Layout 8 - Winston Churchill

THE JOURNAL OF WINSTON CHURCHILL • SPRING 2010 • NUMBER 146
THE CHURCHILL CENTRE & CHURCHILL MUSEUM
UNITED STATES • UNITED KINGDOM • CANADA • AUSTRALIA
PATRON: THE LADY SOAMES LG DBE • WWW.WINSTONCHURCHILL.ORG
®
®
Founded in 1968 to educate new generations about 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]
BOARD OF TRUSTEES
*EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
The Hon. Spencer Abraham • Randy Barber
Gregg Berman • David Boler* • Paul Brubaker
Randolph S. Churchill • David Coffer • Manus Cooney
Lester Crown • Sen. Richard J. Durbin
Kenneth Fisher • Marcus Frost* • Laurence S. Geller*
Rt Hon Sir Martin Gilbert CBE • Richard C. Godfrey*
Philip Gordon* • Gretchen Kimball
Richard M. Langworth CBE* • Diane Lees • Peter Lowy
Rt Hon Sir John Major KG CH • Lord Marland
Christopher Matthews • Sir Deryck Maughan*
Harry E. McKillop • Jon Meacham
Michael W. Michelson • Bob Pierce • Joseph J. Plumeri*
Lee Pollock • Robert O’Brien • Philip H. Reed OBE*
Mitchell Reiss • Kenneth W. Rendell* • Elihu Rose*
Stephen Rubin• The Hon. Celia Sandys
The Hon. Edwina Sandys • Sir John Scarlett KCMG OBE
Sir Nigel Scheinwald KCMG • Mick Scully
Cita Stelzer • Ambassador Robert Tuttle
HONORARY MEMBERS
Rt Hon David Cameron, MP
Rt Hon 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
America’s National Churchill Museum, Fulton, Mo.
INTERNET RESOURCES
John David Olsen, Webmaster
Chatlist Moderators: Jonah Triebwasser, Todd Ronnei
http://groups.google.com/group/ChurchillChat
Twitter: http://twitter.com/ChurchillCentre
ACADEMIC ADVISERS
Prof. James W. Muller,
Chairman, [email protected]
University of Alaska, Anchorage
Prof. Paul K. Alkon, University of Southern California
Rt Hon 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+ per year
Skaddan Arps • Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP
Carolyn & Paul Brubaker • 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 • Sir Deryck Maughan
Harry McKillop • Elihu 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
Samuel D. Dodson • Fred Farrow • Marcus & Molly Frost
Barbara & Richard Langworth • Mr. & Mrs. Parker 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
Jeanette & Angelo Gabriel• Craig & Lorraine Horn
James F. Lane • John Mather • Linda & Charles Platt
Ambassador & Mrs. Paul H. Robinson Jr.
James R. & Lucille I. Thomas • Peter J. Travers
Mary Soames Associates
Dr. & Mrs. John V. Banta • Solveig & Randy Barber
Gary & Beverly 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 & Carole 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
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]
OFFICERS
Michael Kelion, Vice Chairman
Anthony Woodhead CBE FCA, Hon. Treasurer
John Hirst, Secretary
COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Eric Bingham • Robin Brodhurst • Paul H. Courtenay
Robert Courts • Geoffrey Fletcher • Derek Greenwell
Rafal Heydel-Mankoo • John Hirst • Jocelyn Hunt
Scott Johnson • Michael Kelion• Michael Moody
Brian Singleton • Anthony Woodhead CBE FCA
TRUSTEES
The Hon. Celia Sandys, Chairman
David Boler • Randolph S. Churchill • David Coffer
Philip Gordon •The Duke of Marlborough JP DL
The Lord Marland Philip H. Reed OBE
HON. MEMBERS EMERITI
Nigel Knocker OBE • David Porter
_________________________________________
INTL. CHURCHILL SOCIETY CANADA
14 Honeybourne Crescent, Markham ON, L3P 1P3
Tel. (905) 201-6687
www.winstonchurchillcanada.ca
Ambassador Kenneth W. Taylor, Honorary Chairman
CHAIRMAN
Randy Barber, [email protected]
VICE-CHAIRMAN AND RECORDING SECRETARY
Terry Reardon, [email protected]
TREASURER
Barrie Montague, [email protected]
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Charles Anderson • Randy Barber • David Brady
Peter Campbell • Dave Dean • Cliff Goldfarb
Robert Jarvis • Barrie Montague • Franklin Moskoff
Terry Reardon • Gordon Walker
__________________________________
CHURCHILL CENTRE AUSTRALIA
Alfred James, President
65 Billyard Avenue, Wahroonga NSW 2076
[email protected] • Tel. 61-2-9489-1158
_____________________________________
INTL. CHURCHILL SOCIETY OF PORTUGAL
João Carlos Espada, President
Universidade Católica Portuguesa
Palma de Cima 1649-023, Lisbon
[email protected] • Tel. (351) 21 7214129
________________________________________________
CHURCHILL SOCIETY FOR THE ADVANCEMENT
OF PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY
www.churchillsociety.org
Robert A. O’Brien, Chairman
3050 Yonge Street, Suite 206F
Toronto ON M4N 2K4, Canada
ro’[email protected] • Tel. (416) 977-0956
CONTENTS
The Journal of
Winston Churchill
,
Number 146
Spring 2010
Cover: The Churchill Screen at St. Paul’s Cathedral. Details on back cover..
ARTICLES
Robbins, 18
Churchill in Context
12/ How We Can Restore the Lost Glory to Democracy • Winston S. Churchill
15/ “Lost Glory”: Modern Reflections • Warren F. Kimball & Suzanne Sigman
16/ The Outcasts: What Did Churchill Tell Guy Burgess after Munich? • Michael Dobbs
18/ Great Contemporaries: Harry Hopkins, Roosevelt’s Bracken • Ron Cynewulf Robbins
22/ 110 Years On: Remembering Jennie and the Maine • Celia Lee
26/ The Short, Sweet Life of Winston Churchill College • Philip & Susan Larson
32/ Livadia Revisited: Memories of the Yalta Conference • David Druckman
36/ Churchilliana: “These Are a Few of My Favourite Things” • Douglas Hall
58/ Finest Hour Reader Survey • Barbara F. Langworth
Lee, 22
Larson, 26
Druckman, 32
BOOKS, ARTS & CURIOSITIES
37/ Finest Years: Churchill as Warlord 1940-45, by Max Hastings • Piers Brendon
38/ Churchill, by Paul Johnson • David Freeman
39/ The Definitive Wit of Winston Churchill, by Richard Langworth • Warren F. Kimball
40/ The Churchills: A Family Portrait, by Celia and John Lee • Ted Hutchinson
41/ Les coups tordus de Churchill, by Bob Maloubier • Antoine Capet
41/ Citizens of London, by Lynne Olson • Christopher H. Sterling
42/ The Twilight Years, by Richard Overy • Ted Hutchinson
43/ I Was Churchill’s Bodyguard, by Edmund Murray • Anthony Montague Browne
44/ About Books: The Asquith Corpus • Christopher H. Sterling
46/ Churchill Commemorative Stamps: A Partial Update, 1977-1998 • Celwyn Ball
Churchill Proceedings
CHURCHILL AND THE FUTURE OF DEMOCRACY
48/ Churchill’s Futurist Essays • Richard M. Langworth
Churchill for Today Views and Counterviews:
50/ 1. Churchill and the Aristotelian Tradition • Larry P. Arnn
52/ 2. A Contrarian’s View of Churchill as Philosopher • Manfred Weidhorn
54/ On Liberty: Churchill’s “Consistency in Politics” • Michael McMenamin
56/ Democracy in the Age of Information • Paul Alkon
DEPARTMENTS
2/ Who’s Who in The Churchill Centre • 4/ Despatch Box • 6/ In This Issue
7/ Datelines • 9/ Around & About • 11/ Wit & Wisdom • 16/ History Detectives
25/ Riddles, Mysteries, Enigmas • 30/ Action This Day • 36/ Churchilliana
46/ Philately • 62/ Churchill Quiz • 63/ Regional Directory
FINEST HOUR 146 / 3
DESPATCH BOX
YOUNG WINSTON
Number 145 • Winter 2009-10
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
December-March Tel. (242) 335-0615
__________________________
Editorial Board
Paul H. Courtenay, David Dilks,
David Freeman, Sir Martin Gilbert,
Edward Hutchinson, Warren Kimball,
Richard Langworth, Michael McMenamin,
James W. Muller, John Olsen,
Allen Packwood, Terry Reardon,
Suzanne Sigman, Manfred Weidhorn
Senior Editors:
Paul H. Courtenay
James W. Muller
News Editor:
Michael Richards
Contributors
Alfred James, Australia
Terry Reardon, Canada
Antoine Capet, James Lancaster, France
Inder Dan Ratnu, India
Paul Addison, Winston S. Churchill,
Sir Martin Gilbert,
Allen Packwood, United Kingdom
David Freeman, Fred Glueckstein,
Ted Hutchinson, Warren F. Kimball,
Justin 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.
It was thoughtful of Lady Soames
to let you use the wonderfully introspective painting of her father in youth
for the cover of FH 144. It has a touch
of Manet’s and Whistler’s styles, and as
an art appreciator, I find it a little sad
the artist couldn’t be recognized. I find
this study exemplary of Sir Winston’s
youthfulness that also portrays the diligence of his writing and studiousness
in that era of his illustrious career.
DONALD ABRAMS, HERMOSA BEACH, CALIF.
Publisher’s response: Knowing we
have difficulty finding good color for
our covers, our Patron generously has
sent us copies of several of her own
paintings. Although this one is signed
indecipherably, we have no information
about the artist. We wonder if it was
done from life or a photograph, but
have never seen a similar photo. I think
the artist captured Churchill’s delicate
hands very artfully. —BFL
slightest sign of gratitude.
His infamous visit of condolence
to the German Embassy on Hitler’s
death was a grotesque insult to the
Allies and the victims of Nazism, and
in particular the many Irishmen who
fought and died in the British Armed
Forces and Merchant Marine during
the war (who are not even mentioned
in either of these articles).
However, I did learn about David
Gray, the U.S. Representative in
Dublin, and what a splendid man he
must have been.
HENRY G. KEOWN-BOYD, BROMYARD, HEREF.
• Breguet sponsored a London
dinner for The Churchill Centre and is
the manufacturer of WSC’s pocket
watch, which is pictured in the
program. The case’s reverse bears a
Spencer-Churchill coat of arms and is
very old; perhaps Breguet used different hands then. Attached to the ring
in the lower photo is not a watch but a
small round gold case for holding gold
Sovereigns. —Ed.
• FH 142-145 aired the broad
range of opinion on Churchill and
Ireland at our 2008 Boston conference,
including Irish contributions in WW2.
Finest Hour Online contains still more.
In such accounts, comparisons of WSC
and de Valera were inevitable; historians have compared Churchill and
Hitler without endorsing the latter.
And we need to accept that de Valera
was as much a patriot as Churchill.
We published the two de Valera
papers together because one balances
the other. For instance, while Ferriter
justifies de Valera’s “condolence visit”
for expressing “the seriousness with
which he took neutrality,” Kimball calls
it “embarrassing and disgraceful.”
Kimball notes that (1) Roosevelt did
not rein-in Gray’s activities; (2) Irish
neutrality was maintained not by
“American protection” but because
once the convoy situation had stabilized it didn’t really matter; (3) de
Valera’s government placed no barriers
on Irish enlistment in the British military; and (4) Ireland secretly but
effectively worked with British
Intelligence. The real effect of Irish
neutrality was negligible; the emotional
impact seems to have been far greater,
and longer lasting. —Ed.
GET YOUR IRISH UP
SCOTS WHA’HAE
I found the de Valera articles in
FH 145 extremely irritating. To
compare a blinkered bigot like de
Valera to Churchill is absurd and distasteful. De Valera could maintain Irish
neutrality only under Anglo-American
protection for which he showed not the
I enjoyed “The Scotland We
Know” (FH 144: 5) and Fred
Glueckstein’s piece on Murrow (page
26). I was surprised not to see A.M.
Sperber’s Murrow: His Life and Times,
in the endnotes.
“THE TURNIP”
FH 144 page 25 seems to show
two different Churchill “turnips”
(pocket watches). The one at the top
with subdials is keyless and lacks
Breguet’s characteristic hands, and the
other at the bottom has a plain
pendant and associated chain. Are they
both by Breguet, or just the lower one?
ANDREW LUMSDEN, UK (VIA EMAIL)
Produced by Dragonwyck Publishing Inc.
FINEST HOUR 146 / 4
PARKER H. LEE III, LYNCHBURG, VA.
Thanks for “The Scotland We
Know.” A minor point: Admiral Beatty
took the Grand Fleet, including five
American battleships, to sea on 21
November 1918, not in 1919. My
great-uncle, John R. Menzies, lived in
North Berwick, East Lothian, in a
house which backed onto the West
Links. He walked up to the eighteenth
tee to watch the great armada go by on
its way back to its anchorage.
I agree with your thesis that we
Scots pulled above our weight in both
wars. Thanks for bringing back many
happy memories of motoring days in
Scotland. We always enjoyed the road
to Edinburgh through Glencoe, which
runs in an almost straight line across
Rannoch Moor, arguably the most dramatic drive in all of Scotland.
DAVID RAMSAY, INDIAN WELLS, CALIF.
Scots, wha’hae wi’ Wallace bled,
Scots, wham Bruce has aften led,
Welcome to your gory bed
Or to victorie!
ROBERT BURNS (1759-1796)
o
o
o
o
o
FLAWED GENIE
David Freeman (FH 144: 36-37)
misunderstands my books. He fails to
appreciate that, based on Churchill’s
own writings at the time, his 1921
concerns over Iraq (Churchill’s Folly)
were purely financial. I disagree that
“right of conquest” gives carte blanche
to the victor: yet it was open to WSC
to reject a single Iraqi state, and instead
make the three Ottoman vilayets into
separate countries, including Kurdistan.
Likening my Flawed Genius of
World War II to Pat Buchanan’s
Churchill bashing is a distortion. My
main disagreement with Churchill is
clearly his rejection of Marshall’s and
Eisenhower’s plans for D-Day in April
1943. To agree with Churchill is to disagree with these two great generals—as
well as to denigrate the “Greatest
Generation”: contrary to Churchill and
Ismay, British soldiers were not feeble,
and American GIs were at least the
equals of the Germans.
Walter Dunn’s Second Front
Now (1980) painstakingly shows that
there were sufficient landing craft by
1943, that the issue was where to place
them (Europe or the Pacific). The
Americans believed in attacking the
main enemy directly. Churchill rightly
favoured the traditional British peripheral approach in 1939-41, but the full
might of the USA made direct attack
the better option, as Marshall and
Eisenhower appreciated.
Churchill entitled his last volume
of war memoirs Triumph and Tragedy
because he realised we had only delivered the peoples of Central and Eastern
Europe from one dictator to another.
Tragically, Churchill was hoist on his
own petard by Soviet conquests, which
would never have happened had
Eisenhower and Marshall prevailed.
Max Hastings’ new biography
shows that Churchill got two big
things right: the evil of Hitler and the
fact that only the USA could save
Britain. In 1938-41 Churchill was
effectively the only senior British politician to realise this. The tragedy is that
he never grasped the fighting and logistical capability of the American
military. If he had, he would have seen
what Eisenhower and Marshall saw:
that we could have won World War II
much earlier, assuring his aspirations
for the peoples of Central Europe. And
that is what my book is all about.
After the Dieppe Raid fiasco in
August 1942, Canadians had strong
reasons not to support another poorly
planned and badly supported crosschannel attack. And British General
Montgomery made a habit of telling
his troops that he valued their lives
above all else and would not risk them
in any operation not supported by
overwhelming force.
A common error by revisionist
historians is to judge by hindsight, discounting contemporary realities. The
prime responsibility of Churchill,
Roosevelt and Mackenzie King was not
the welfare of East-Central Europeans
but defending their own countries by
defeating Hitler with minimal losses.
Not only did Generals Marshall
and Eisenhower fail to convince their
professional counterparts in Britain
(including Churchill) of the viability of a
cross-channel invasion before 1944; they
failed to convince the most important
judge of all: President Roosevelt—who
would have been the person answering
to voters and next-of-kin for any
resulting disaster.
I believe this debate can be
settled with a simple gun-to-the-head
test: You are an Allied soldier, sailor,
airman or marine. You are part of a
seaborne invasion of a powerfully
defended continent. Which date do
you think offers you a better chance of
survival: 1943 or 1944?
—CHRISTOPHER CATHERWOOD,
JOHN HIRST, STEVINGTON, BEDS.
UNGEEKED
A friend asked me to pass on that
he finds the last two issues a great
improvement on the immediate previous issues. He felt there was more
comment about interesting matters;
less “geeky” minutiae and fewer arguments in the letter pages with one
academic slanging off another.
ST. EDMUNDS’ COLLEGE CAMBRIDGE
David Freeman replies:
When discussing D-Day we need
to consider Canada, an independent
country which did not have to participate and had its own domestic set of
problems with respect to the war.
Christopher Catherwood does not
touch on this so I wish to remind him.
FINEST HOUR 146 / 5
• We’d prefer people to air their
views direct, but when this complaint
first surfaced we reviewed the nineteen
letters in the past four issues. Three
were by academics. The proportion is
similar in this issue. Academic papers
are here for important reasons. See
“Churchill Proceedings,” FH 143: 10,
column 2. —Ed. ,
IN THIS ISSUE
Democracy’s Lost Glories
C
hurchill thought deeply about politics and political
movements from Bolshevism to Fascism, dictatorship
to democracy. He formulated precepts for political
conduct; he considered how politics affected “civilization,”
by which he included the Welfare State he helped to
organize. He thought the State should alleviate poverty
and provide security through “discipline, organization and
relief.” But he resisted nationalization of industry and
redistribution of wealth advocated by socialists.
The breadth of his political thought would surprise
many who visualize him as a reactionary. Early on, for
example, he argued for taxing land rather than earnings.1
After the Great War and the Depression, reformers of the
Left shifted to massive state intervention and benefits.
Here they lost Churchill, who regarded socialism as “the
philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy.”2
His “Gestapo speech,” suggesting that a Labour
government would fall back on something like Hitler’s
Geheime Staatspolizei to enforce their programs, helped
his Conservatives lose the 1945 election. Yet, though he
said hard things about the Labour Party, he believed in
coalitions when possible, and courtesy on and off the
floor. He was deeply grateful for Labour’s support in
Britain’s darkest hour, feeling emotional loyalty toward
leaders like Attlee and Bevin, and genuine sorrow when
they left the wartime coalition in May 1945.
Churchill favoured light taxation, allowing money
“to fructify in the pockets of the people, as they used to
say in my young days.”3 Once a “minimum standard”
was guaranteed by the State, he thought citizens should
be free to pursue their own interests, according to their
lights and talents. The impression he leaves is of a politician occupying the “middle,” but not exactly a
“moderate,” for he had firm opinions. He sought a
medium between the extremes of Left and Right, relying
upon democracy to ensure equality and a decent life for
all. A patrician, but not a snob, he enjoyed luxuries, but
favored taxing them; though he faulted democracy—as
in his “Lost Glory” article on page 12 of this issue—he
always respected the “little man.”
