steevens, correspondent for the Daily Mail. In an article for his paper about Churchill he wrote: “At the rate he goes there will hardly be room for him in Parliament at thirty or in England at forty.” He was to die of typhoid fever in Ladysmith in February 1900. (22) A hedgehog which he called “Quintin Hogg,” after a Tory politician he did not care for. (23) Edward Grey (Viscount Grey of Fallodon), Foreign Secretary 1905-16. (24) Sir Redvers Buller VC, commander of British Forces in South Africa in 1899. He won his Victoria Cross during the Zulu War in 1879. E AMPERSAND & CHURCHILL AS A LITERARY CHARACTER continued from page 49... George MacDonald Fraser. If you’ve read the Flashman novels and didn’t like them, you’re not going to like this book. If you’ve heard of Flashman but never read of him, and consider yourself a history buff, you might want to put off reading Imperial Kelly until after you’ve tried one or two of Fraser’s novels about Victorian England’s greatest fictional rake. In Fraser’s books Anglo-American history was never easier to digest. From the Charge of the Light Brigade to Custer’s Last Stand, the handsome and cowardly Harry Flashman was there, always looking to save his skin and bed as many women as possible. Scholarly footnotes and appendices in these often hilarious novels attest to the accuracy of the historical background and characters. In the Flashman tradition is Imperial Kelly, one of four historical novels about the real-life American frontier fighter and Indian scout Luther “Yellowstone” Kelly, who wrote his own memoirs. The novels recount Kelly’s fictional adventures. It’s “Flashman Lite,” without Fraser’s scholarly footnotes, appendices or ingenious plots woven from real history. I enjoyed it because it’s clearly of the Flashman genre, including the sex, remindful of Flashman’s cynicism and reluctance to fight. Unlike Sir Harry, Kelly is no coward. But, like Fraser’s Flashman novels, the historical background is fairly accurate. “Yellowstone Kelly” is recruited on the eve of the Spanish-American War and against his better judgment—by thenAssistant Secretary of the Navy Theodore Roosevelt (“Teethadore” to Kelly). He is sent west to recruit Rough Riders, then reluctantly accompanies TR to Cuba. After becoming president, TR sends a still reluctant Kelly to South Africa to observe the Boer War, where he meets young Winston and his mother Jennie, whom he has known previously, biblically and otherwise. The plot resembles Fraser’s Flashman novels in that it’s about Kelly trying to make it home, but it’s not as compelling because Flashman has a home, a loving wife and an undeserved hero’s reputation to return to. And Flashman’s escapes are far more perilous than Kelly’s. Imperial Kelly had good reviews and pales only in comparison to Fraser. Hence two stars for “worth reading.” I fault the portrayal, through Kelly’s narrative, of Roosevelt and Churchill. Much of it is accurate, entertaining and funny, but there are moments where Bowen’s animosity towards TR and WSC takes us into the realm of caricature, destroying the verisimilitude he has built. The accurate moments outweigh the inaccurate ones, but it doesn’t take much to suspend the belief any novel requires. And Bowen doesn’t give you those glorious Fraser footnotes, which cite scholarly sources to persuade you to accept the tale. Bowen’s portrayal of Jennie Churchill is however quite good. You can see that he likes and admires her, as does his protagonist Kelly, who is in his early fifties. It’s true that Jennie slept with a number of men (even if biographers like William Manchester and Ralph Martin have grossly exaggerated the number). But I doubt they would have included someone like Kelly. Sir Harry Flashman, maybe—he shared some characteristics with the real-life Count Charles Kinsky. But there are things about which Sir Harry, like Jennie, didn’t kiss and tell. ✌ CHURCHILL AS MANLY MAN Our Churchill Chatlist (see our website) dispenses wisdom, silliness and amusement, a veritable Hyde Park Corner of opinion. Readers might enjoy a sample: • I founded a men-only book club. We read books about manly men doing manly things in a manly way. I want to feature a book about Churchill and will appreciate