Churchill’s years as a crusader for social change are
almost forgotten. His remarks on the status of women
confound critics who think he wished to deny them the
vote. (See for example “Action This Day, 100 Years Ago,”
page 30.) So often depicted as an enemy of labor—
through myths about his actions during the Welsh coal
miners’ strike of 1910 and the General Strike of 1926—
he was in fact a strong proponent of trade unions. “I
have been taught it all my public life, that the employers
of this country are deeply thankful there is in existence a
strong organised trade union movement with which they
can deal, and which keeps its bargains and which moves
along a controlled and suitable path of policy.”4
The political writer Joe Klein recently reminded us
of Churchill without mentioning him. Klein was asked
how we can measure the worth of political leaders. Listen
to what they say, he replied. If there is not a single statement in their remarks that is not unpleasant to hear, you
know they are unprincipled: empty suits relying on polls
and focus groups in a quest for power.5
Klein thus defined a chief attribute of Churchill—
the willingness to say, not what people wanted to hear,
but what he thought they should hear. His maxims were
employed to that end with devastating effectiveness.
Churchill was consistent, even when his party was
not. Michael Mink explains: “...his two changes of party
from Conservative to Liberal and back again, his egotism
and his independence of spirit at all times led orthodox
politicians to mistrust him and his judgment. Not until
he was in his mid-60s did a crisis arise in which party
politics were irrelevant and his greatest qualities could be
demonstrated and recognized.”6
Many subjects that occupied Churchill’s mind are
familiar to us today: the child tax credit, collective bargaining, elections fought over foreign policy,
immigration, legislative cure-alls, media defeatism, the
minimum wage, the national debt, outsourcing, protestors, women’s rights. Perhaps they went by different
terms in Churchill’s day, but they occupied his thoughts.
And his opinions are rarely uninteresting.
—The Editor ,
___________________________________________________________________________________
1. See “Henry George and Churchill’s Lost Opportunity,” Finest Hour 139, Summer 2008, 58.
2. Perth, Scotland, 28 May 1948. Churchill, Europe Unite (London: Cassell, 1950), 347.
3. Hawkey Hall, Woodford, Essex, 20 March 1959. Churchill, The Unwritten Alliance (London: Cassell, 1961), 312.
4. Broadcast, London, 27 March 1941. Churchill, The Unrelenting Struggle (London: Cassell, 1942), 71.
5. Joe Klein, Politics Lost: How American Democracy was Trivialized by People Who Think You’re Stupid
(New York: Doubleday, 2006).
6. Michael Mink, “Winston Churchill’s Uphill War,” Investor’s Business Daily, 30 August 2007.
FINEST HOUR 145 / 6
DAT E L I N E S
shutterstock.com
SEALS ON THE BREAKERS
CAMBRIDGE, NOV.
30TH— Lecturing
on “Churchill
and Empire,”
Piers Brendon
said that Churchill loved
Kipling (the love was
not reciprocated) and
used to recite his poetry in the
bath. Piers Brendon writes FH:
“According to David Gilmour’s
book The Long Recessional: The
Imperial Life of Rudyard Kipling
(2002), page 164, the cadences of ‘We
shall fight on the beaches’ may have
owed something to the seals in The
Jungle Book, who ‘fought in the
breakers, they fought on the sand, and
they fought on the smooth-worn basalt
rocks of the nurseries’—speculation, of
course, but amusing speculation.”
FAIL ON THE BEACHES
LONDON, NOVEMBER 12TH—Churchill’s
most famous wartime speech was
awarded an “F” grade by a computerised exam marking system in the
UK. The computer particularly disliked Churchill’s use of repetition, as
in: “We shall fight on the beaches, we
shall fight on the landing grounds, we
shall fight in the fields...we shall fight
in the hills.” His use of the word
“might,” as in “the might of the
Army,” was also picked out as the erroneous use of a verb instead of a noun.
Churchill before the microphones, defying all the
rules and laying the groundwork for technologies
of the future to deal him a flunking grade.
Remember the lethal computer HAL in 2001?
“I’m sorry, I can’t do that, Dave....”
This sorry saga was revealed at a
conference to discuss testing and
assessment in the UK. David Wright,
chief executive of the Chartered
Institute of Educational Assessors
(CIEA), the professional body representing markers, told how a copy of
Churchill’s speech had been uploaded
to a website which had been set up to
assess English literature.
Salil Bhate, a pupil at King
Edward VI grammar school in
Chelmsford, Essex and a member of
the executive of the English Secondary
Students’ Association, said: “Young
people simply don’t trust electronic
marking. You study for two years and
at the end of it there’s a computer
which decides whether you get an ‘A’
or ‘C’ grade. We deserve more respect
than that.”
Of course, Churchill’s speech
was not a literary text, and therefore
not designed to be treated as a piece of
English literature to be marked
according to exam standards. [Why
not? —Ed.] But Mr. Wright and his
colleagues at the CIEA used it to make
the point that the computer could not
take into account dramatic effect.
They also said it had perhaps been too
rigid in rejecting the use of the word
“might” as a noun.
Churchill was not the only
famous person to fall foul of the electronic marking system. The computer
also dismissed the works of Ernest
Hemingway and William Golding.
—RICHARD GARNER,
NEW ZEALAND HERALD (NZHERALD.CO.NZ)
Finest Hour’s opinion: It looks
as though the experiment was set up in
order to make a mockery of the electronic marking of English and it
certainly did so, but this is no guarantee that it won’t be introduced little
by little. It suits a world in which
English has become an international
business language stripped down to a
functional minimum. The danger is
that the English of Shakespeare and
Churchill will become the exclusive
FINEST HOUR 146 / 7
Quotation of the Season
“D
o you or do you not believe
in democracy?” That is a
fairly large question....there was the
lady who wrote a metaphysical treatise [beginning] with the words “I
accept the Universe.” And, as we all
know, Mr. Carlyle made the celebrated comment: ‘Gad, she’d better.’
“That is rather like my feeling
about democracy. I accept it. But I
am a good deal more doubtful
whether democracy believes in
Parliamentary institutions….We
have only to look across the
Channel in Europe to see how
democracy tends in its present manifestation to be injurious to the
Parliamentary system and to the
personal liberties which are dear to
the Liberal heart.”
—WSC. HOUSE OF COMMONS,
11 FEBRUARY 1935
preserve of scholars and lovers of literature—one more good reason for
encouraging the young to read and
enjoy Churchill.
—PAUL ADDISON, UNIV. OF EDINBURGH
FH IS BILINGUAL
LONDON, DECEMBER 1ST— A reader
writes: “Finest Hour could be greatly
improved if written in English rather
than American.”
It is time for our periodic
reminder that since 1982, every word
in FH that originates in Britain or
the Commonwealth (although we
have difficulty discerning the differences between British and Canadian)
is published in the author’s spelling.
We wonder idly if there is any other
publication in that so handles English
and American contributions.
We take our bilingual quality so
seriously that even the news articles
within a department (like the next
entry), are spelled in English not
American, if they originate in
England. But we are prepared to
accept Professor Henry Higgins’ >>
DATELINES
injunction in Pygmalion: “There even
are places where English completely
disappears. In America they haven’t
used it for years.”
For only £4500 you could have owned it.
NEW CIGAR RECORD
AYLSHAM, NORFOLK, JANUARY 28TH—
A half-
smoked cigar, abandoned when
Churchill dashed away to an urgent
wartime Cabinet meeting, estimated to
fetch £350, has sold for £4500.
The stogie, 9.5 cm (3.75”), its
band emblazoned with Churchill’s
name, was retrieved by a member of
the Number Ten staff sixty-nine years
ago. Picking up the stub, Downing
Street valet Nellie Goble grabbed a
sheet of official notepaper and scribbled a note to a friend: “To Jack, with
all good wishes from Nellie. Just a
small souvenir to remind you at some
future date of one of the greatest men
that ever lived in England.”
“Jack” treasured the letter and
cigar until his death in 1987, when it
passed to his daughter, who wants to
remain anonymous. She kept it
wrapped in the note in a drawer at her
north Norfolk home.
Andrew Bullock of Keys
Auctioneers said: “It is a collector’s
dream to own something that is so
very, very scarce, or even unique.
Anyone who collects Churchilliana
would love to get their hands on something no-one else in the world has...
and when it relates so directly to the
iconic image of the man, it has added
value. Apparently it was extremely rare
for Churchill not to finish a cigar, so it
must have been something very, very
urgent that demanded his immediate
attention in the Cabinet Room. As this
was wartime, it is fascinating to speculate as to what it might have been that
was so important.”
But Churchill in fact often failed
to “finish” a cigar, leaving them around
half-chewed or half-smoked when he
was distracted. On-scene observers have
told us that he sometimes chewed them
more than he smoked them. And there
are plenty of his cigars around,
including a provenance-equipped
unsmoked cigar, which sold only four
years ago for £70.
Last November, a cigar said to
have been smoked by Churchill as he
planned D-Day was discovered in a
small market village “after being
hidden for over fifty years,” according
to the Daily Telegraph, London.
If a cigar WSC actually held in
his lips is more valuable, consider the
half-smoked one valued at £800 by an
expert during the filming of the
Antiques Roadshow. Christian
Williams, 33, was given that one when
he was just 12 by his grandfather,
Ronald Williams, a World War II
veteran. It was taken from a meeting
between Churchill and Roosevelt at the
1943 Casablanca Conference. Williams
said he felt like he owned a piece of
history: “I’ve kept the cigar a secret and
completely to myself since my granddad gave it to me all those years ago. I
can remember so clearly what he said
to me as he handed it over: ‘You’ll
know what to do with it one day and
realise what it is’….I’ve never dared to
touch it and never picked it out of its
box, it’s far too precious to me. I don’t
even keep it at home because I’m
worried about it, it’s held in a safe
place and I only take it from there for
special occasions. It’s a really powerful
object because when I look at it I can
imagine where it came from. “I guess I
have part of a 20th century icon, as we
think of Churchill….”
Ronald Williams, who served in
the 8th Battalion Lincolnshire
Regiment, was asked to act as butler to
the Prime Minister for the Casablanca
Conference, code-named “Symbol,”
held 14-24 January 1943 at the Anfa
Hotel. Here the Anglo-Americans
plotted their European strategy, and
how they were to tackle occupied
Europe. Probably toward the end of the
conference, Williams decided to take
some souvenirs of the occasion.
FINEST HOUR 146 / 8
Finest Hour’s opinion:
Provenance among Churchill cigars
varies widely, but their constant
appearance on the market shows that
people who believe such items were
touched by Churchill are prepared to
invest in that belief, even in the
absence of concrete evidence. It tells
you something about the psychology of
today, and the need for artifacts to link
us to our heroes; but it tells us nothing
we did not know about Sir Winston.
—ALLEN PACKWOOD, DIRECTOR
CHURCHILL ARCHIVES CENTRE, CAMBRIDGE
BLANKLEY ON CHURCHILL
Reviewing
Paul Johnson’s Churchill (see page 37)
in The Washington Times, Tony
Blankley derives
Johnson’s five
qualities that made
Churchill what he
was: “1) He aimed
high, but never
cadged or
demeaned himself
to gain office or
objectives; 2) there
Blankley (Life)
was no substitute
for hard work—even though he was
brilliant; 3) he never allowed mistakes,
disasters—personal or national—accidents, illnesses, unpopularity and
criticism to get him down. His powers
of recuperation, both in physical illness
an in psychological responses to abject
failure, were astounding; 4) he wasted
extraordinarily small amounts of energy
on hatred, recrimination, malice,
revenge, grudges, rumor mongering or
vendettas. Energy expended on hate
was energy lost to productive activity;
and 5) he always had something other
than politics to give joy to his life.”
WASHINGTON, JANUARY 5TH—
P-R TOPS AGAIN
A champagne tasting by the House and
Garden Department of NJ.com pronounced the Pol Roger Sir Winston
Churchill Cuvée the best among prestige champagnes.
“Prestige cuvées have more concentrated aromas and flavors than what
you find in non-vintage champagnes,”
said Jean-Louis Carbonnier, French
TRENTON, N.J., DECEMBER 15TH—
AROUND & ABOUT
A
nent our Poland features in FH 145, Sir Martin
Gilbert was off to the snows of Warsaw in February, where he spoke on “Churchill and the Poles from Versailles to Potsdam”—a broadsweep exercise that enthralled his audience.
kkkkk
spokesman and U.S. representative for
the Champagne Region and its producers. “We began sniffing and
spitting. Yes, we did spit Dom
Perignon, Roederer Cristal and all the
other champagnes. With the prestige
cuvées retailing from $135 for Nicholas
Feuillatte Palmes d’Or to $280 for
Roederer Cristal, that averages about
$15 per taste and spit.”
Carbonnier’s tasting partner was
Wendy Taft, sommelier and managing
director of the Park Avenue Club in
Florham Park, and owner of La Bakerie
restaurant in Morristown. When
tasting the 1998 Pol Roger Sir Winston
Churchill, which turned out to be the
top prestige cuvée for all the judges,
Tate exclaimed: “This champagne
embodies the power and inspiration of
Churchill himself while dancing across
my palate with the dexterity and finesse
of Fred Astaire.”
33 ECCLESTON SQUARE
LONDON, DECEMBER 2009— A beautiful
property in Eccleston Square in
London, the house purchased by the
Churchills after their marriage, has
come onto the market. At a time when
MPs’ expenses were less under scrutiny,
Winston Churchill and his family lived
in this smart terraced house for four
years. A blue plaque commemorates his
sojourn. After being offered for up to
£4.75 million with no takers, the house
is now being offered for rental and is
available to let at £3000 a week
through Ayrton Wylie estate agents
(ayrtonwylie.com, 020 7730 4628).
Churchill moved to 33 Eccleston
Square in spring 1909, a year after
marrying Clementine Hozier. His first
two children were born here: Diana in
1909 and Randolph in 1911. >>
Stephen Greene, chairman of HSBC, one of the largest banks in the world,
on the free market (Wall Street Journal, 13 February): “I don’t myself believe
that there’s any alternative to the market as the basic engine of economic
and social development…. the alternatives have been tried. We know what
they look like. That’s the stark lesson of the 20th century....I do stand by
what you might describe as a Churchillian defense of the markets.” He
means to say, writes the WSJ, that the market “is the worst form of economic organization, except for all the others that have been tried.”
kkkkk
Steve Goldfein is reading in Churchill’s Marlborough where he is offered
the Viceroyalty of the Netherlands by the Holy Roman Emperor. Although
that meant £60,000 a year, offered political and military control he needed,
pleased Queen Anne and made political and military sense, Marlborough
declined without hesitation because it was bad for the “common good.”
Steve adds: “I think what our countries want is someone they believe will put
the ‘common good’ ahead of their personal needs; if a political party wishes
to win people back, it must convince them that the principles that guided
John Churchill and his great descendant in their public duties are alive and
well. I fear we have a long way to go.”
kkkkk
Senior editor Paul Courtenay complimented The Spectator for its review of
“Into the Storm” starring Brendan Gleeson, while noting some flaws our
review didn’t (FH 143):
“Leaving aside the permanent grumpiness of Winston and
Clementine, who could not possibly have spent five years without smiling,
there were a number of fairly obvious solecisms such as the apparent VC
investiture (which would have been carried out by King George himself),
the Teheran dinner (held at the British not the Russian Embassy) and
“Some chicken, some neck” (proclaimed in Ottawa not Washington), I was
pleased by the attempts to convey the horror of Churchill’s early wartime
flights. But even these did not manage to convey the half of how uncomfortable—and hazardous—they were.
“Churchill did not usually fly to the United States as shown, but often
went by sea, though he did sometimes return by air in a comfortable
machine. His earliest flight to the Middle East in 1942 was entirely different.
Not only was there no heating, as correctly and effectively depicted, but
there were no seats and only minimal lighting; the 67-year-old Prime
Minister had to lie on a shelf in the back of a dark, draughty, unpressurised
Liberator bomber for some eight hours to reach Gibraltar, flying at night a
long way out into the Atlantic before turning south; after refuelling, it was
another thirteen hours across the Sahara to Cairo. Then, after continuing to
Moscow and back in slightly better conditions, he had to endure the same
horrific treatment on the way home, always with the chance of encountering
a stray enemy fighter.
“Referring to this journey, General MacArthur said that if disposal of
Allied decorations were placed in his hands, he would “award the Victoria
Cross to Winston Churchill; a flight of 10,000 miles through hostile and
foreign skies may be the duty of young pilots, but for a statesman burdened
with the world’s cares, it is an act of inspiring gallantry and valour.” ,
FINEST HOUR 146 / 9
DATELINES
During Churchill’s
time at the stunning house, built in
1835 by Thomas
Cubitt, he was promoted to a number of senior positions
in and out of the Cabinet. In this
period he assisted in drafting the new
social welfare system, the protection of
workers’ rights and the introduction of
the first minimum wage. Although
they leased the house to Lord Grey in
1913-16, the Churchills retained ownership through May 1918.
—CHERYL MARKOKS
KEN PERKINS 1926-2009
OCTOBER
23RD— Major-
General Kenneth
Perkins CB MBE
DFC was an
unusual man. In
the postwar
period when reputations were
made or lost in
the British Army of the Rhine, he
sought active service in the Far East,
and further shunned the career mainstream by training as a pilot.
Commissioned into the Royal
Artillery in 1946, he saw service in the
Middle East, and flew 214 observation
sorties during the Korean War,
receiving the Distinguished Flying
Cross. He served in operations against
the communist insurrection in Malaya,
attended Pakistan Staff College, commanded an artillery battery in
Germany, and instructed at the Staff
College, Camberley, where he questioned the practicability of the
“trip-wire” and nuclear strike response
to a Warsaw Pact attack in Central
Europe with a laconic “Rubbish in,
rubbish out.” At the Commandant’s
invitation, he rewrote this exercise.
All this and his relentless intellectual energy proved ideal preparation for
secondment to command the Sultan of
Oman’s Armed Forces. Sultan Qaboos
faced a rebellion begun as a call for
modernisation during his father’s reign,
but which by 1975 turned into a communist-inspired insurrection by the
People’s Republic of South Yemen.
Served by outstanding subordinates,
Perkins concentrated on strategic
defence, integrating substantial Iranian
and Jordanian contingents of troops
and aircraft. In two years he wound up
the war and returned the oil-rich
Sultanate to peace and prosperity.
He was rewarded by the Order of
Oman and appointed CB, becoming
Assistant Chief of Defence Staff
(Operations) before retiring to become
a military adviser to British Aerospace.
In retirement he devoted his
energies to painting and writing,
including his amusing and modest
autobiography A Fortunate Soldier, and
was literary assistant on the Churchill
books of his wife Celia Sandys. She
survives him, together with their son
and daughter, and three daughters of
his first marriage. —SUNDAY TIMES
kkk
We will remember Ken as an
affable Churchillian who lived up to
the Times’ description, ever able to
deflate superfluous pomp with a wry
comment or laugh. At a 1987
Churchill Tour dinner at the Reform
Club, we tenuously asked him to say
Grace, hoping it wouldn’t be one of
those long-winded affairs. Grasping the
need, Ken rose and said, “For what we
are about to receive, Thank God.”
On another tour, hosting with
Celia a garden party at their Wiltshire
home for our party, our coach was
blocked by low-hanging limbs of the
Savernake Forest. Shuttling people
down the lane in his car, Ken was
much bemused when someone, mistaking him for the help, handed him a
one pound coin: “The first tip I’ve ever
received. I’m going to frame it.”
Ken was a modest man with
much to be immodest about: he never
stood on ceremony; a great raconteur,
he always underplayed his many
accomplishments, joining happily in
our appreciations of his spouse’s grand—RML
father. R.I.P.
FINEST HOUR 146 / 10
WINSTON S. CHURCHILL
LONDON, MARCH 2ND— With great
sadness the Churchill family announces
the death of Winston S. Churchill after
a courageous battle with cancer. He
was 69 and died peacefully at home in
London. He is survived by his devoted
wife, Luce, four children from his first
marriage and eleven grandchildren.
Sir Winston’s grandson, he was a
war correspondent, author, politician
and patron of a number of charities,
and was a Member of Parliament for
twenty-seven years. He bore his final
illness with the great fortitude that
those who knew him would have
expected. There will be a Memorial
Service at a later date.
Condolences ([email protected]) will be forwarded to
his family and the editor ([email protected]) wecomes
memorials and reminiscences for our
summer issue.
BERYL MURRAY 1919-2009
TAVISTOCK, DEVON, OCTOBER 7TH—My
mother, Beryl M. Murray, widow of
Churchill’s bodyguard the late Sgt.
Edmund Murray, died peacefully today.
My parents ever looked forward to
Finest Hour, and were happy to take
part in Churchill Centre events.
Polite and modest, unassuming
but not shy, Beryl was a favourite of Sir
Winston, accompanying him and
Edmund on a cruise on the Onassis
yacht Christina and at the Hotel de
Paris in Monte Carlo. She was the ideal
foil to my father, especially at public
events after Sir Winston’s death, when
he began speaking of his experiences.
Beryl kept diaries and press cuttings over the years my father spent
with Sir Winston, which produced his
memoir, I was Churchill’s Bodyguard,
(reviewed in Finest Hour 56, Summer
1987, which we republish in his
memory on page 43.) Beryl and Eddie
Murray and their family were grateful
for all The Churchill Centre does to
continue the memory of the great man.
Speaking for myself, I have always
thought it unbelievable that I had the
privilege of meeting and talking to him.
—WILLIAM MURRAY
[email protected]
,
“A Mere Mouthful for a Bird”
using on
fate and mankind’s
insignificance,
the youthful
Winston
Churchill
observed:
“There are 13
million feathers
on a dragonfly’s
wing—yet it is
but a mouthful
for a bird.”
Richard Harloe sent us the perfect photograph to accompany this remark. “It was taken while talking to some
young relations, fishing on Lake Kariba, Zimbabwe, the
largest man-made lake and reservoir in the world (5580
square kilometres, 2150 square miles),” Mr. Harloe
writes. “A dragonfly landed on the tip of one of our
fishing rods and a Carmine Bee Eater swooped on it. It
seems quite a common fate!”
M
Wit &
Wisdom
The Chartwell Bulletins, 1935
“The digger sunk deeper into the mud and finally
wallowed himself into an awful pit. It became necessary
to bring four hydraulic jacks, which though they are quite
small things and one man can handle them, can lift thirty
tons. Then railway sleepers had to be sunk in the ground
under the digger to make a foundation for these jacks,
and as the jacks hoisted the digger, of course the
sleepers sunk deeper.
“However after nearly a week the animal emerged
from his hole and practically finished the job, though
there is still a fortnight’s tidying up for five men. This
animal is very strong with his hands but very feeble with
his caterpillar legs, and as the fields are sopping, they
had the greatest difficulty in taking him away. They will
have to lay down sleepers all the way from the lake to
the gate over which he will waddle on Monday. I shall be
glad to see the last of him.”
—WSC to his wife, 2 March 1935
Chartwell Bulletin No. 7
Chartwell guide and CC-UK member Nigel Guest
reminds us that 2010 is the Seventy-fifth Anniversary of
Churchill’s 1935 “Chartwell Bulletins,” sent to his wife to
apprise her of happenings at their home during her
absence in the South Seas.
Churchill despatched other “Chartwell Bulletins”
from time to time before and after 1935, but these
twelve were the most interesting and cohesive. We published them, together with footnotes by Sir Martin Gilbert
and photos from Lady Soames’s personal albums, in
1989. Then, in 2001, we named our own newsletter the
Chartwell Bulletin, and recent copies have contained
short quotes from Churchill’s originals on their covers.
Mr. Guest writes:
“I volunteer at Chartwell and assist with guided
walks around the gardens and estate. During these
walks I make extensive use of the Churchill Centre’s
1935 ‘Bulletins’ and The Churchill Centre’s modern
newsletter. Some of the ‘Bulletins’ coincide with the
actual walks. It adds a certain poignancy to the verbal
pictures I try to paint.
“For example, it is easy to visualise the ‘mechanical
digger’ (steam shovel) at work enlarging the lakes, with
Churchill’s fabulous descriptions, giving the machine a
human persona. I think his comment about Prime
Minister MacDonald in Chartwell Bulletin No. 5 may have
been prompted as he watched the digger from his study
window: ‘Ramsay sinks lower and lower in the mud, and
I do not think the poor devil can last much longer.’
“I appreciate Michael McMenamin’s ‘Action This Day’
entry in Finest Hour 145: 12-13, which provides further
insight into 1935 and Clementine’s departure for the
South Seas. Her voyage to the Dutch East Indies enables
me to reference the story of the ‘Bali Dove,’ and the
inscription on the
sun dial in the
Golden Rose Walk.* I
think it would be a
great idea to reprint
the 1935 Chartwell
Bulletins to coincide
with this 75th
anniversary year.”
Copies of The
Churchill Centre’s
1935 Chartwell
Bulletins, now rare,
sell for between $25
and $80 on the used
book market. See
bookfinder.com.
*From Mary Soames,
The Rose Garden, Chartwell
Clementine Churchill
(London: Cassell, 1979, 269-70):
…the most charming of her mementos of the East
was a Bali dove, an enchanting pinky-beige little bird
with coral beak and feet, who lived in a beautiful wicker
cage rather like a glorified lobster-pot. He was a great
pet, and would crou-aou and bow with exquisite oriental
politeness to people he liked. He survived for two or
three years, when, no doubt homesick for his enchanted
island home, he died. Clementine had him buried under
the sundial in the centre of the walled garden. Round the
base are carved the following lines:
FINEST HOUR 145 / 11
HERE LIES THE BALI DOVE
It does not do to wander
Too far from sober men,
But there’s an island yonder,
I think of it again. ,
CHURCHILL IN CONTEXT
How We Can Restore the
Lost Glory to Democracy
“Whenever the Socialists have come into office they have very speedily
provoked a violent reaction in the country….At the next election there
will probably be a very full swing of the pendulum away from the existing
Ministers….The Socialist Ministers will, as usual, have to choose between
quarrelling with their followers and quarrelling with the nation.”
W I N S T O N S. C H U R C H I L L
First published in The Evening Standard, 14 January 1934
Published in Finest Hour by kind permission of Winston S. Churchill and Curtis Brown Ltd.
I N TR O D U C T I O N
C
--hurchill’s startling words above, pregnant with
current relevance, are from a little-known article
published only twice during a forty-year interval.
In it, Churchill casts a skeptical eye on a nation beset by
economic woes, and wonders if democracy could be
improved by extra votes for “the more responsible citizens” and by proportional representation. He would
become less enthusiastic about at least the latter idea
later in his career.
In proposing a bonus vote for “every householder
…who pays the rent and the rates [taxes] of any
dwelling,” Churchill voices a theme later developed by
the Australian novelist Nevil Shute in his 1953 book, In
the Wet. In Shute’s imaginary Australia, there were up to
seven votes: one for everybody; another for a university
degree or military commission; another for time spent
abroad; another for raising two children to age fourteen
without divorce, and so on.
Such ideas are easily shouted down for obvious
reasons. We’re not concerned with Shute, except as an
aside, but with Churchill; and the qualifications for his
bonus vote are less important than his thinking about it.
Larger and larger numbers of today’s democracies
pay fewer and fewer taxes, yet retain the ability to vote
themselves largesse from those who do. Churchill, an
extremist of neither Left nor Right, sought a middle way,
“to provide security for the working class so they would
not expropriate the wealth of the holders of capital; so
they would have a fair chance for themselves.” (FH 144:
11.) The bonus vote is an example of his thinking.
Proportional representation strives for a more representative democracy by distributing legislative seats in
proportion to the party vote, instead of the “winner take
all” approach (plurality voting) as in the UK or USA.
(P.R. exists in Australia, Ireland, and many other countries.) P.R. makes the domination of a majority far less
likely, but can lead to shifting party alliances, unstable
coalitions, and in some cases, political chaos.
Churchill offers a novel twist by proposing proportional representation only for the cities. This, he says,
would “focus the personality” of their citizens in governing their affairs. But extending P.R. to rural areas, he
adds, would “destroy the personal contacts and collective
identities which exist.”
But where would Churchill draw the line, particularly given the vast expansion of the suburbs since 1934?
Why would a voting system good for some be bad for
others? Paraphrasing his famous crack about democracy,
we might say that plurality voting is the worst of all
systems, except for all the other systems.
Far from branding Churchill as an elitist, this
interesting essay shows his ability—uncommon among
politicians of any age—to think in fresh and imaginative
ways about democracy, adhering to tradition only when
he considers it essential to the political life of the nation.
—RML
Judge for yourself.
FINEST HOUR 146 / 12
T
o say that the House of Commons needs
strengthening is not necessarily to imply any
censure upon its members. It is merely a recognition of the dangers in which our Parliamentary
institutions stand and of the need for those who care
about them, and about the life we have hitherto led in
this country, to take effective steps in their defence.
The history of the last eleven years has consisted in
alternative Governments of Mr. Baldwin1 and Mr.
Ramsay MacDonald2 culminating in their joint association. Whenever the Socialists have come into office they
have very speedily provoked a violent reaction in the
country. Mr. Baldwin has always caught the ball from
Mr. MacDonald, and on the last occasion has embraced
not only the ball but its thrower as well.
We now have a so-called National Government
under which the proceedings of the House of Commons
have sunk to the lowest ebb. Four-fifths of the members
are Conservative supporters of the Administration. The
two Oppositions make gestures and demonstrations to
which the outside public pays scarcely any attention.
But this by no means implies a general contentment in the country. There is probably at this moment a
definite majority of Socialists and Liberals over the
whole Conservative and so-called National forces. This
great mass of voters has no effective representation in the
Chamber. They are completely unrepresented as far as
Parliament is concerned. It must not be supposed,
however, that the political life of the country is not proceeding. All the powerful forces which have influenced
our lives for so many years are alive and at work. At the
next election there will probably be a very full swing of
the pendulum away from the existing Ministers. It may
well be that a majority of inexperienced and violent men
will be returned. The responsible elements in the
country will lose all control both of the House of
Commons and of the executive. An immense disturbance will be caused to our agricultural, industrial and
commercial life.
The Socialist Ministers will, as usual, have to
choose between quarrelling with their followers and
quarrelling with the nation. They will be impaled on this
dilemma, and after a period of anxiety and possibly of
disorder, a strong reversion will be made to government
by the Right. Whether this reversion takes a constitu-
1. Stanley Baldwin KG PC, later The Earl Baldwin of Bewdley
(1867-1947), Conservative Party leader, Prime Minister 1924-29,
1935-37; Lord President of the Council in Ramsay MacDonald’s
National Government, 1931-35.
2. James Ramsay MacDonald (1866-1937), Labour Party
leader, Labour Prime Minister 1929-31; Prime Minister in a National
Government with Conservative support, 1931-35.
tional or a Fascist form depends entirely upon what
injury has been done to the country during the interval.
Nothing is more certain than that the Socialist party is
incapable of defending the old parliamentary liberties of
England. The universal suffrage which has now been
established deprives the House of Commons of the
respect of the nation. The vote has lost its value to the
voter. What everyone has, no one esteems. There are no
longer eager political classes following keenly the
progress of events. Nearly one-third of the electorate do
not take the trouble to go to the poll. A large proportion
of the others have to be dragged there upon some electioneering cry. There is a total lack of any continuity of
political thought or discussion. All we have is vague
mass-driftings interrupted from time to time by spasmodic mob-votes.
Anyone can see how impossible it would be for
Parliament to command the interest of the nation under
such conditions. The old life of the House of Commons
is rapidly passing away. In its place we have a timid
Caesarism refreshing itself by occasional plebiscites. At
any moment a serious crisis may arise in which the >>
“When the day
dawns that any
number of citizens
are taught to believe
there is a more rapid
road to prosperity,
to wealth, to the
possession of capital, than the
employment of industry and the exercise
of self-denial—and that this more rapid
way is through the treasury, by the
complaisance or the connivance of
politicians—then the knell of this
country’s prosperity is sounded.”
—Bourke Cockran to the Liberal Club, London, 1903.
From Michael McMenamin and Curt Zoller, Becoming
Winston Churchill (Greenwood Press, 2007,) 244.
FINEST HOUR 146 / 13
CHURCHILL IN CONTEXT
“The vote has lost its value to the voter. What everyone has,
no one esteems. There are no longer eager political classes
following keenly the progress of events. “ —WSC
LOST GLORIES...
differences which used to be settled by Parliamentary
debate will be settled outside the walls of Parliament by
the conflict of extremists. In any such conflict the
Socialist or revolutionary forces will certainly be beaten.
But the danger is that in the process of defeating them
our ancient, free constitution and Parliamentary system
will be destroyed.
Already the thoughts and interests of the younger
generation are being attracted away from the scene
where Mr. MacDonald and Mr. Baldwin doze so peacefully, to the kind of ideas which in one form or another
have become dominant throughout Europe. It is perhaps
no exaggeration to say that the next years may well see
the end of the English Parliamentary system. A universal
suffrage electorate will have shown themselves incapable
of preserving those forms of government under which
our country has grown great and from which all the
dignity and tolerance of our present life arise.
It is for these reasons that I have long cast about
for a means of strengthening the Parliamentary regime. I
do not here speak of the necessary reform of the House
of Lords or Second Chamber, for that is a well-known
controversy. But the time has also come when we must
definitely improve the franchise of the House of
Commons so as to make the vote which returns a
Parliament more truly representative of the strong, vital
forces which make the country move and which cannot
be indefinitely disregarded.
T
he proposal which I have made is extremely
simple. It raises no issue of rank or class, of party
or wealth, of age or sex. It involves the disfranchisement, actual or prospective, of no class. It aims,
however, at giving a greater weight to the more responsible citizens, to those who make the largest contribution
to the nation’s well-being and those who bear the heaviest public burden. I propose that every householder, by
which I mean the man or woman who pays the rent and
the rates of any dwelling in which more than two
persons habitually reside, should have a second or plural
vote. This would certainly involve four or five million
persons. Many of them would be young persons: a proportion of them would be women.
They would all be persons who had to face the real
problems of life in a manner quite different from lodgers
of all kinds of both sexes, dependent or otherwise. We
should to that extent have corrected the effects of
throwing an enormous mass of irresponsible voters into
the scales as was done during Mr. Baldwin’s last administration, and we should have infused into the franchise a
new measure of stability.
If the principle of weighting the franchise were
found acceptable there is no reason why it should not be
further developed as time went on with the object of
making the total vote at the poll representative of the
pulling and driving power of the country, instead of its
more dependent and more volatile elements.
Another advantage should be noted. The new class
of plural voters, numbering millions—with whom
anyone may rank himself in the ordinary processes of
life—would be a class bearing special political responsibilities. They would in consequence tend to follow public
affairs with more seriousness than at present. They would
feel that there rested upon them in a marked degree the
duty of caring for the interests of the State. If their extra
vote was envied or even resented by the other classes, that
very feeling would restore to the franchise some of the
value it has lost by being made universal.
We should have taken the first step of moving back
to a foundation for Parliament composed of electors
who really take an interest in public affairs, and as a
result Parliament would continue to be the forum of
national discussions and the college from which
Cabinets are chosen.
We should not in the least be deterred by catch
phrases such as “fancy franchises,” nor by the fate which
has overtaken fancy franchises in so many European
countries. All experience goes to show that once the vote
has been extended to everyone, and what is called full
democracy has been achieved, the whole system is very
speedily broken up and swept away. A true democracy
FINEST HOUR 146 / 14
involves a much more refined process than the mere
counting of noses. If that is to be the method by which
we are to be ruled, then it is not a Parliament but quite
different organizations which under modern conditions
will marshal the noses and do the counting.
T
here is one other reform in the franchise which
should be made by the present Parliament and
should become operative at the next election. I
mean the institution of Proportional Representation for
the great cities.
The lack of influence on affairs of our great cities
like Liverpool, Manchester, Glasgow, Birmingham,
Bradford, Leeds and many others is deplorable. As political entities they are already moribund. They had more
influence in the old days when they only had a couple of
members than they have now that they are each sliced
up into ten or a dozen constituencies. There is no collective voice from any of them.
Leading politicians in every party avoid such fickle
and changeable areas, and seek in county seats or smaller
boroughs a trustworthy resting-place. When one sees
how, for instance, the interests of Manchester and
Liverpool are ignored in the whole march of public
events, and how little they count in public discussion, it
is surely time a change was made.
On the other hand, the introduction of
Proportional Representation in the counties would be a
great mistake. Whereas in the cities Proportional
Representation would focus the personality of the citizens, the same system in the counties would destroy the
personal contacts and collective identities which exist.
N
ow is the time for action. It is always difficult
for the House of Commons to deal with
matters affecting the position of so many of its
own members; but the conditions of the present
Parliament are favourable as they have never been before
and may not be again for many years. Both the reforms I
have mentioned would have the effect of helping rather
than hurting the existing personnel. Nothing will
prevent the swing of the pendulum, but it would be to
some extent moderated.
The Liberals would be well advised to support the
additional vote for householders, if it were part of a Bill
in which Proportional Representation was established in
the great cities. Of course, there would be a violent controversy, but one of the greatest delusions in politics is to
suppose that it is desirable always to please everybody.
And what is the alternative? I have no hesitation in
saying that unless the reform and strengthening of our
Parliamentary institution is actively undertaken without
delay we shall see ourselves involved in a succession of
disastrous fluctuations attended by continued constitutional decay, and that the regeneration of the country
and the establishment of sincere and vigorous government will be achieved through agencies very different
from those which have hitherto been the peculiar glory
and achievement of our island. ,
“Lost Glory”: Modern Reflections
I
’m not sure that “Lost Glory” is Churchill
at his best. It veers from sounding like a
Rush Limbaugh rant to exaggerated
images of fascism. As always, buried
beneath the rhetorical excesses are both
wit and good sense, but this time they are
buried a bit deeper than usual.
Still, the description of a government
caught between its own supporters and a
broader public does resonate in today’s
world, though I looked in vain for some
explanation of how a voting majority in Parliament consisted of
60 percent of its members, as it seems to do in one branch of
the U.S. Congress. And I do find it interesting, in an antic way.
—Warren F. Kimball
kkkkk
I
found this essay tremendously interesting,
particularly because Churchill links voting
(representation) with contributing to the
social safety net (taxation): “giving a greater
weight to the more responsible citizens, to
those who make the largest contribution to
the nation’s well-being and those who bear
the heaviest public burden.”
Whereas Americans once fought a
revolution over “taxation without representation,” they and others are now faced with fellow citizens who ask
for “representation without taxation”: fewer and fewer pay
income tax, but may vote for candidates who promise to redistribute ever more to them. Some even receive refundable tax
credits. Surely if that number becomes the majority (recent
reports have it as high as 47 percent in the U.S.), democracy as
we know it would be challenged.