recommendations. —J.S. • Dear Manly Man: I don’t think Churchill is your man! He went weakkneed at the sight of a beautiful or intelligent woman. He cried copiously and was sentimental. He married a strong (not to say “manly”) woman and “lived happily ever after.” He was masculine without being hateful, and overall is a poor role-model for your group. So carry on, soldier! Are women allowed in your Churchill Centre chapter? —C.M. FINEST HOUR 143 / 62 • Editor’s note: The website (www.hemanwomanhaters-clubnet, not a CC chapter) seems to be a lighthearted group perfect for the books of Churchill, Henty, Stevenson and Edgar Rice Burroughs. The chatter continues... • Churchill was an excellent athlete (fencing, polo), physically brave (almost to the point of foolhardiness), a lover of fine cigars and whisky. Choose the Churchill you want. —J.H. • Try Churchill’s My Early Life. He served with distinction in the Sudan, Afghanistan, and South Africa where he staged a prison-break, and in the WW1 trenches. He was cool under fire, bold in action. If that wasn’t manly, then we’d all better start wearing lipstick. —L.K. • I’d add Cuba, where he spent his twenty-first birthday under fire. It’s manly to leap into battle when you’re supposed to be a reporter. He rode to the sound of the guns all his life. Being tender, loving animals, loving one’s wife and children does not preclude manliness. Escaping a POW camp in your enemy’s capital, spending days on the run with a Dead-or-Alive bounty on your head is manly. Hiding in a coal mine with rats crawling over you is manly. Reaching for your Mauser when a mounted Boer has trained his rifle on you is manly—not to mention consoling yourself about surrendering by quoting Napoleon: “When one is unarmed and alone, a surrender may be pardoned.” Riding to work daily through Hyde Park during the Irish Troubles of the 1920s was manly. One day in the back of his car, Churchill spotted two men set to ambush him. Did he run? No. He said, “If they want trouble, they’ll get it.” Only his bodyguard prevented a firefight, knocking WSC to the floor of the car and shouting to the driver, “Drive like the devil!” (Churchill was angry at having missed the action.) Not manly? Remember too that he wanted to be on a ship to watch the D-Day landings, and only the personal intervention of the King convinced him to stay home and not risk his life. I think perhaps these people are having a joke on us, and that it’s simply that the word “manly” is out of fashion. But Churchill knew what it meant, and those who aren’t afraid of passing fancies know what it means, too. —M.M. ✌ Churchill Centre Regional and Local Organizations Chapters: Please send all news reports to the Chartwell Bulletin: [email protected] LOCAL COORDINATORS Marcus Frost, Chairman ([email protected]) PO Box 272, Mexia TX 76667 tel. (254) 587-2000 Judy Kambestad ([email protected]) 1172 Cambera Lane, Santa Ana CA 92705-2345 tel. (714) 838-4741 (West) Sue & Phil Larson ([email protected]) 22 Scotdale Road, LaGrange Park IL 60526 tel. (708) 352-6825 (Midwest) D. Craig Horn ([email protected]) 5909 Bluebird Hill Lane, Weddington NC 28104; tel. (704) 844-9960 (East) LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS (AFFILIATES ARE IN BOLD FACE) For formal affiliation with the Churchill Centre, contact any local coordinator above. Rt. Hon. Sir Winston Spencer Churchill Society of Alaska Judith & Jim Muller ([email protected]) 2410 Galewood St., Anchorage AK 99508 tel. (907) 786-4740; fax (907) 786-4647 Rt. Hon. Sir Winston Spencer Churchill Society of Calgary, Alberta Mr. Justice J.D. Bruce McDonald, Pres. ([email protected]) 2401 N - 601 - 5th Street, S.W., Calgary AB T2P 5P7; tel. (403) 297-3164 Rt. Hon. Sir Winston Spencer Churchill Society of Edmonton, Alberta Dr. Edward Hutson, Pres. ([email protected]) 98 Rehwinkel Rd., Edmonton AB T6R 1Z8 tel. (780) 430-7178 Churchill Centre Arizona Larry Pike ([email protected]) 4927 E. Crestview Dr., Paradise Valley AZ 85253 bus. tel. (602) 445-7719; cell (602) 622-0566 Rt. Hon. Sir Winton Spencer Churchill Society of British Columbia Christopher Hebb, Pres. ([email protected]) 30-2231 Folkestone Way, W. Vancouver, BC V6S 2Y6; tel. (604) 209-6400 California: Churchillians-by-the-Bay Jason Mueller ([email protected]) 17115 Wilson Way, Watsonville CA 95076 tel. (831) 768-8663 California: Churchillians of the Desert David Ramsay ([email protected]) 74857 S. Cove Drive, Indian Wells CA 92210 tel. (760) 837-1095 Churchillians of Southern California Leon J. Waszak ([email protected]) 235 South Ave. #66, Los Angeles CA 90042 tel. (818) 240-1000 x5844 New York Churchillians Gregg Berman ([email protected]) c/o Fulbright & Jaworski, 666 Fifth Ave. New York NY 10103; tel. (212) 318-3388 Churchill Friends of Greater Chicago Phil & Susan Larson ([email protected]) 22 Scottdale Road, LaGrange IL 60526 tel. (708) 352-6825 North Carolina Churchillians www.churchillsocietyofnorthcarolina.org Craig Horn ([email protected]) 5909 Bluebird Hill Lane Weddington NC 28104; tel. (704) 844-9960 Colorado: Rocky Mountain Churchillians Lew House, President ([email protected]) 2034 Eisenhower Dr., Louisville CO 80027 tel. (303) 661-9856; fax (303) 661-0589 England: TCC-UK Woodford/Epping Branch Tony Woodhead, Old Orchard, 32 Albion Hill, Loughton, Essex IG10 4RD; tel. (0208) 508-4562 England: TCC-UK Northern Branch Derek Greenwell, Farriers Cottage, Station Road, Goldsborough Knaresborough, North Yorks. HG5 8NT tel. (01432) 863225 Churchill Society of South Florida Rodolfo Milani ([email protected]) 7741 Ponce de Leon Road, Miami FL 33143 Churchill Centre North Florida Richard Streiff ([email protected]) 81 N.W. 44th Street, Gainesville FL 32607 tel. (352) 378-8985 Winston Churchill Society of Georgia www.georgiachurchill.org William L. Fisher ([email protected]) 5299 Brooke Farm Rd., Dunwoody GA 30338 tel. (770) 399-9774 Winston Churchill Society of Michigan Richard Marsh ([email protected]) 4085 Littledown, Ann Arbor, MI 48103 tel. (734) 913-0848 Churchill Round Table of Nebraska John Meeks ([email protected]) 7720 Howard Street #3, Omaha NE 68114 tel. (402) 968-2773 New England Churchillians Joseph L. Hern ([email protected]) 340 Beale Street, Quincy MA 02170 tel. (617) 773-1907; bus. tel. (617) 248-1919 Churchill Society of New Orleans J. Gregg Collins ([email protected]) 2880 Lakeway Three 3838 N. Causeway Blvd., Metairie LA 70002 tel. (504) 799-3484 Churchill Centre Northern Ohio Michael McMenamin ([email protected]) 1301 E. 9th St. #3500, Cleveland OH 44114 tel. (216) 781-1212 Churchill Society of Philadelphia Bernard Wojciechowski ([email protected]) 1966 Lafayette Rd., Lansdale PA 19446 tel. (610) 584-6657 South Carolina: Bernard Baruch Chapter Kenneth Childs ([email protected]) P.O. Box 11367, Columbia SC 29111-1367 tel. (803) 254-4035 Tennessee: Vanderbilt University Young Churchill Club; Prof. John English ([email protected]) Box 1616, Station B, Vanderbilt University, Nashville TN 37235 Texas: Emery Reves Churchillians Jeff Weesner ([email protected]) 2101 Knoll Ridge Court, Corinth TX 76210 tel. (940) 321-0757; cell (940) 300-6237 Churchill Centre Houston Marty Wyoscki ([email protected]) 10111 Cedar Edge Drive, Houston TX 77064 tel. (713) 870-3346 Churchill Centre South Texas Don Jakeway ([email protected]) 170 Grassmarket, San Antonio, TX 78259 tel. (210) 333-2085 Sir Winston Churchill Society of Vancouver Island Sidney Allinson, Pres. ([email protected]) 3370 Passage Way, Victoria BC V9C 4J6 tel. (250) 478-0457 Washington (DC) Society for Churchill John H. Mather, Pres. ([email protected]) PO Box 73, Vienna VA 22182-0073 tel. (240) 353-6782 Churchill Centre Seattle www.churchillseattle.blogspot.com Simon Mould ([email protected]) 1920 243rd Pl., SW, Bothell, WA 98021 tel. (425) 286-7364 The Hated Enemy in Lustige Blätter Of all the German periodicals, the weekly Lustige Blätter (Funny Pages) was by far the most skillful at lampooning Churchill and the effects of his leadership. Though it predated the Nazi takeover, it adjusted readily to the Goebbels propaganda line. April 1940: "England and its raw materials." WSC jailed and his food supply blocked by Nazi U-boats. April 1942: The Soviet monster. “You must trust him, Britannia, he wants only to protect you.” June 1942: In desperation, Churchill tries to stop Britain’s break-up with lies and promises. February 1943: “The Cuckoo’s Egg.” WSC returns to the Empire nest, only to find Roosevelt has taken it over.