Of course there are other, “flat” taxes. Social security
and property taxes (rates) raised to compensate for declining
values are both burdensome on the working poor. Should they
be “progressive”? Where will it all lead? Do the British,
American, Canadian and other constitutions protect us from an
economic “tyranny of the majority”? How do we organize our
countries so that poor can become more prosperous?
Churchill always inspires us to think.
—Suzanne Sigman ,
FINEST HOUR 146 / 15
HISTORY DETECTIVES
The Outcasts: What Did Churchill
Tell Guy Burgess after Munich?
MICHAEL DOBBS
Mr. Dobbs is author of four Churchill historical novels (reviewed in FH 117, 122, 126,
131) in which characters and episodes are carefully researched from life. The spy Guy
Burgess appears in the first, Winston’s War. For Martin Gilbert’s account of the actual
Burgess-Churchill meeting see his Winston S. Churchill, vol. V, Prophet of Truth 19221939 (London: Heinemann, 1976), 990-92; and Companion Volume V, Part III, The
Coming of War 1936-1939 (London: Heinemann, 1982), 1192-96 and 1198-99.
I
t began over alcohol—a
good pub lunch—something of which I’m sure
Sir Winston would have
approved. I was with two
old friends, the celebrated
British TV writers Laurence
Marks and Maurice Gran,
who are very knowledgeable
about the 1930s. They
spoke of how extraordinary it was
that Winston Churchill, a man
reviled and mistrusted by so many at
the time, should have become Prime
Minister. It wasn’t a topic I was then
familiar with—yet something inside
me stirred, and without realizing it I
set out on a journey that in many
ways has changed my life.
I began reading about Winston
Churchill, and stumbled across an
extraordinary reference to him in a
book written by the British politician
Tom Driberg about his friend Guy
Burgess. It recounted in some detail
how Burgess, who was then a BBC
producer, had spent much of the day
of 1 October 1938 alone with
Churchill at Chartwell. The story is
likewise recounted by Sir Martin
Gilbert in the Official Biography and
Tom Driberg, left, with Guy Burgess,
checking proofs of Driberg’s book, Moscow,
October, 1956. Driberg first broke the news
of the Churchill-Burgess meeting, on the
day after Chamberlain had signed the
Munich Pact with Hitler—and Martin Gilbert
who confirmed it in the Official Biography.
its relevant companion volume, as
referenced above.
There were two fascinating
aspects to the Churchill-Burgess
meeting. The first was that it was the
day after Neville Chamberlain had
signed the Munich Agreement and
his subsequent promise to adoring
crowds in Downing Street that he
had brought “peace for our time.”
For Churchill, a man who had been
pursued by Black Dogs after the
Dardanelles and other dark days in
his life, that October 1st must have
been one of the darkest.
FINEST HOUR 146 / 16
The second extraordinary fact is that Guy
Burgess, in addition to his
duties at the BBC, was
even at this stage one of
the most notorious of
Soviet spies. Such a man
with Churchill? It seemed
an unnatural combination.
So what were they doing?
Driberg left a detailed account
that made sense. Both Churchill and
Burgess enjoyed drink and disputation; they were both highly
opinionated. Crucially, they were
both committed to the fight against
fascism, and it is inconceivable to me
that they didn’t debate the future
course of events with passion.
Churchill would have been pessimistic, Burgess youthfully bullish.
Whereas Sir Martin Gilbert’s
research is impeccable, any account
by Driberg has to be treated with
caution—he was himself a KGB spy
—and almost none of the histories
other than Gilbert’s offers even a
glancing reference to the meeting. Yet
Driberg’s book was published in
1956 and Churchill could easily have
dismissed it as nonsense. He didn’t.
Burgess worked at the heart of
Westminster, knew everyone, threw
outrageous alcohol-fuelled parties
that were attended by politicians,
priests and even a few prostitutes—
yet when his treachery was uncovered
it was difficult to find anyone who
had even shared a bus queue with
him. Many matters were covered up,
files and diaries filleted, Burgess cast
into oblivion and exile in Moscow.
After the publication of
Driberg’s book, nothing was heard of
the Chartwell meeting for twenty
years. Then Martin Gilbert’s Official
Biography, Volume V, brought the
meeting to light in 1976, and the text
of Burgess’ memo was in Gilbert’s
relevant document volume in 1982.
Now the BBC has made available
online its record of the meeting
(http://xrl.us/bgwm5b). Burgess
wrote (Gilbert, pages 1198-99):
Mr Churchill complained that he had
been very badly treated in the matter of
political broadcasts and that he was
always muzzled by the BBC. I said I
was not myself in possession of the
facts and, in any case, had nothing to
do with such matters, since I believed
that the allotment of space was settled
by arrangement and discussion between
the BBC and the political parties. I
imagine that he was referring to a past
controversy that I believe (though I
didn’t say so) there was over India and
election time. He went on to say that
he imagined that he would be even
more muzzled in the future, since the
work at the BBC seemed to have passed
under the control of the Government. I
said that this was not, in fact, the case,
though just at the moment we were, as
a matter of courtesy, allowing the
Foreign Office to see scripts on political
subjects. The point is WSC seems very
anxious to talk.
[s.] G Burgess
Aside from Churchill feeling he
had been kept from the airwaves by
the BBC, I suspect they discussed
much more. As other BBC archives
show, Burgess was already notorious
for his drinking and his taste for luxuries—so he and WSC probably got
on outrageously well!
So impressed was Churchill by
the much younger man that when
they had finished their conversation
at Chartwell, he presented Burgess
with a signed copy of Arms and the
Covenant, his latest book of speeches.
There is much to be learned
about the times and the two men by
reflecting on this meeting. They had
a lot in common, were both outcasts
fearful of the future, determined to
fight on no matter the cost, even
though they viewed the world
through entirely different lenses.
History is filled with ironies. A few
years after this meeting, one of them
came to be regarded as the greatest
man Britain had ever produced, the
other as one of its greatest traitors.
Yet such a vacuum is an open
invitation to a dramatist. I have used
it in my writings to try to get to grips
with the isolation and the passion of
Churchill, and how he was so often
forced to rely on informal and even
disreputable supporters.
Alongside Burgess we can
include Mrs. Churchill’s
“Three Terrible B’s”:
Brendan Bracken, Lords
Birkenhead and
Beaverbrook. WSC
tended to romanticize
in his own histories,
drawing a veil over
the personal hurts
he must have so
often experienced
and felt. Yet it is
those personal
hurts that drove
him on, obsessed
him even, ever
since his childhood when his
father turned
his back so
cruelly on his
young son.
Churchill was a
complicated individual, and encounters with men such as Burgess
provide a valuable insight into what
FINEST HOUR 146 / 17
made him so different from others. If
in the dramatic process I exaggerate
the importance of Burgess by suggesting that a Soviet agent could
actually have been of help to
Churchill, it at least gives us pause
for thought about the complicated
nature of patriotism, and how history
often makes for odd bedfellows.
If the fact of their meeting was
ever deliberately covered up, until the
diligent Martin Gilbert unearthed it
in 1976, one place those responsible
forgot to look was within the files at
the BBC, where Burgess was required
to record his activities—and where
the records lay all the time!
Note: Driberg’s book, Guy Burgess:
A Portrait with Background, was
published in 1956 by Weidenfeld and
Nicolson. For more information
about Michael Dobbs’s novels, radio
documentary and television play
about Sir Winston Churchill, please
visit www.michaeldobbs.com. ,
www.b
bc.co.l
uk
GREAT CONTEMPORARIES
Roosevelt’s Bracken:
HARRY HOPKINS
“Lord Root of the Matter”
RON CYNEWULF ROBBINS
C
uriosity about defenders of liberty is insatiable. The selfless dedication
of gifted historians, even the indelible tidemarks of posterity, yield us
no quietus. Our inquisitiveness extends to anyone who served faithfully
alongside our heroes and made crucial contributions to their achievement.
The physically frail Harry Hopkins fits this category: a magnificent gobetween with whom Churchill and Roosevelt felt comfortable and at ease.
Lifelong opponents of Roosevelt’s New Deal could not resist including Hopkins
in their denunciation. When he died, a Los Angeles Times editorial suggested
that it didn’t matter whether Hopkins was “great or little or good or bad”;
what mattered was seeing that “the phenomenon of a Harry Hopkins in the
White House does not recur.”
Robert Sherwood, another member of FDR’s inner sanctum, has
described the invective heaped on Hopkins, who lived for over three
years in the Roosevelt White House. He was quartered in Abraham
Lincoln’s former study. Hopkins was regarded, Sherwood wrote, “as a
sinister figure, a backstairs intriguer, an Iowan combination of
Machiavelli, Svengali and Rasputin.” (Similar sobriquets were
attached during the second Bush’s administration to Karl
Rove, much to the latter’s amusement.) But Robert
Sherwood added a counterpoint by General and later
Secretary of State George C. Marshall: Hopkins, Marshall
said, had “rendered a service to this country which will
never even vaguely be appreciated.”
Churchill’s entourage had no counterpart of Harry Hopkins, though Brendan Bracken invites
comparison because of his role as WSC’s intimate confidant. Like Hopkins, Bracken surmounted
humble beginnings, and encountered disdain and envy.
It would be difficult to brush aside the conclusion that by lineage and rank Churchill and
Roosevelt were political aristocrats, shaped by blood and history. Roosevelt had long admired the career of
his cousin, Theodore Roosevelt; he imitated him by using the governorship of New York as a springboard to the
FINEST HOUR 146 / 18
Mr. Robbins, a journalist who had covered Churchill in Westminster after World War II, was Finest Hour’s editor
emeritus until his death last year (FH 144: 8-9). This is the first of his two articles on the two “treasured
confidants” of Roosevelt and Churchill, the other being WSC’s Brendan Bracken, to be published in our next
issue. Mr. Robbins asked that we acknowledge Sir Martin Gilbert’s 2006 visit to Canada, and his compelling
hour-long interview on CBC, which inspired this article.
Presidency. Churchill had haunting memories of his father
Lord Randolph; he rose to occupy his father’s office as
Chancellor of the Exchequer, and later secured the premiership his father had once anticipated.
Fault-finders complained bitterly about what they
believed was the dangerous incongruity of Hopkins and
Bracken being warm pals of their leaders. Foreign Minister
Lord Halifax, “the Holy Fox,” to whom Chamberlain had
tried to hand the premiership in 1940, referred to Bracken
as a gangster. Churchill, once in Downing Street,
despatched Halifax as Ambassador to the United States,
replacing him with anti-appeaser Anthony Eden. It is fair to
note that Halifax did well in Washington.
Neither Hopkins nor Bracken came naturally into the
retinue of their mentors; both had to prove their worth.
Scenes of misery and want awakened in Hopkins a
Dickensian-like revulsion. Born in Sioux City in 1890, he
became a conscientious social worker after attending
Grinnell College. He was Federal Emergency Relief
Administrator in 1933, moved on to head the Works
Progress Administration, and is heavily credited for fashioning Roosevelt’s Social Security bill.
Hopkins had risen to serve as Secretary of Commerce
in 1938-40, but further political ambition was abandoned
as he fought an extremely debilitating illness. Perhaps one
secret of his relationship with FDR was that they were both
survivors of agonizing disease.
At a one-on-one session in the White House, Wendell
Willkie, FDR’s opponent in the 1940 election, brusquely
demanded to know why Hopkins was there. “I can understand that you wonder why I need that half-man around
me,” said Roosevelt, referring to Hopkins’ gaunt appearance. “Some day you may well be sitting here…knowing
that practically everybody who walks through [the door]
wants something out of you. You’ll learn what a lonely job
this is and you’ll discover the need for somebody like Harry
Hopkins, who asks for nothing except to serve you.”
(Willkie deserves a bow for recording that observation.)
Nor did Hopkins seem to be the socialist ideologue
his enemies often portrayed. Robert Sherwood recalls:
One day I saw him pick up a book put out by the W.P.A. It
was an expensive printing job, with many plates and a very
substantial-looking binding. He flourished the book and said
to me, “This is pure boondoggling. The people who attacked
us for things like this were perfectly right. Of course, I would
have been a God-damned fool to have agreed with them.”*
For their parts, Roosevelt and Churchill were blithely
unconcerned by criticism of their valued henchmen. WSC
ignored the early dislike of his wife and his son toward
Bracken, whom both came later to respect. (In this case
Winston was right: Bracken became an astute Member of
Parliament and handled the Ministry of Information with
far greater élan than any of his predecessors.)
Likewise, Hopkins was Roosevelt’s reliable emissary to
Europe. Churchill met him for the first time when he
arrived at Downing Street to discuss the Lend-Lease programme, which Hopkins was supervising. The President
had asked for a trenchant private assessment of how
Churchill and the British would stand up to Hitler.
Hopkins gave both top marks. Churchill nicknamed
Hopkins “Lord Root of the Matter,” and the warm rapport
between them never wavered.
Martin Gilbert’s volume VI of the Official Biography
records Hopkins’ 1941 visit to Britain in great detail.
Hopkins left for Moscow, then returned to meet Churchill
in Glasgow in freezing mid-January. After touring the city’s
defence establishments, Churchill spoke of how Hopkins
had come “in order to put himself in closest relation with
things here. He will soon return to report to his famous
chief the impressions he has gathered in our islands.”
That night, Martin Gilbert tells us, Churchill and
Hopkins were given dinner in Glasgow by the Regional
Commissioner for Scotland, Tom Johnston, at the Station
Hotel. After dinner, Hopkins replied:
“I
suppose you wish to know what I am going to say
to President Roosevelt on my return. Well, I'm
going to quote you one verse from that Book of
Books in the truth of which Mr. Johnston’s mother and my
own Scottish mother were brought up: ‘Whither thou goest,
I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people
shall be my people, and thy God my God.’”
Then he added very quietly: “‘Even to the end.’”
Observers present saw the Prime Mnister in tears. He
knew what it meant.
Many historians say the Anglo-American “special relationship” was far more special to the British than the
Americans. Hopkins would deny it. In a series of informal
memoirs written for Sherwood, he penned words Churchill
himself might have written:
I know no person in his right mind but that he believes if this
nation ever had to engage in another war Great Britain would
be fighting on our side, and yet, to hear some people talk
about the British, you would think the British were our
potential enemies. I believe that the British have saved our
skins twice—once in 1914 and again in 1940. They, with the
FINEST HOUR 146 / 19
>>
GREAT CONTEMPORARIES
“I can understand that you wonder why I need that half-man around me. Some day
you may well be sitting here…knowing that practically everybody who walks through
[the door] wants something out of you. You’ll learn what a lonely job this is and
you’ll discover the need for somebody like Harry Hopkins.” —FDR to Wendell Willkie
Rarely photographed at summit conferences, Hopkins was caught here before a session in Teheran. To his right, Army
Chief of Staff Gen. George C. Marshall shakes hands with Sir Archibald Clark-Kerr, British ambassador to the Soviet
Union; to his left, a Soviet interpreter translates for Marshals Stalin and Kliment Voroshilov. Looking on between the
marshals is Soviet Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov. At far left is Field Marshal Sir John Dill (Wikimedia)
French, took the brunt of the attack in the First World War,
and the Germans came within a hair’s breadth of licking
them both before we got into it. This time it was Britain
alone that held the fort and they held that fort for us just as
much as for themselves, because we would not have had a
chance to have licked Hitler had Britain fallen.
that the British live by trade. We are probably powerful
enough, if we want to use that power, seriously to injure that
trade, but I do not believe it is to our self-interest to do it.
Why should we deliberately set about to make a weak Great
Britain in the next hundred years unless we go on the
assumption that war will be waged no more?….
Many Britishers do not make it particularly easy for those of
us who want to see a close-working relationship with Great
Britain. When the Prime Minister said that he was not
selected to be the King’s Minister to liquidate the Empire,
every isolationist in America cheered him. Before that, he
had never been very popular with our isolationists in
America. There is constant friction between our business
interests and we think—and have no doubt with some good
reason—that Great Britain would take an unfair advantage of
us in trade around the world…
If I were to lay down the most cardinal principle of our
foreign policy, it would be that we make absolutely sure that
now and forever the United States and Great Britain are
going to see eye to eye on major matters of world policy. It is
easy to say that. It is hard to do, but it can be done and the
effort is worth it.*
The American people must realize the plain and simple truth
Exhausted, ill and worn out, Hopkins was destined to
die at fifty-six. Just before his death, on 22 January 1946,
he wrote the last letter of his life. It was addressed to
Winston Churchill.
FINEST HOUR 146 / 20
Further Reading
• Robert E. Sherwood’s Roosevelt and Hopkins (New York;
Harper, 1946); The White House Papers of Harry Hopkins,
2 vols. (London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1948) is a fundamental source, one of the greatest political memoirs ever
published. It earned Sherwood, who with Hopkins had
helped write Roosevelt’s speeches, his fourth Pulitzer Prize.
(Unlike Churchill, FDR did not write all his speeches
himself, but like WSC, he was an indefatigable reviser.)
ABOVE: Churchill with Brendan Bracken and Harry Hopkins. When
Churchill expressed initial doubt about Hopkins’s importance, it was the
faithful Bracken who informed him how close he was to President
Franklin Roosevelt. After they met they soon became fast friends.
BELOW RIGHT: Harry Hopkins, his daughter Diana, and WSC with the
President’s scottie “Fala” (unfazed by his exalted company) at the White
House during Churchill’s visit following Pearl Harbor, December 1941.
Harry Hopkins’ Last Letter
• Sir Martin Gilbert’s Churchill: A Life (London:
Heinemann, New York: Henry Holt, 1991; Toronto:
Minerva, 1992, still in print in paperback) is a readable distillation of Gilbert’s eight-volume official biography (but
not an abridgement; it contains much new information).
On 20 September 2006, Sir Martin was interviewed by the
CBC in Toronto, which produced a video and sound clips
of some of Churchill’s famous wartime speeches. Sir Martin
gave viewers a keen insight into the steadfast work
Churchill did when preparing his orations. At first WSC
wrote his speech drafts by hand; later he began dictating to
a secretary. Although he usually held to his final script, a
copy of which he always carried, he had often memorized
important passages in advance. ,
New York
January 22, 1946
Dear Winston,
Only being laid up in the hospital prevented me from
meeting you at the boat the other day and I do hope you
will find it possible to get to New York, because it appears
altogether unlikely that I could possibly be in Florida
during the next month.
All I can say about myself at the moment is that I am
getting excellent care, while the doctors are struggling over a
very bad case of cirrhosis of the liver—not due, I regret to
say, from taking too much alcohol. But I must say that I
dislike having the effect of a long life of congenial and
useful drinking and neither deserve the reputation nor
enjoy its pleasures.
The newspapers indicate you and Clemmie are having
a quiet and delightful time and I hope you won’t let any
Congressional Committee of ours bore you.
Do give my love to Clemmie and Sarah, all of whom I
shall hope to see before you go back, but I want to have a
good talk with you over the state of world affairs, to say
nothing of our private lives.*
_________________________________________________________
*Hopkins quotes and his letter to Churchill are from Robert Sherwood,
The White House Papers of Harry Hopkins, 2 vols. (London: Eyre &
Spottiswoode, 1948), II: 910-11 and 920.
FINEST HOUR 146 / 21
110 Years On:
Remembering Jennie and the Maine
She was widely renowned for living life large, so few were surprised when
Winston and Jack Churchill’s mother raised $150,000 to furnish and
equip a hospital ship for the Boer War—or when Jennie herself
embarked for South Africa, and personally directed the nursing.
CELIA LEE
Mrs. Lee is the main author of The Churchills: A Family Portrait, reviewed on page 39.
All photographs are published by kind permission of Mrs. Peregrine Spencer Churchill.
L
ady Randolph Churchill, Winston Churchill’s
mother, was born Jennie Jerome in Brooklyn on 9
January 1854. Her star sign is Capricorn, the
mountain goat, which always climbs higher, discontented until it reaches the top.
In 1874 Jennie fell in love with and married Lord
Randolph Spencer Churchill, second surviving son of
the Seventh Duke of Marlborough and Frances Vane
Tempest. Randolph became an expert on Irish affairs
and rose rapidly to become Chancellor of the Exchequer
and Leader of the House of Commons in 1886. But he
fell out with the Conservative Prime Minister, Lord
Salisbury, over defence cuts he’d proposed in his first
budget, and resigned as a point of principle. The strain
of political life had taken its toll of his health and Jennie
had much experience of nursing him through bouts of
illness until his death in January 1895.
The Anglo-Boer War broke out in 1899, and Mrs.
Blow, the American wife of the manager of one of South
Africa’s richest mining syndicates, determined to provide
FINEST HOUR 146 / 22
PAGE OPPOSITE: Jack Spencer Churchill, later a Major in the Oxfordshire Hussars, with his mother aboard the Maine during his
convalescence from war wounds; the hospital ship, supplied by Bernard Nadel Baker of Atlantic Transport in Baltimore, flew the Stars
and Stripes, the Union Flag, and the flag of the Red Cross. ABOVE: “Sister Jennie” wearing the uniform she designed herself, at her
desk in her cramped cabin aboard the Maine. (This photo gives the lie to critics who claimed that she enjoyed “a suite of rooms.”) At
right, wounded soldiers aboard the Maine. Both Boer and British wounded were welcomed and treated on board.
a hospital ship to care for the war wounded. Jennie
became chairman of the U.S. Hospital Ship Fund and
worked enthusiastically to raise what she recalled in her
memoirs was $150,000 (nearly $4 million in today’s
money). An American millionaire, Bernard Nadel Baker,
founder of the Atlantic Transport Company in
Baltimore, provided one of his transport vessels, the
Maine, which required a complete refit. Jennie organised
a huge fund-raising event at Claridge’s Hotel in London
and decided to travel on the ship to Cape Town as both
her sons were serving in South Africa.
The fund-raising was marred by the devastating
news that Jennie’s son Winston had been captured by
the Boers. He eventually escaped unscathed, but while
he remained in captivity it was a harrowing time for
Lady Randolph, as she was still known.
The launch ceremony of the hospital ship Maine
was conducted by HRH the Duke of Connaught, a
younger brother of the Prince of Wales. Flying the flags
of the United States, Great Britain, the Red Cross, and
the Admiralty’s transport fleet, Maine left Portsmouth
Harbour on Saturday 23 December 1899. She was
equipped with an isolation ward, an operating theatre
and an X-ray machine—an innovation at that time.
At sea, there was conflict between the American
and British staff, and Jennie acted as peacemaker. Her
46th birthday passed unnoticed and on January 23,
Maine arrived in Cape Town. The war-readied harbour
was full of ships disembarking troops, and the streets
filled with soldiers. Deployment of the Maine was the
responsibility of the Chief Medical Officer for Cape
Town, who wanted to send the ship to Durban to take
on wounded for immediate return to England. Jennie
opposed this, and got her way. Her younger son Jack
arrived in uniform, wearing a large sombrero hat which
gave him rather the appearance of a cowboy. It gave
Jennie peace of mind when his brother Winston arrived,
and the three Churchills were reunited for two days.
With the Battle of Spion Kop underway, the ship
would soon be filled to capacity. Winston and Jack left
to join their regiments and Jennie and her staff took
charge of the wounded, who were arriving in wagons.
She wore a nurse’s uniform of her own design, a starched
white apron, white blouse and an armband with a red
cross. When the ambulance train arrived on February
5th, Jennie and Miss Hibbard and the nursing staff were
ready to care for the first sixty-seven casualties. There
were twelve stretcher cases, but the rest were walking.
The Central News of Durban reported that: “Lady
Randolph personally superintended their reception,
directed berthing, and flitted among the injured as ‘an
angel of mercy.’”
To Jennie’s distress, Jack was wounded and became
the first officer casualty received on board, on 13 >>
FINEST HOUR 146 / 23
REMEMBERING JENNIE...
February, just nine days after his twentieth birthday.
Winston later explained that while on reconnaissance on
horseback, Jack had been shot in the calf: a near thing,
since the bullet passed close to his head. Winston wrote
his mother that the field doctors had told him Jack’s
wound would take a month to heal. Jack wrote to his
Aunt Clara Frewen on 27 March:
Thank goodness it had turned out to be nothing, but it
hurt a good deal at the time. I mounted again as the
squadron continued to retire, but after going about a
mile, Winston made me get into an ambulance; and so
my military career ended rather abruptly. It was very hard
luck being hit the first time I was under fire. But I saw a
very good day, and while it lasted, I heard as many bullets
whiz past as I ever want to. I went straight onto the
Maine, and there I remained until she sailed for the Cape.
Jack’s bullet is on display at the Cabinet War
Rooms and Churchill Museum in London.
The Maine was soon filled with wounded soldiers,
and Jennie and her team worked day and night. Her personal role was largely administrative. British and Boer
casualties, arriving in tattered uniforms covered in dirt,
were treated equally. Twenty operations were performed
and there were three deaths, one each from typhoid,
aneurysm and tuberculosis. The nurses cleaned and
dressed the wounds, administering morphine as a painkiller. Surgeons removed bullets under ether anaesthesia.
Winston wrote in a press report: “During the two
months the ship has been at Durban, more than 300
cases have been treated, and many difficult operations
have been performed successfully.”
Jennie had for many years been a close confidant of
the Prince of Wales, who wrote in February to congratulate her for her courageous work. Jennie replied: “I am
satisfied with the Mission the Maine has fulfilled—& if
I may say so my connection with it. It has been hard
work & sometimes the temptation has been great to fly
off in a mail steamer for home—but I am glad I
resisted.”
The Maine sailed for England with its cargo of
casualties and arrived back in Southampton on 23 April,
carrying twelve wounded officers and over 350 wounded
men. The press reported that Jennie looked lovely in a
blue serge dress and a sailor’s straw hat with a blue
ribbon. From the flag-bedecked quay, the patients were
taken by special train to the hospital at Netley.
H
aving once boasted that she would live to be
90, Jennie died aged only 67, on 9 June 1921,
after a fall at “Mells Manor,” the home of her
friend Frances, Lady Horner. Winston was at her side.
On July 1st he wrote to a friend in what may serve as
her valedictory:
I wish you could have seen her as she lay at rest—after all
the sunshine and storm of life was over. Very beautiful
and splendid she looked. Since the morning with its
pangs, thirty years had fallen from her brow. She recalled
to me the countenance I had admired as a child when she
was in her heyday and the old brilliant world of the
eighties and nineties seemed to come back.* ,
*Sir Martin Gilbert, Winston S. Churchill, Companion
Volume IV, Part 3, Documents April 1921 – November 1922
(London: Heinemann, 1977), 1532.
BELOW LEFT: Maine personnel and nursing staff. Seated, left to right: Mary Eugenie Hibbard, in
charge of the nurses; Sister Ruth (Miss Manly); Lady Randolph Churchill; Eleanor Warrender; Sister
Sarah (Miss McVean). Standing, left to right: Dr. Weber; Sister Virginia (Miss Ludekins); Colonel H.F.
Hensman, officer in command; Maine Captain Stone; Dr. Dodge; Sister Margaret (Miss McPherson).
When they argued, Lady Randolph acted as an Anglo-American intermediary; yet when she needed
to get her way, she got it. BELOW RIGHT: Her bed, behind a curtain in a small corner of her cabin.
FINEST HOUR 146 / 24
RIDDLES, MYSTERIES, ENIGMAS
Send your questions to the editor
On Turtles and Turtle Soup
Q
I've often heard it said that Churchill enjoyed turtle soup and turtle
meat. Is there any evidence of this? Did Churchill in any of his
writings ever mention this, or did any contemporaries refer to his supposed liking of it?
A
Churchill was fond of turtle
asoup, and probably picked up
the taste as First Lord of the
Admiralty during the Great War.
According to several sources, when
the Royal Navy was watching
Napoleon in exile at St. Helena,
nearby Ascension Island was
replete with turtles, and British
warships returning home would
bring turtles with them. Though
the custom had lapsed by 1940,
Churchill was keen to revive it.
In his account of the Atlantic
Charter meeting with Roosevelt
(Atlantic Meeting), H.V. Morton
wrote that Churchill, wanted to
serve turtle soup to the President.
Miraculously, his naval aide,
Commander Thompson, found
bottles of turtle soup in a Piccadilly
shop and, finding that neither
coupons nor ration books were
required, bought the lot and took
it in triumph back No. 10.
In describing Churchll’s
December 1944 flight to Greece in
the Official Biography, Volume VII,
Sir Martin Gilbert quotes Pierson
Dixon, from the Foreign Office,
who recalled a dinner of “turtle
soup, ham sandwiches and
whisky.”
Jack Fishman, in My Darling
Clementine, described a dinner for
WSC on 31 October 1950, where
275 Conservative politicians celebrated the 50th anniversary of
WSC’s election to Parliament:
“Each course traced his
Parliamentary life....Sherries, turtle
soup, and appetizers were named
after two of his constituencies.”
(Could one have been “Turtle Soup
Manchester North West”?)
kkk
Finally, there’s this: In
selecting dinner menus for the
Churchill Conference at
Williamsburg, Virginia in 1988, we
learned that WSC, during his visit
in 1946, had requested not turtle
soup but turtle itself—specifically
Maryland Diamondback Terrapin.
Colonial Williamsburg’s
archivist showed us a letter so
extraordinary that our then-executive director, Parker Lee, kept a
copy, which he has now forwarded
to us. It is necessary to edit from
the following excerpt a word that
is banned from civilized speech,
but since the writer was a southerner, readers may perhaps guess.
From: John N. Mackall, VicePresident, Davison Chemical Corp.,
Baltimore. To: John D. Green,
General Manager, Williamsburg
Restoration Inc., 11 March 1946
(excerpt)....
“Dear Mr. Green:
“Charlie Gillet called me to
say that you were having a dinner
for Mr. Churchill, and that he had
expressed a desire to have
Maryland Diamondback Terrapin.
He and I both agreed that the
world’s first citizen should have the
world’s first food if available, and
that it could easily be made available.
“Perhaps you do not know too
much of the Maryland Diamondback
Terrapin. The same Diamondback
appears in North Carolina, Georgia
and Florida. The North Carolina
Diamondbacks, called ‘sliders,’ are
only fit to feed to [deleted], and
the Georgia and Florida Diamondbacks are only fit to feed to pigs.
The difference is in the food they
eat.
“The Maryland Diamondback,
in its initial stages, lives exclusively on a diet of little soft shell
crabs. They ought to be good…but
commerce entered into it and
began to raise them in captivity,
and later from eggs, so that their
exclusive diet was crab shells and
dead crabs. Of course the worst
Maryland Diamondbacks are better
than the North Carolina or Georgia
or Florida Diamondbacks, but they
are still not first class.
“There are relatively few
people in Maryland who, in the raw
state, know the difference between
FINEST HOUR 146 / 25
a wild Diamondback
freshly caught, one fed
in captivity, or one raised
from eggs. Charlie Gillet
and I know the difference,
so when Mr. Churchill
wanted terrapin we were
confronted with finding wild
Diamondback that had never in
their lives eaten anything but little
soft shell crabs. We know most of
the people who have them, and it
was a simple matter to have
enough sent up.
“I had heard that when Mr.
Churchill visited Maryland for a
couple of weeks when he was
studying the battlefields of the
Civil War, he had eaten Maryland
Diamondback Terrapin, and that he
would be satisfied with none but
the best. Indeed any man who can
drink warm Vermouth before
breakfast, as I hear Mr. Churchill
does, ought to have something to
compensate for it. Maryland
Diamond Back seemed to be just
what he needed, and it was a
pleasure to get it for him and for
you.”
kkk
Editor’s
Note: The
Diamondback
(Malaclemys
terrapin) is
native to
coastal
swamps of
eastern and
southern
United States, ranging from Cape
Sable, Florida to Massachusetts.
After World War II it was hunted
almost to extinction, and although
not on the U.S. Endangered
Species List it is considered threatened or endangered by the states
of Delaware, Georgia, Louisiana,
Massachusetts, North Carolina,
Rhode Island and Virginia. It is the
state reptile of Maryland and
mascot of the University of
Maryland.
On the Admiralty yacht
Enchantress during his first
sojourn as First Lord (1911-15),
Churchill, an animal lover, once
took pity on turtles being held for
soup and ordered their release. It
seems likely that he would refrain
from dining on terrapin today! ,
Churchill on the Prairie:
The Short, Sweet
Life of Winston
Churchill College,
Pontiac, Illinois
PHILIP AND SUSAN LARSON
“F
ire sirens, factory whistles and church bells
would sound to kick off the Pontiac Chamber of
Commerce business fund drive for Winston
Churchill College.” Sounding your car horn was also recommended. The name Winston Churchill had found a
home on the broad prairies he had admired during his
American visits: central Illinois’ agrarian Livingston County,
population only 10,000. In 1966, its citizens founded the
only college ever named for Churchill in the United States.
This unlikely event makes an inspiring story.1
Rural Enterprise
Not content with the good life in a flourishing area,
community leaders perceived an education gap. Although
several schools were located in the general proximity, too
many students, they believed, were falling between the
cracks or needed a second chance. Either there was not
room in existing colleges, or their potential was diminished.
The solution was to found a private co-ed junior college
which would more fully nurture the individual and maximize his life potential.
Once the decision was made to found a college, the
community closed ranks to make it happen in the only way
they knew: independent action without government aid.
The project was an example of the can-do independence
and spirit of rural America. As Oscar Brissenden, retired
executive with the state Farm Bureau and a college founder
stated, “We talked about walking under our own power,
owning our own soul, paying our own way.…”2 During the
campaign for donations he liked to say: “Don’t give until it
hurts, give until it feels good.”
The Winston Churchill College (WCC) project
blended leaders with a mix of fine talent in education, business and the professions. Betty Lower was a Fulbright
Scholar who with her husband William taught at Pontiac
High School. Other principals included Mrs. Ray Westall;
Mrs. Lucile Goodrich; administrators and educators of the
Max Myers School; local businessmen Frank Leyman and
Duane Haas; bank president Myron Heins; dentist Russell
Morris; Illinois State University President Robert Bone; and
three lawyers: August Fellheimer, Sam Smith and Tom
Ewing, now a retired Congressman.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Mr. & Mrs. Larson head the Churchill Centre Chicagoland chapter and chaired the 2006 International Churchill Conference.
They wish to thank former U.S. Representative Tom Ewing, a prime mover in the founding and naming of Winston Churchill
College in 1966 and a tireless provider of contacts and interviews for this article.
FINEST HOUR 146 / 26
As the local paper stated, “the founding of the college
with their own money and effort—in the ‘blood, toil, tears
and sweat’ tradition—has brought Livingston Countians…
into close harmony and cooperation.”3
Why name the college for a far-off citizen of another
country? Because Churchill was considered “the outstanding
world statesman of our time.” Its founders hoped that “the
college will perpetuate his philosophy of individual freedom
and his ideals of courage and responsibility.”4
percent.6 About 1500 individuals or businesses contributed,
no donation higher than $6000. The “farmers gave 100 to
1000 bushels of corn or soybeans.”7 Caught up in the spirit,
local amateurs presented a play that netted $700. It was a
community effort: even local youngsters put on a play in a
garage, raising $7.26.8
The college physical plant occupied a vacated 1894
high school. With substantial renovation, ample space was
made ready for the opening on 25 September 1966. The
ABOVE: Pontiac is in rural illinois 100 miles southwest of Chicago, on the fabled Route U.S. 66, also
known as the “Will Rogers Road” and the “Main Street of America,” which ran between Chicago and
Los Angeles. Removed from the U.S. highways system in 1985, portions of it have since had a local
resurgence through state markers. OPPOSITE: The old main building of Winston Churchill College
was a former high school, built in 1894. Sold for the land, it was demolished and razed in 1971.
It was Tom Ewing who suggested Churchill’s name,
which was preferred over the first governor of the
Northwest Territory. The athletic teams were appropriately
christened the Bulldogs, to capture the tenacious spirit of
the wartime Churchill.5
Plan and Execution
The idea of founding a college from scratch was especially daunting. Such a venture needed expertise and money
to move off the dream stage into reality. It began in mid1964 with Dr. Raymond Dooley, president of nearby
Lincoln College, exploring the idea of a private junior
college in the area. Local folk took charge, creating a board
of regents, which generated wide community support.
Questions needed to be answered such as fund raising,
physical plant, administration, faculty, student enrollment
and marketing. With Churchillian spirit, the citizens
charged ahead.
The fund-raising campaign blossomed, raising
$150,000. Miraculously, fund-raisers Brissenden and
Leyman kept the administration expenses to under one
community was a wonderful source for contributions of
time and materials. The college president’s walnut desk was
provided by a local editor and a special appeal brought in
thousands of books. Tom Ewing put out a call for five
matching chandeliers for the main entrance.9
Recruiting for administration and faculty came mostly
from the area. Dr. Andreas Paloumpis, an Illinois State
University professor, was named Winston Churchill
College’s first president. Three deans were added who
doubled up to teach, along with ten other teachers. Now on
the fast track, student enrollment started in February 1966
and grew to 184 at the opening. Particularly helpful was a
June Articulation conference, allowing transfer of credits to
four-year colleges.10
Marketing was aided by the name of Winston
Churchill, which strongly resonated with a public fully
aware of the great man’s achievements, made even more
intense by his recent passing. Word was spread with ads and
brochures bearing such slogans as “One college concerned
with one student at a time” and “Many a door is closed to
thousands! But [not ours].”11 >>
FINEST HOUR 146 / 27
EARLY SUCCESSES:
Promotional material for the mid-Sixties
fund-raising campaign, admissions policy flyer,
program for the first Commencement, and the first edition of the
Winston Churchill College Yearbook, The Squire, 1966-67.
WINSTON CHURCHILL COLLEGE...
As part of the marketing strategy, the college created a
Churchill Room inside the main entrance: “the first institution with archives devoted exclusively to Churchill
memorabilia” in the United States. Many key individuals
were solicited for historic contributions. Clementine
Churchill wrote, “I feel honoured that the city of Pontiac
should wish to remember my husband…”12
U.S. Representative Leslie Arends contacted former
President Dwight Eisenhower, who contributed a moving
1951 Churchill signed letter: “My dear Ike…with all my
heart, believe me your comrade and friend.”13 Senator Adlai
Stevenson III donated the original speech his father gave at
the Churchill memorial service in Washington, D.C. in
1965. Joyce Hall of Hallmark Cards sent a folio of
Churchill prints. Philatelic contributions took on a special
significance when Jennifer Toombs, the British artist who
designed the British Commonwealth Churchill “omnibus”
commemoratives, sent over some of her original art.14 A
magnificent Churchill bust by the sculptor Robert Merrell
Gage was placed on a plinth inside the main entrance.
Five Happy Years
In just two years the Pontiac community had accomplished a major undertaking. The official dedication and
installation of the first president started with an academic
processional accompanied by the Pontiac High School
band. A color guard led seventy-three official delegates from
their respective schools, headed by Harvard as the oldest.
British Consul-General Douglas Robey offered greetings.15
A vital part of Winston Churchill College was the
500-member Guild, whose activities included fund-raising,
clerical assistance, library support and student aid. Their
160-page WCC Cook Book began with a jubilant introduction “…someone dared to ‘dream the impossible
dream’...but the doubters didn’t reckon on the people who
make up Livingston County!” The shop the Guild created is
still in business.
Extracurricular programs were ambitious and productive. The mixed chorus, under Betty Lower, grew to over a
third of the college population. The Churchill College
Players provided an exciting dramatic program directed by
William Lower. Their ambitious schedule included productions of Mr. Roberts, Inherit the Wind, Brigadoon and
Oklahoma.16 Sports focused on basketball and golf. The
“Bulldog” basketball team finished 10-12 in the first year,
but were 14-7 by the fourth.17
End of the Dream
Alas, Winston Churchill College wasn’t destined to
survive. As the yearbook noted in 1969: “The burgeoning
state junior college system has caused considerable decline
in all private college and university enrollments.”18 Also,
WCC accreditation was conditioned on certain advanced
degrees being required after five years, which involved large
additional expenses. And—crucially—no endowment had
been built up.
Enrollment had risen to 255, but the final downward
spiral saw attendance falling drastically and finances with it.
With Churchillian spirit, the board tried to fight back,
“contacting practically all the individuals of the county and
surrounding area,” but to little avail.19
Oscar Brissenden recalled the sale of assets in 1971:
The auctioneer was “wearing a straw hat and drawling like
Johnny Cash. But it was like a funeral for me, and when
they got to the forty-four choir robes yesterday I couldn’t
take it any more and had to leave.”20 The Board settled the
college’s debts and the doors closed forever. No public
funds were ever needed.
Sadly, the grand old 1894 building had outlived any
useful purpose and needed significant structural repairs, and
the local public schools were already operational. Pontiac’s
McCoy Construction purchased the building and land. The
decision was made to auction whatever there was to sell of
the building features: molding, bricks, light fixtures. Once
the building was dismantled, it was razed. The dormitory
FINEST HOUR 146 / 28
building, purpose-built for Churchill College in the mid1960s, was converted to apartments and survives today.
Despite the sudden end, there were defining moments
to remember. Winston Churchill College had provided education for 800 students, mostly from the area. There were
fond memories of activities like “Spring Fever Day,” with
student games like tug-of-war, kite flying and raft competition. The College had changed many people’s lives at an
early and pivotal age. One student felt it was the turning
point in his life. Another admits having had no direction
before entering Winston Churchill College; he recently
received an Illinois House commendation at retirement after
thirty-one years of law enforcement.
At the last commencement, Bill Lower reflected, “the
students had diplomas, faculty had jobs, and citizens had
memories.” The community should never forget “Victories
are not in the consummation, but in the quest.”
Winston Churchill College had come to an honorable
conclusion. As its namesake said, paraphrasing Samuel
Johnson: “...courage is rightly esteemed the first of human
qualities because, as has been said, it is the quality which
guarantees all others.”21
The short, sweet life of Winston Churchill College
demonstrated many of the great man’s ideals. “Blood, toil,
tears and sweat” on the prairies of Illinois forged a better
life for students who might otherwise have missed a priceless opportunity to prove themselves. The honor of the day
was won by a hardworking community. Winston Churchill
College was the proof of their fortitude. ,
Endnotes
1. Pontiac Daily Leader, 31 July 1970.
2. Chicago Tribune, 25 September 1966.
3. Pantagraph, Bloomington, Illinois, 23 January
1966.
4. Chicago Tribune, 25 September 1966.
5. Pontiac Daily Leader, 25 August 1966.
6. Chicago Tribune, 26 June 1966.
7. Chicago Tribune, 25 September 1966.
8. Chicago Tribune, 26 June 1966.
9. Pantagraph, 23 January 1966.
10. The Squire, the WCC Yearbook, 1966-67.
11. WCC brochures.
12. Clementine Churchill to WCC, 6 January 1966.
13. Chicago Tribune, 25 September 1966.
14. Pontiac Daily Leader, 20 April 1966.
15. Pontiac Daily Leader, 3 November 1966.
16. The Squire, 1968-69.
17. The Squire, 1966-67.
18. Pantagraph, 1 May 1971.
19. Pontiac Daily Leader, 23 July 1970.
20. Chicago Tribune, 26 July 1971.
21. Winston S. Churchill, “Alfonso the Unlucky,”
Strand Magazine, July 1931; reprinted in Great
Contemporaries (London: Thornton Butterworth, 1937),
137. Richard M. Langworth, ed., Churchill By Himself
(London: Ebury Press, 2008), 14.
BELOW: The authors; Robert Merrell Gage’s bust which stood inside the main entrance; former
Fulbright scholar Betty Lower, who led the WCC Chorus; and former U.S. Representative Tom
Ewing,who proposed the school’s name. RIGHT: WCC’s highly appropriate sports emblem.
FINEST HOUR 146 / 29
125-100-75-50 YEARS AGO
125 years ago
Spring 1885 • Age 10
“Gladstone is a brute”
by Michael McMenamin
W
inston was enjoying his new
school and was no longer at the
bottom of his class, but neither was
he at the top. The best showing he
could make was fourth out of ten in
English, Classics and French. In
Conduct, he continued dead last
among the twenty-nine pupils.
In April, he wrote to his father
describing the enthusiasm about
Lord Randolph’s prospects for
becoming Prime Minister: “I have
been out riding with a gentleman
who thinks that Gladstone is a brute
and thinks that ‘the one with the
curly moustache ought to be
Premier.’ The driver of the Electric
Railway said ‘that Lord R. Churchill
would be Prime Minister.’”
Churchill asked his father “to
sign your name in full at the end of
your letter” because “everybody
wants your autograph.” Winston did
not disclose that he was selling his
father’s autographs to his classmates! He apparently didn’t tell his
mother either, for he was looking to
expand his product line. He wrote
her in May that his father had sent a
half dozen autographs which he was
distributing. “Everybody wanted
one,” he wrote, adding: “I should like
you to send me a few of yours too.”
100 Years Ago
Spring 1910 • Age 35
“Winston thinks with his mouth”
A
s the new Home Secretary,
Churchill had responsibility over
a wide variety of subjects. In the
official biography, Randolph Churchill
listed strikes, prison reform,
women’s suffrage, accidents in
mines, the “Siege of Sidney Street,”
the Shops Act and Early Closing Bill,
the Aliens Bill and a letter to the
King on House of Commons activity.
Churchill had frequently been
the target of suffragettes disrupting
his campaign speeches in the recent
election, and was nearly pushed in
front of an oncoming train during
one such disturbance. Yet he
believed in women’s suffrage “in
principle.” He had written in April to
the Secretary of a non-party
Conciliation Committee headed by
Lord Lytton (husband of his first
love, the former Pamela Plowden):
“I am...anxious to see women
relieved in principle from a disability
which is injurious to them whilst it is
based on grounds of sex.”
The main political battle was
over the veto power of the House of
Lords over bills passed by the
Commons. The Liberal Party, having
campaigned on the theme of “The
Peers versus the People,” had seen
their majority whittled to only two
votes over the Tories. But Churchill
continued to advocate privately to
Prime Minister Asquith that “The
time has come for the total abolition
of the House of Lords.”
Asquith did not take Churchill’s
advice and had once written to an
acquaintance that “Winston thinks
with his mouth.” Instead, in March,
he proposed three reforms: end the
Lords’ power to award or reject a
“money bill” (including the government’s budget, the Lords veto of
which had led to the January, 1910
election); limiting the Lords’ power
to reject other legislation to two
years (this was used to pass an Irish
Home Rule Bill several years later);
and reducing the maximum life of a
Parliament from seven years to five.
Speaking in favor of Asquith’s
proposals on 31 March, WSC said:
It is not merely a question of
regularizing the financial situation. It is more than that,
because there is a great series
of democratic taxes which constitute the policy of the
Budget; and they form not
FINEST HOUR 146 / 30
merely the barrier which we
erect against a Protectionist
system, but they are the actual
gage of battle with the House
of Lords….I always hesitate to
embark upon the domain of
prophecy, but I frankly say that
I believe at the proper time, in
the proper manner, and under
proper circumstances we shall
succeed in carrying both the
Veto and the Budget to the
steps of the Throne.
Churchill’s “prophecy” proved
correct. The Budget was passed by
the Commons on 27 April by a vote
of 324-231, and the Lords gave their
assent a few hours later.
Seventy-Five Years Ago
Spring 1935 • Age 60
“I long to be folded in your arms”
M
artin Gilbert’s official biography
recounts the conclusion of
Clementine’s six-month voyage to
the South Seas, in the company of
Terence Philip, a 42-year-old bachelor. Churchill wrote to her on 13
April that “On the whole since you
have been away, the only great thing
that has happened has been that
Germany is now the greatest armed
power in Europe…Rothermere [the
anti-appeasement press lord] rings
me up every day; His anxiety is
pitiful. He thinks the Germans are all
powerful and that the French are
corrupt and useless, and the English
hopeless and doomed. He proposes
to meet this situation by groveling to
Germany. I endeavour to inculcate a
more robust attitude.”
He added: “You will find me waiting
for you at Dover pier….I think a lot
about you my darling Pussie…and
rejoice that we have lived our lives
together; and have still some years
of expectation in this pleasant vale. I
have been sometimes a little
depressed about politics and would
have liked to be comforted by you….I
have not grudged you yr long excursion; but now I do want you back.”
A week later, upon reaching
Suez, Clemmie responded: “Oh my
Darling Winston. The Air Mail is just
flitting & I send you this like John
the Baptist to prepare the way
before me, to tell you I love you &
that I long to be folded your arms.”
The next day, Churchill drafted
a long memorandum on Germany’s
increasing air superiority, which he
said contributed to Hitler’s “confident
attitude.” The Luftwaffe, he wrote,
was regarded by Germans as
the instrument by which
Germany will regain dominance
in Europe….The conclusions
which cannot be avoided are
that the Government have
allowed themselves to be mistaken in their estimate of British
and German strength at particular dates; and that the
statements made by Ministers
in Parliament are wrong, are
admitted to be wrong, and will
be proved still more grievously
wrong with every month that
passes. The German superiority,
already large, will now grow
upon all counts with progressive
speed, to an extent determinable only by the decisions of
the German Government.”
Churchill sent copies of his note to
Prime Minister MacDonald, Tory
leader Stanley Baldwin, and Air
Minister Lord Londonderry. They fell
on unfertile ground.
In early May came an indirect
exchange of views between Hitler
and Churchill via Lord Rothermere.
Urging an Anglo-German “understanding,” much as he had done in
his autobiography Mein Kampf, Hitler
wrote:
All the so-called mutual-assistance pacts which are being
hatched today will subserve
discord rather than peace. An
Anglo-German understanding
would form in Europe a force
for peace and reason of 120
million people of the highest
type. The historically unique
colonial ability and sea-power
of England would be united to
one of the greatest soldierraces of the world. Were this
understanding extended by the
joining-up of the American
nation, then it would, indeed,
be hard to see who in the
world could disturb peace
without willfully and consciously neglecting the
interests of the White race.
Despite the blandishments and
temptation, Churchill saw the implications of Hitler’s offer, writing to
Rothermere:
If his proposal means that we
should come to an understanding with Germany to
dominate Europe, I think this
would be contrary to the whole
of our history. You know the old
fable of the jackal who went
hunting with the tiger and what
happened after the hunt was
over. Thus Elizabeth resisted
Philip II of Spain. Thus William
III and Marlborough resisted
Louis XIV. Thus Pitt resisted
Napoleon, and thus we all
resisted William II of Germany.
Only by taking this path and
effort have we preserved ourselves and our liberties and
reached our present position. I
see no reason myself to change
from this traditional view.
However, I think a reasonable
answer to Hitler would be that
his plans of an Anglo-German
understanding would be most
agreeable provided they
included France and gave fair
consideration to Italy. Perhaps
you will consider this.
In the defense debate on 22
May, Stanley Baldwin admitted that
in his speech six months earlier on
German and British air strength, he
had been “completely wrong.”
Churchill suggested a secret session,
as in 1917, to discuss defense issues
“without our conversation being
FINEST HOUR 146 / 31
heard by all Europe.” Baldwin did not
respond.
Fifty Years Ago
Spring 1960 • Age 85
“The greatest living human being”
C
hurchill brought twenty-three
books with him on his cruise in
the West Indies aboard Onassis’s
yacht Christina. Among then were
Graham Greene’s A Gun for Sale and
Jack London’s Call of the Wild, the
latter recalling a youthful Churchill’s
attraction to the adventure novels of
H. Rider Haggard.
When Churchill arrived at the
island of Martinique, he met author
Herman Wouk, who later was to
write The Winds of War and War and
Remembrance. In his diary, Wouk
wrote that “I saw the greatest living
human being of our time, a man who
will stand with Caesar and Napoleon
when the years have rolled away.”
In May, Churchill agreed to his
son Randolph’s request to be named
his official biographer. While the relationship between father and son had
been tumultuous, WSC was convinced of Randolph’s ability through
his recent biography of Lord Derby.
His only stipulation was that nothing
be published until ten years after his
death. Randolph wrote his father:
Your letter has made me proud
and happy. Since I first read
your life of your father, thirtyfive years ago when I was a
boy of fourteen at Eton, it has
always been my greatest ambition to write your life. And each
year that has passed since this
ambition first started in my
mind, has nurtured it as your
heroic career has burgeoned.
When the time comes, you may
be sure that I shall lay all else
aside and devote my declining
years exclusively to what will
be a pious, fascinating and I
suppose, a remunerative task.
Thank you again from the
bottom of my heart for a decision which, apart from what I
have already said, adds a good
deal to my self-esteem and
will, I trust, enable to me to do
honour in filial fashion, to your
extraordinarily noble and wonderful life. ,
Memories of the Yalta Conference
Livadia Revisited
DAVID DRUCKMAN
F
rom Sevastopol on the Crimean
Peninsula, our bus meandered the
shores of the Black Sea for 100
miles, passing battlefields of the 1855
Crimean War, including the famous
Balaklava. On the left were churches,
stretching along the high cliffs. On the
right were dachas, sanatoriums and
palaces, including Vorontzov Palace,
where Churchill stayed during those
fateful days of the Yalta Conference with
Stalin and Roosevelt on 4-11 February 1945.
The Vorontzov is a large villa built between 1828 and
1846, designed by the English architect Edward Blorean for
the Prince Vorontsov, the Czar’s ambassador to Britain. The
entire Crimean area had been evacuated by the Germans
just eleven months earlier.1 Churchill’s villa
was twenty minutes from Livadia, not the
five minutes he mentions in his war
memoirs.2 Beyond the buildings on the
right of the highway is the beautiful warm,
sunlit and blue Black Sea. Very unlike its
appearance in 1945, today’s Yalta is a
seaside resort where in summer the population jumps from 80,000 to 1,200,000.
We chugged up a twisty road to
reach Livadia, 3 km. above Yalta. The
Palace is smaller than I anticipated, its two floors containing
only seventeen rooms, not counting the czar’s church
nearby. Four rooms on the first floor were used for the conference. The rest are refurnished with belongings of the
Romanov dynasty, and are of historical interest themselves.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Mr. Druckman and his wife Arlyne, of Tucson and Chicago, travel the world in search of Churchill. His previous articles appeared in
FH 47 (South Africa), FH 90 (Gallipoli), FH 129 (Lady Randolph’s birthplace, Brooklyn) and FH 132 (Schloss Cecilienhof, Potsdam).
FINEST HOUR 146 / 32
TOP: The Livadia the Czar knew was extensively altered after 1918. ABOVE: The Romanovs, murdered by the Soviets on 17 July 1918. From left,
Grand Duchesses Olga and Maria, Czarina Alexandra Feodorovna, Grand Duchess Anastasia, Czarevich Alexei, Grand Duchess Tatiana. Remains
found separately from the rest were identified in 2008 by forensic scientists as those of Maria and Alexei (circled). There is no truth to stories that
Anastasia survived, although the separate remains may have been hers rather than the similarly-sized Maria’s. At right, Nicholas II must have looked
out upon the surrounding hills from this vantage point. BELOW: The “White Palace” from the air, Yalta’s splendid location on the Crimean Peninsula
(now in Ukraine), and Vorontsov Palace, Churchill’s residence during the Yalta conference, overlooking the Black Sea, twenty minutes from Livadia.
‘
Livadia was built in 1910 and 1911 in Italian
Renaissance style as a summer palace for the Czar, but he
used it only four times before World War I arrived and
ended his reign. After the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917,
the “White Palace” was converted to a sanatorium; but
when President Nixon visited the USSR in 1974, it was
restored to its former glory and opened finally to visitors.
Presumably the Russians cleaned it up for the 1945 conference, although they hadn’t much time after the Germans
left the year before.
The Black Sea can easily been seen across the carefully
groomed gardens. If one wishes, one can climb down to the
sea from the Palace. Today, only 30 meters from the
building were a dozen tables with souvenirs and clothing—
free enterprise has come to Ukraine. And Livadia has gone
digital: there’s an internet chatroom, and excellent pictures
are available on its website.3
Before our visit, we had made arrangements with a
local guide to present an illustrated edition of Churchill’s
The World Crisis to a palace executive. Soon after our >>
FINEST HOUR 146 / 33
ABOVE: Lynn Druckman, left, presents a Scribner illustrated edition
of The World Crisis to Prokopova Ludmila, center. BELOW: The
author, right, with Ukrainian guides in the Churchill Library, usually
closed to the public, which was kindly opened for our visit.
ABOVE: The Italian Courtyard, location of the Big Three press
photos (page 22) and movie sets. BELOW: One of many gardens
outside of palace with view of deep sapphire-colored Black Sea.
LIVADIA REVISITED...
arrival we were met by Prokopova Ludmila, Manager of
Scientific Department of the Romanov Dynasty, and her
staff. Our tour guide translated as my wife made the presentation on behalf of ourselves and The Churchill Centre.
Thirty people on the tour crowded around, and the expression on Ms. Ludmila’s face conveyed her pleasure.
Indeed she was so touched that she unexpectedly
opened the 300-square-foot Churchill Library for all of us.
Usually restricted to researchers, it is lined with bookcases. I
recognized many of the volumes, not only by WSC but by
members of his family including Mary Soames, Winston
Churchill and Celia Sandys.
On the right as we entered the vestibule is the largest
room in the palace, the 700 square foot White Hall
Meeting Room. Here the Big Three met daily around a
cramped round table, three meters in diameter, now exhibited in the vestibule. Of the seventeen wooden chairs, three
had leather seats and backs, supposedly for Stalin, Roosevelt
and Churchill. Nearby is the Czar’s English Billiard Room,
where the Yalta documents were signed.
The State Reception Room was Roosevelt’s study, and
talks on the Far East were held here. A famous photo of the
Big Three is also on display. Outside, near the entrance, is
the Italian Courtyard, which has been pictured in several
films: The Manger, Anna Karenina, The Gadfly and a film
production of Othello.
We expressed our appreciation to Prokopova Ludmila
and her staff for their hospitality, which was warmly reciprocated, and to our local guide who made the arrangements.
They were proud to show us what they have created here, to
recognize Churchill’s contributions to the allied victory. The
tour group, mainly comprising older Germans and South
Africans, was respectful, quiet and interested.
Unlike the Yalta Conference itself, which resulted in
many unfulfilled Soviet promises leading to the onset of the
Cold War, this portion of our Ukrainian river cruise, along
the Dneiper River and the Black Sea, was a fine success, and
we were pleased to have visited the historic site firsthand. ,
Endnotes
1. See http://alupka.russian-women.net and Winston
S. Churchill, The Second World War, 6 vols., Vol V,
Closing the Ring (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company,
1951), 246-47.
2. Winston S. Churchill, The Second World War, Vol.
VI, Triumph and Tragedy (Boston: Houghton Mifflin
Company, 1953), 357.
3. See the official website of the Livadia Palace at
http://www.galenfrysinger.com/livadia_palace_crimea.htm.
FINEST HOUR 146 / 34
ABOVE: The Palace vestibule, the first room after entering palace, now contains the round conference table around which
the fate of the postwar world was debated and decided in February, 1945. The leather chair at right is one of three provided
for the heads of government: Truman, Stalin and Churchill. BELOW: Plenary sessions were held in the largest room in the
Livadia Palace, the White Hall. Here the attendees and their staffs gathered; Roosevelt is on the right side of the center
photograph. Today, the White Hall conains display cases with classic photographs of the historic conference.
ABOVE: Display cases in the respective rooms of Roosevelt and Stalin display books and artifacts, including Roosevelt’s
teacup, left. Two of Churchil’s late war speech volumes flank his History of the English-Speaking Peoples; at right is Jack
Fishman’s quotation book, If I Lived My Life Again. BELOW: Roosevelt’s study; the Conference agreement was signed here.
FINEST HOUR 146 / 35
CHURCHILLIANA
“These Are a Few of
My Favourite Things”
4
DOUGLAS HALL
A
ll collectors are asked about their
favourite piece of Churchilliana— a difficult question. From a vast
assemblage, how can we single out a single
winner? I usually reply in the words of
Thomas Gray—“A fav’rite has no
friend!”—and invite my questioner to
follow Kipling’s counsel: “Each to his
choice.” A wide assortment is selected, and
in most cases I am happy to concur. Here
are the six most frequently cited items.
1
1. Kirklands 1939 “Back to the
Admiralty” character jug. Finely sculpted
if rather enigmatic, it was represented as a
ship’s figurehead wreathed in bow waves. A
coloured vesion was also produced, but the
almost classic beauty of the plain white
version is always preferred.
2. Wilkinsons 1941 Churchill Toby.
Perhaps the voting is influenced by Clarice
Cliff’s signature underneath, or by fascination with the theory that the jug was in fact
a World War I holdover. But there is always
agreement that this is a superb toby jug,
arguably the best of the genre.
2
3
3. Spode 1965 Churchill Vase.
Commissioned by Thomas Goode & Co.
Ltd. in an edition of only 125, it is finished
in rich crimson embellished with gold and
inscribed on the reverse, “He expressed the
unconquerable spirit of the nation,” with a
long quotation from his most famous
wartime speech. A superb memorial, it cost
£125 when issued but cannot now be
touched for ten times that or more.
4. Paragon China 1974 Centenary Cigar
Casket. Lavishly decorated in cobalt blue
and gold with the Churchill Coat of Arms,
speech quotations and cameos of Blenheim
Palace and Chartwell, it has a silhouette of
FINEST HOUR 146 / 36
5
Churchill surrounded
by his honours inside
the lid, and is lined
with cedar wood.
5. Keith Lee 1981
Bronze Figure. A
foot-tall representation
of Churchill in the
“Wilderness Years,”
issued to tie-in with
the Thames TV series
starring Robert Hardy
as WSC, this was the
audience choice at my
Churchilliana lecture
on the 1996 Churchill
Tour. Only 250 were
produced. Another example is in the White
House art collection. See, they haven’t disposed of all their Churchill bronze!
6. Kevin Francis
1989 “Spirit of
Britain” Toby.
Designed by
Peggy Davies
after her retirement from Royal
Doulton, where
she had been
senior modeller
for forty years, it
is inscribed on
the base, Tantum
Mirabile Est (So
Much is Owed”),
It incorportates a copy of A History of the
English-Speaking Peoples and the British
lion marked Ego fremitum praevui (I provided the roar). Beautifully sculpted and
decorated, this toby jug commemorated the
fiftieth anniversary of the outbreak of
World War II in September 1939. ,
6
Books, A rts
& Curiosities
Hooligan, Carnivore and Rogue Elephant
PIERS BRENDON
Finest Years: Churchill as Warlord
1940-45, by Max Hastings. Harper
Press, hardbound, illus., 664 pp.,
$60. Member price $48. Available
from Amazon UK for £15.
T
his volume is dedicated to the
memory of Roy Jenkins, who
invited Max Hastings to help with his
2001 biography of Churchill (reviewed
in FH 114).
As Hastings recounts in his
introduction, Jenkins became so exasperated by his many critical comments
that he eventually sent him packing,
saying that he should write his own
book. This dramatic portrait of
Churchill’s war leadership is the result
and, ironically, it is vastly superior to
Jenkins’s overrated work. That was
little more than a digest of Sir Martin
Gilbert’s gigantic official Life and it
depicted Churchill as a bland, winebibbing Whig, much like Jenkins
____________________________________
Piers Brendon is a Fellow at Churchill
College Cambridge and was Keeper of
the Churchill Archives Centre.
himself. Hastings presents him more
convincingly as a ruthless, brandygulping Tory with the fire and the guts
to beat Hitler.
It is true that Jenkins was on
automatic pilot by the time he came to
create his own image of Sir Winston:
his writing was flaccid; he never set
foot in the Churchill Archives Centre
in Cambridge, a treasure trove of
unpublished material; and he failed to
appreciate the worth of Churchill as
hooligan, carnivore and rogue elephant.
By contrast, Hastings’s efficient soldierly prose marches along at a brisk
pace and carries the reader with it. He
has drawn on copious original sources
and consulted experts familiar with
them, enabling him to cast fresh light
on familiar episodes. And the burden
of his story is that Churchill, with all
his rash impulses and wild judgements,
embodied a war spirit too often lacking
in his countrymen.
Churchill’s first and crucial
triumph was to keep Britain in the war
as France collapsed under the German
Blitzkrieg in the spring of 1940.
Weighing up the odds, cabinet ministers such as Lord Halifax favoured a
negotiated peace with Hitler. Hastings
rightly says that Churchill discussed the
proposal (something not recorded in
his war memoirs) because the old
appeasers might have ousted him if he
had seemed “irrationally intransigent.”
But there is no escaping
Churchill’s fierce determination to
fight. He got rid of Halifax as soon as
possible and rejected any deal to let the
Third Reich engage in single, mutually
destructive combat with the Soviet
FINEST HOUR 146 / 37
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
Union. Some historians assert that he
could thus have saved the British
Empire. Hastings responds unanswerably that a bargain with Hitler would
have been not only a blunder but a
crime.
In what was his own as well as
his country’s finest hour, Churchill’s
achievement was to inspire the nation
and to animate its armed forces with
his own will to win. He managed the
first, of course, by “mobilising the
English language and sending it into
battle.” The second was more difficult,
despite the Luftwaffe’s failure in the
Battle of Britain and Wavell’s successes
against the Italians in Africa at the end
of the year. This was because, as the
chaotic evacuations from Dunkirk and
Brittany showed, the British army was
no match for the Wehrmacht, or, later,
for Japanese troops. Hastings reveals in
humiliating detail the shortcomings of
bone-headed brass hats with memories
of the Somme, and Tommies whose
training was as bad as their equipment.
And he shows how Churchill, for all
his energy, imagination and pugnacity,
was seldom able to distil victory from
Britain’s “torpid military culture.”
Being human, Churchill’s own
record was far from being perfect.
Hastings compiles a remorseless
(though not exhaustive) catalogue of
his errors, which were usually those of
a subaltern of hussars impatient to
make the enemy bleed and burn.
Churchill dissipated Allied strength in
the Mediterranean by supporting
Greece in 1941 and later by engaging
in a futile struggle for the Dodecanese.
He had a compulsion to capture irrelevant islands, from Pantelleria to
Sumatra, and to mount amphibious
operations, such as the disastrous 1942
Dieppe Raid. Luckily his scheme for
landings in northern Norway was
aborted—General Ismay feared an
“Arctic Gallipoli.”
Churchill encouraged cloak-anddagger operations to set occupied
Europe ablaze, though they were
usually damp squibs which provoked
ferocious Nazi reprisals. He clung to
the costly Italian strategy and dithered
over the Normandy invasion. Despite
his humane instincts, he connived at
what Hastings calls “the undoubted
excesses of the bomber offensive.”
Moreover Churchill neglected to plan
for a better postwar society, which
probably cost him the 1945 election.
Confronting present perils, he simply
could not look to the future, though he
did once wonder if heaven were a constitutional monarchy, “in which case
there was always a possibility that the
Almighty might have occasion to send
for him.”
On the other hand, Churchill
never made a war-losing mistake. He
possessed incomparable strategic vision:
almost from the first he forecast that
Hitler would “recoil eastwards” and he
proposed to “drag” the United States
into the conflict. In spite of his antiBolshevik sentiments, he embraced
Stalin when Germany invaded the
Soviet Union. Whether his ardent
wooing of Roosevelt would have made
America a belligerent if the Japanese
had not bombed Pearl Harbor remains
doubtful. But Churchill played a vital
role in focussing transatlantic attention
on defeating Germany first.
By delaying D-Day until 1944 he
and Roosevelt ensured that the Red
Army did most of the fighting. This
resulted in the Communist domination
of eastern Europe, which WSC could
not prevent. Yet he remained one of the
“Big Three” even though the British
lion was dwarfed by the American
buffalo and the Russian bear. Reflecting
on the “sustained magnificence” of
Churchill’s performance, Hastings concludes that he was “probably the
greatest actor upon the stage of affairs
whom the world has ever known.”
Hyperbole or not, Hastings
himself turns in a magnificent performance. Naturally there are niggles. He
spells Freyberg, one of Churchill’s
favourite generals, wrongly throughout.
He says that Stalin had only three
English phrases, which he deployed at
Yalta, whereas they were almost certainly designed to conceal some real
grasp of the language. Furthermore
Hastings deals perfunctorily with the
Empire, which was a mixed blessing for
Britain and a major bone of contention
between Churchill and Roosevelt.
Nevertheless, in a crowded field, this is
one of the best books ever written
about Winston Churchill. ,
Putting Canards to Rest
DAVID FREEMAN
Churchill, by Paul Johnson. Viking,
hardbound, 182 pp., $24.95,
Amazon $14.58. Member price $20.
I
n the last decade, a plethora of wellestablished scholars have produced
Churchill biographies. The conservative
British historian Paul Johnson joins the
ranks with an unabashedly positive
interpretation. Although written for the
general reader, Johnson does presume
some previous acquaintance with the
subject, for he aims to set down a very
personal assessment of someone he
regards highly. Despite getting crossed
up on a few minor details (misspelling
the name of Emery Reves, calling
Brendan Bracken a Canadian; asserting
that WSC personally authorized the
destruction of Dresden) Johnson has
mastered the controversies in
Churchill’s life and delivers his judgment on these subjects. The result is a
brisk, no-nonsense analysis that readers
of Finest Hour should find to be a
refreshing change from the lugubrious
stream of meretricious alternatives.
____________________________________
Professor Freeman teaches British history at
California State University Fullerton.
FINEST HOUR 146 / 38
At the age of seventeen, Johnson
had the good fortune to encounter
Churchill and ask him a question: “Sir,
to what do you attribute your success in
life?” Without hesitation, WSC replied:
“Conservation of energy. Never stand
up when you can sit down, and never
sit down when you can lie down.”
These personal touches enliven
the book. Johnson, for instance, provides his own calculations as to the
number of Churchill’s published words
including speeches (8-10 million; the
real number is 15 million) and the
number of times Churchill came under
fire (about fifty). He also offers his
view that Churchill’s character owed
more to the influence of his mother
Jennie than his father Randolph.
What strikes home, though, are
Johnson’s curt dismissals of the many
spurious charges laid upon Churchill’s
legacy. Churchill was never a warmonger, he writes; nor was he a heavy
drinker. He loved the procedure of
cigar smoking more than the smoking
itself. On more substantial issues,
Johnson disputes that Churchill’s decision as Chancellor of the Exchequer to
return Britain to the Gold Standard in
1925 was a mistake. On the contrary,
Johnson argues, the move forced a
switch from old, low-productivity
industries to new ones which provided
the very technologies such as avionics
and radar that enabled victory in the
war. On the 1938 Munich Agreement,
Johnson not surprisingly backs the
“time lost” rather than “time gained”
argument, a military benefit to Hitler.
At the heart of the book is the
Second World War. Here Johnson
poses questions: “Did Churchill personally save Britain? Was his leadership
essential to its survival and eventual >>
REVIEWS
CHURCHILL BY JOHNSON...
victory?” After citing ten reasons to
support his argument (see “Blankley on
Churchill,” page 8), the conclusion he
reaches is a resounding “Yes.”
Johnson’s take on the more disputatious of wartime decisions is much
the opposite of Hastings (previous
review). He testifies, as one who lived
through the era, that the strategic
bombing campaign was “the most
popular of all Churchill’s initiations.”
It kept up public morale and did in
fact make an important contribution to
the destruction of the German war
machine. WSC’s diverting British
forces from North Africa to Greece in
1941 forced Hitler to postpone the
invasion of the Soviet Union by several
crucial weeks. This led to the German
failure to take Moscow or Leningrad
before winter, dooming Hitler’s campaign. On this point, Johnson
decisively refutes the preposterous
thesis that Churchill delayed D-Day.
Instead, Churchill rightly “insisted that
D-day should not take place until overwhelming strength was established and
there was a near certitude of success.”
Johnson concludes: “Of all the
towering figures of the twentieth
century, both good and evil, Winston
Churchill was the most valuable to
humanity, and also the most likeable. It
is a joy to write about his life and to
read about it.” It is indeed. ,
Churchill’s Wit: A Double-Edged Sword
WARREN F. KIMBALL
The Definitive Wit of Winston
Churchill, Richard M. Langworth,
ed. Public Affairs, 2009. 244 pages,
$19.95. Member price $16.
L
angworth has done us both a --aservice and a disservice with a
single book. This distillation from his
collection of quotes, Churchill By
Himself, takes the wittiest remarks,
reorders them a bit, and offers them as
a satisfying “tasting menu.” But (here
comes the other shoe), at the same
time he has given politicians and
speechwriters (often the same creature)
____________________________________
Professor Kimball is editor of the RooseveltChurchill Correspondence and many other
works on the two leaders and World War II.
an all too handy handbook. As a result,
we are likely to be inundated with a
new wave of Churchill quotes.
Aha, you say, who better to
quote? True, but the pols will still misquote, still misapply, and still miss the
reality that Churchill’s wit was routinely a double-edged sword.
Witness this: “Democracy is no
harlot to be picked up in the street by a
man with a tommy gun.” Fit that into
policies of many Churchill-quoting
national leaders.
On using nuclear weapons WSC
sarcastically remarked that “the argument is now put forward that we must
never use the atomic bomb until, or
unless, it has been used against us first.
In other words, you must never fire
until you have been shot dead.” Think
twice before you read that as Churchill
advocating preemptive nuclear strikes.
The appendix of “red herrings”
should be distributed to all pundits and
politicians who consistently and for
their own purposes attribute to WSC
things he never, and frequently never
would have, said. “Rum, buggery and
the lash” gets an all too decent burial.
Some truth in packaging warnings. As with Churchill by Himself,
indexing this sort of publication is
very difficult, as the editor admits ruefully. The quotations in Definitive Wit
FINEST HOUR 146 / 39
are short and punchy, the chapter
groupings work quite well. But nothing
substitutes for repeatedly sampling the
punch-lines and ripostes that come
under the rubric “wit.”
Which brings another warning.
Sampling will tempt readers to try to
divine Churchill’s personality and
thinking from retorts given in a society
that considered verbal “thrusts and
parries” a fine art. But so-called high
table humor is a game, not a memoir.
By definition, these quips lack
context, although the editor tries his
best with deft though brief notes. His
foreword admits to fearing that limiting the book to witticisms will cause
some to get WSC wrong: “Langworth
says Churchill thought of Russians as
‘baboons’ and Germans as ‘carnivorous
sheep.’...In fact, Churchill admired
Russians for valor and Germans for
ingenuity, among other things.”
The scope of the book inevitably
caused many witticisms from the
editor’s big book to be left out—like
the one about Spain’s Franco. WSC:
It is fashionable at the present time to
dwell on the vices of General Franco,
and I am therefore glad to place on
record this testimony to the duplicity
and ingratitude of his dealing with
Hitler and Mussolini. I shall presently
record even greater services which
these evil qualities in General Franco
rendered to the Allied cause.
Of course that’s just what the
British, including our boy, did by referring to Hitler as Herr Schicklgruber.
The difference is that Langworth put at
the end of this quote every one of the
man’s names: “Generalissimo Francisco
Paulino Hermenegildo Teodulo Franco
Bahamonde, Caudillo of Spain”—a
subtle jibe, probably lost on pedants
who think the editor was just being a
smarty pants.
Anyway, this is now my favorite
WSC statement. Sorry it didn’t make
the Definitive Wit—perhaps Franco’s
titles took up too many pages?
I intend to take this lovely little
book (it will go into paperback soon,
so it’s portable) and dig out of it the
perfect epigram for every speech I give
or chapter I write. ,
A Happy Family
TED HUTCHINSON
The Churchills: A Family Portrait,
by Celia and John Lee. Palgrave
Macmillan, hardbound, illus., 272
pages, $28, Member price $19.
M
any books have been written
about Winston Churchill’s
extended family, but The Churchills
has a surprisingly tight focus; it considers only what later generations
might call the “nuclear family” of Lord
Randolph Churchill, his wife Jennie,
and their two sons, Winston and Jack.
There is relatively little in the book
about the respective influences of the
long line of Marlboroughs on
Randolph’s side or the American blood
of Jennie (per A. L. Rowse’s twovolume work of decades ago) nor any
of the gossipy reporting evident in so
much writing about Winston’s children. Instead we have a relatively
straightforward book about two parents
raising their two boys, and how this
family influence led one of the boys to
becoming Prime Minister of Britain.
Authors Celia Lee and John Lee
focus hard on the Churchill brothers,
using a broad array of sources. Their
main source, however, is the reminiscences and papers of Peregrine
Churchill, Jack’s son. Peregrine was a
dedicated student of the history of his
family and felt strongly that, over the
years, myths had grown that were
____________________________________
Mr. Hutchinson is executive director of the
American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics,
and editor of the society’s journal.
untrue, and that Jack’s important role
in his brother’s life had gone underappreciated. The Lees were asked to help
Peregrine organize his papers for his
own work on the Churchill family, and
when he died in 2002, they were asked
to complete his work.
They have done yeoman work,
demonstrating the crucial role Jack
played, primarily through his hard
work and likeable, easygoing demeanor.
(It seems almost impossible to find a
contemporary with a bad thing to say
about him; it’s rather easier with
Winston.) From here they widen the
lens to examine their parents, and in
the process argue that this family was
much happier than even their strongest
defenders would have us believe.
The reasoning behind this argument is laid out in the interesting
“author’s note” that follows the main
text. They admit they are disputing the
notion that Randolph was an uncaring
and inattentive father. But they argue
that Randolph’s disappointment with
Winston can only be understood in the
context of his pleasure with Jack, who
was always pleasant and did everything
well. The Lees also make the broader
argument that Winston’s claim of his
parents ignoring him does not hold
water when one reads the full letters of
the entire family. (One realizes, for
example, that a parental letter to Jack
was meant to be read aloud to
Winston.) From the evidence, the
family was much tighter-knit than we
may have previously believed.
At times the Lees push their case
too far. By the end of the book one
supposes that Randolph was the most
loving, supportive, and faithful father
ever graced with children, thanks to the
somewhat selective use of quotations.
For instance, the Lees quote only
a small piece of Randolph’s reprehensible, well-known letter to Winston of
9 August 1892, warning him that he
might become a “social wastrel.” The
Lees also overstate matters by suggesting that this letter had the “desired
effect” of Winston doing well at
Sandhurst. His abilities were more naturally suited to Sandhurst then to his
previous schools, and he would have
likely done well there regardless. As I
FINEST HOUR 146 / 40
read it, Randolph’s letter had little
“desired effect,” other than to slap
down a son he found too exultant.
The book has much to say about
Jennie, and argues that rumors of her
many extramarital love affairs have
been greatly exaggerated. I couldn’t say
whether the Lees’ estimate of Jennie
having only a half-dozen lovers is accurate, but it is probably closer to the
mark than the 200 or more that are
sometimes rumored. They do make
some damning observations about
Jennie withholding rightfully-owed
monies to her sons, which prevented
Jack from achieving his dream of
attending university. If this is true it is
a serious stain on her character, but
otherwise Jennie, like Randolph, comes
off more loving and attentive in The
Churchills than she has in many other
family histories.
The Lees are probably the world’s
leading scholars on Jack Churchill, and
they demonstrate it clearly, providing a
full and nuanced portrait of this likeable and generous man. Jack’s loyalty,
love, and constant friendship was a
source of strength for Winston in even
his most trying days, and the authors
consider him one of the strongest supporters who kept the great man going,
standing side by side with a small
group that included Clementine, the
Churchill children, and a very select
group of their close friends.
Treatment of Winston is a little
more problematic. They insist that
Winston at times mistreated his kindly
brother (for instance, not thanking Jack
for his literary work on WSC’s books)
and not recognizing the sacrifices Jack
made for the family (such a taking a
job in the City that he despised).
Winston was not one to shirk giving
credit to collaborators on his books;
given Jack’s nature it is far more likely
that he asked not to be acknowledged.
The authors also misstate
Winston’s activities in a few broader
areas, such as overestimating the
importance of his leading the defense
of Antwerp in the strategic picture of
World War I. It also seems strange that
in the chapter covering World War II,
equal coverage is given to Winston and
Jack, when one brother is clearly >>
REVIEWS
THE CHURCHILLS...
performing a more significant job. I
actually admire this determination to
treat the brothers as partners and
equals, even though one was world
famous and the other virtually
unknown.
In spite of some of my concerns
with this book, I do think it admirably
succeeds in demonstrating that the
It’s Churchill, Stupid!
ANTOINE CAPET
Les coups tordus de Churchill
[Churchill’s Dirty Tricks], by Bob
Maloubier. Éditions Calmann-Lévy,
paperback, 268 pp., €15. Amazon
France (www.amazon.fr) €14.25.
I
t is well known that any book with
“Churchill” in the title—and even
better with a photograph of him on the
cover—has a fair chance of attracting
buyers. In this instance, the picture is
the famous “Chicago gangster” photo,
WSC holding a submachine gun under
his right arm, which the Nazis liked to
use on propaganda leaflets. The colloquial title, “Churchill’s Dirty Tricks,”
suggests a “popular” treatment of the
subject—which the tone and tenor of
the text amply confirm.
This is not a serious book, just a
string of unsubstantiated “good stories”
and anecdotes, the first based on the
author’s experience as a recruit of the
British Special Operations Executive
Churchill family was more cohesive
than disfunctional, and had much to
do with what Winston would become.
It is also a very useful corrective to
those who depict young Winston’s
childhood as one grim day after
another. The book could very well set a
template for a new way to think about
his early life, and for that Celia and
John Lee deserve much credit. ,
(SOE). Maloubier was in Algiers in
December 1942, part of the Special
Detachment set up by Major Jacques
Vaillant de Guélis, a bilingual
Englishman. He builds on secondary
evidence, like the presence there of
Desmond Morton and Stewart
Menzies, to conclude that the French
Admiral Darlan’s murder was plotted
by Churchill behind Roosevelt’s
back—Darlan being presented as a
slow-witted “President’s man.”
All this comes in a very lighthearted tone, as if Maloubier’s superior
intelligence enables him effortlessly to
understand complex events which lesser
mortals cannot, along the lines of “It’s
Churchill, stupid!”
The “flash-back” on Churchill’s
ancestry is a scurrilous accumulation of
the worst clichés, culminating in his
father’s death of “the pox.” The
Dardanelles affair is expedited as in a
comic strip—our hero recovers, only to
manipulate the USA into entering
World War I thanks to a timely inter-
cept of the Kaiser’s message to Mexico,
offering it Texas and California.
The next “old yarn” is Coventry,
which Churchill is said to have left
unprotected to preserve Ultra’s
secrecy—repeatedly proven groundless
by this publication and others as long
ago as 1984.
The author’s English (and knowledge of American history) is poor.
Discussing Joseph Kennedy, he translates “America Firsters” as “premiers
Américains,” which would mean “early
American settlers.” I do not know what
truth lies in his assertion that the
Ambassador was one of “those Antisemites who reject God Bless America
because it was written by a Jew.”
Maloubier wades out of his depth
when accusing Kennedy of having
raised his glass in the first months of
the war to the Reich’s victory. This, he
says, aroused the ire of Churchill, who
sent “Bill” Stephenson (“Intrepid”) to
FDR with a list of the Ambassador’s
pronouncements, including his supposed boast that he was out to impeach
the President—a bit much to expect
even from Joe Kennedy.
There are no footnotes, only a
list of “archives consulted.” The bibliography omits mention of the excellent
works by François Kersaudy, the foremost French Churchill scholar. This
book is perhaps entertaining for those
of puny intellectual gifts who like
public-bar conversations which indulge
in debunking great leaders—but not
worth more space in Finest Hour. ,
Churchill’s American Supporters
CHRISTOPHER H. STERLING
Citizens of London: The Americans
Who Stood with Britain in its
Darkest, Finest Hour, by Lynne
Olson. Random House, hardbound,
illus., 472 pp. $28.
Member price $22.40.
I
n her earlier books, including
Troublesome Young Men (FH 136:
40), Olson has demonstrated her
ability to meld a mountain of source
material into a cogent and readable
account. Here, however, her focus
____________________________________
Professor Capet teaches English history at
the University of Rouen.
FINEST HOUR 146 / 41
seems to waver from its original intent.
Defined as a study of the roles of three
Americans—Ambassador John Gilbert
Winant, CBS newsman Edward R.
Murrow, and Lend Lease administrator
Averell Harriman—it is instead a
broader survey of the growing
American presence in London during
the war. Indeed for whole chapters the
three leading characters disappear from
its pages. Churchill pops up everywhere, but so does, for example,
Pamela Churchill, along with a host of
other journalists, generals and others.
Perhaps the three American subjects offered too limited a base. Indeed,
though the book’s dust jacket photo
pictures five men in tuxedos (Churchill
among them), Winant is the only one
of the book’s supposed subjects
included. And it is Winant for whom
Olson provides her greatest service, as
the man is largely forgotten today
while both Murrow and Harriman are
remembered and treated in other books
(as in Thomas Parish’s recent To Keep
the British Isles Afloat, which centers
on Harriman and Hopkins).
Ill-treated as he was by Roosevelt
(all too common for many of the president’s supporters), Winant was revered
in Britain during and after the war.
Olson provides us with many examples
of why this was so, from little gestures
to his vital and continual support of
Churchill and the British war effort
when Washington seemed either
unconcerned or more focused on its
own priorities.
Part of the trouble with readable
books like this is that their authors try
to relate the war’s overall story to a
readership they know lacks historical
context for the characters and era.
Whole chapters in Olson’s book take
us away from London and the central
players to deal with other people and
issues. In the end, one wonders just
how central these three men were,
given what we read about the roles of
so many others. Surely Hopkins was
just as important in keeping Britain
afloat, and Roosevelt above all. We
____________________________________
Dean Sterling teaches communications at
The George Washington University,
Washington, D.C.
want to learn more about how Winant,
Harriman and Murrow related to each
other in those London years.
Gil Winant is clearly Olson’s
hero. While the former New
Hampshire governor couldn’t deliver a
decent speech and proved a terrible
administrator, he said and did all the
right things (ignoring an affair with
Churchill’s daughter Sarah) to support
the British effort. The moody Murrow
(who fell into Pamela Churchill’s bed)
best relayed the Blitz to American radio
listeners (see “This…is London,” FH
144: 26). He went along on twenty-
four bombing missions better to report
the heat of battle (and perhaps assuage
his guilt at not being a fighting man).
Harriman, the self-centered political climber (and another who
appreciated Pamela) suffers most in
Olson’s telling. While a hard worker,
he too often undercut Winant, until he
learned the real difficulty of being one
of FDR’s ambassadors during his own
unhappy stint in Moscow. In the end,
both Harriman and Murrow went on
to sometimes glittering postwar careers,
while Winant, down and ignored, took
his own life early in 1947. ,
The Finest Cultural History of 1930s Britain
TED HUTCHINSON
The Twilight Years: The Paradox of
Britain Between the Wars, by Richard
Overy. Viking, hardbound, illus., 522
pp., $35, Member price $28.
I expect that the battle of Britain is
about to begin. Upon this battle
depends the survival of Christian civilisation. Upon it depends our own
British life, and the long continuity of
our institutions and our Empire. The
whole fury and might of the enemy
must very soon be turned on us. Hitler
knows that he will have to break us in
this island or lose the war. If we can
stand up to him, all Europe may be
free and the life of the world may
move forward into broad, sunlit
uplands. But if we fail, then the whole
world, including the United States,
including all that we have known and
cared for, will sink into the abyss of a
new Dark Age made more sinister, and
perhaps more protracted, by the lights
of perverted science. —WSC, 18 June 1940
FINEST HOUR 146 / 42
C
hurchill has often been described
by historians and biographers as a
“man apart” from those around him.
He was, after all, one of the few
national politicians to see and clearly
understand the threat Nazi Germany
posed to Britain and Western civilization. His life in the 1930s was spent in
the political wilderness, where his voice
counted for little even as his country
hurtled towards war.
In this superb new book, historian Richard Overy indirectly argues
that Churchill in fact understood the
average Englishman far better than
most national leaders. But first it
should be noted that this book hardly
mentions the name Winston Churchill
at all. It is neither a political nor social
history of England in the 1930s, but
instead a measured and thoughtful look
at the culture of despair that arose in
England in the aftermath of the First
World War, and existed until the
beginning of the Second.
Overy argues that the British saw
themselves at the top of the world in
the years before the Great War.
Through a combination of science,
capitalism and colonial policy, life in
Britain was imagined by most to be
like an escalator ride upwards, as more
and more in the nation were able to
share in the continual perfection of
Western and Christian civilization. All
of this was shattered, of course, by
losses of the war. By the 1920s, >>
REVIEWS
FINEST CULTURAL HISTORY...
many in Britain felt, as Churchill was
to suggest in 1940, that they were
entering a “new Dark Age.”
Overy explores this theme with a
number of chapters touching on the
disenchantment with capitalism,
modern medicine, science, politics, and
above all with the prospects of progress.
This progress was now an illusion,
many felt, as they readied themselves
for the gradual decline that, as they
were told by the academics and
thinkers of the time, all spent civilizations must eventually face.
Yet Overy also notes that the
average Briton of the time never quite
gave in to despair. As bad as things
were in Britain in the 1930s, they were
better than in many nations on the
continent, and the British always had
their traditions of parliamentary
democracy to fall back on. In one
moving section of his book (which
other reviewers have also noted) Overy
describes a bookseller who in 1933
placed a best-selling biography of Adolf
Hitler in his shop window. He had to
clean the window twice daily to remove
the accumulated spit.
In the 1930s many Britons did
feel that they were entering that new
dark age. But they were also ready to
fight it, and they needed a leader to
show them the way. Winston Churchill
was the man who taught his country,
and by extension the world, that it was
still possible to move toward the broad,
sunlit uplands.
Despite the few mentions of
Churchill, this is surely the finest cultural history of Britain in the 1930s. It
should be read by all Churchillians
who want to understand more about
the time and world Churchill inhabited—and why his words resonated so
strongly with the people from which he
supposedly stood apart. ,
Murray joined the Metropolitan Police
and in due course was placed in the
“Protection” side of the Special Branch.
Happily in those days political terrorism had not attained the horrific
flood that we see today, although
Ernest Bevin, the British Foreign
Secretary, and others had been the
targets for Israeli murder squads.
Nevertheless, it was a job that had to
be taken seriously, if only to stand
between a prominent political figure
and lunatics, or just over-enthusiastic
supporters. It was in this atmosphere
that Sgt. Murray was appointed to be
one of Winston Churchill’s bodyguards
in 1950 and after his resignation as
Prime Minister in 1955 became his
main bodyguard until Churchill’s
death ten years later.
I suppose that all bodyguards
inevitably become integrated into the
life of the people they serve and the
Churchill household was no exception.
Sgt. Murray found himself concerned
with aspects of his charge which were
not really part of his functions, particularly after Churchill’s resignation as
Prime Minister, when there was no
longer a large back-up staff. He was
SIR ANTHONY MONTAGUE BROWNE KGMG CBE DFC
effective in matters such as passports at
airports, access and exits at meetings,
gt. Edmund Murray had a varied
and
generally making Churchill;s
career and he gives a brightly
everyday
life smoother.
coloured if somewhat elliptical account
I
remember
him mainly as being
of it. As a young man he had a varied
in
charge
of
Churchill’s
painting
number of jobs, working in a pub, in
arrangements.
Sgt.
Murray
himself
Sainsburys (a large chain of food
painted,
as
he
describes
in
his
book,
stores), as a packer of electrical goods, a
and
was
well
attuned
to
Churchill’s
deck steward on a paddle steamer, a
idiosyncrasies in this field. He was parshort period in the Irish Guards and
ticularly
useful in the increasing
working in a London restaurant.
periods
that
Churchill spent in the
In 1937 he joined the French
South
of
France
in his retirement,
Foreign Legion and served in France,
where
his
fluent
French ensured
North Africa, Madagascar, and Indosmooth
liaison
with
the local police.
china. Vichy France was neutral in the
To
be
a
bodyguard
must be a
war against Japan and the French
soul-destroying
occupation,
waiting
troops were in a state of supervision
I Was Winston Churchill’s
about
for
hours
and
hours
with
very
under the Japanese occupation until
Bodyguard, by Edmund Murray:
little
to
do,
but
bearing
a
real
responsithe closing months of the war, when
London: Thomas Allen 1987.
bility for the well-being of the
Availability: good on bookfinder.com the Japanese massacred many of them
personality in one’s charge. Thus,
and drove the remainder north into
____________________________________ China. This is an interesting account of Murray’s account is inevitably a cataSir Anthony is Sir Winston’s last private sec- a world of which few people know any- logue of small matters, which
retary (1952-65) and is an honorary member
nevertheless cast an interesting minor
thing at all and it could have been
of The Churchill Centre. We republish his
light
on Churchill’s later years. This
review from FH 56, Summer 1987, observing expanded to the advantage of the book.
volume
can be placed on the shelf
the passing of Beryl Murray (page 10).
At the end of the War, Sgt.
alongside Simply Churchill by Mr. Roy
Old Titles Revisited: Bodyguard Eddie
S
FINEST HOUR 146 / 43
Howells, the male nurse who looked
after Churchill in his old age, and the
several books by a previous bodyguard,
Walter H. Thompson.
We tend to see history from a
different point of view and I am bound
to say that where I was present at some
of the events Sgt. Murray describes,
they struck me rather differently from
the account he gives. In the words of
Field Marshal Robertson in the First
World War, “I ’eard different.” It was
all too easy to succumb to irritation
with Sgt. Murray at times but his devotion to Sir Winston Churchill was
genuine and I have no doubt that if
danger had threatened he would have
stood before him.
He did make Churchill’s life
easier in a number of ways and “the
Boss” I think had a real affection for
him. It was Churchill’s inevitable reaction to stand up for any member of his
entourage who was under attack. As
Lady Churchill once said, looking at
me rather pointedly: “Winston is
always ready to be accompanied by
those with considerable imperfections.”
Sgt. Murray’s memoirs make for a
book with interesting and thoughtful
comments on life, a record of
undoubted devotion towards Churchill,
and memories not lacking in adventure
before his last assignment. ,
About Books: The Asquith Corpus
CHRISTOPHER H. STERLING
H
. H. Asquith (1852-1928), the
Liberal prime minister (1908-16),
was responsible for the 1911
Parliament Act, which limited the
power of the House of Lords, and led
Britain during the first two years of
World War I. Some called him the
most gifted man ever to serve in the
premiership. He was made an Earl in
1925, three years before his death.
Churchill served under him in three
cabinet roles: President of the Board of
Trade (1908-10), Home Secretary
(1910-11) and First Lord of the
Admiralty (1911-15).
After making a success of law
practice, Asquith entered Parliament in
1886. Under Gladstone, he was named
Home Secretary just six years later. He
became Chancellor of the Exchequer in
1905 under Sir Henry CampbellBannerman, who he succeeded in
1908. Deposed in 1916, Asquith
remained head of the Liberal Party
until 1926, though he lost his seat in
1924. Split between Asquith and Lloyd
George supporters, the Liberals never
recovered. Among the books below are
letters Asquith sent to two different
women, sharing with them his most
secret thoughts about political events,
the war, and his colleagues.
newly opened archives. Naturally views
were also colored by what people
thought of the Liberal Party, Asquith
and Lloyd George. Those views, too,
have tempered with time. This listing is
in chronological order as published.
• The Right Hon. H.H.
Asquith, M.P., by Elias Frank
(London: James Clarke, 1909, 248 pp.)
is an early biography, published a year
after Asquith became prime minister.
• Autobiography, by Margot
Asquith (London: Thornton
Butterworth, 1920-22, 2 vols.; 276 and
314 pp., reissued several times in varied
formats) is widely available and important. Margot was Asquith's wife and
reflects much of what he thought.
• Fifty Years in Parliament, by
Lord Oxford and Asquith (London:
Cassell; Boston: Little, Brown, 1926, 2
vols., 306 and 308 pp.; adds the word
“British” in the American edition).
After 1876, chapters cover Parliament
and party changes, third parties, life in
the House of Commons, the Prime
Minister and cabinet office, etc. The
second volume covers the years from
1901 (under Balfour) to 1913 with sections on Ulster (Northern Ireland),
patronage (ecclesiastical and the poet
laureate), HHA’s cabinet etc.
Punch, 21 May 1913, aboard the Admiralty
yacht Enchantress. WSC: “Any home news?”
Asquith: “How can there be with you here?”
• Memories and Recollections,
1852-1927, by Lord Oxford and
Asquith (London: Cassell; Boston:
Little, Brown, 1928, 2 vols.) is an autobiography (despite the author’s
denial). The volumes divide at summer
1914. Churchill is notable in both, but
the second includes the crisis of May
1915 when WSC was forced out of the
Admiralty over the Dardanelles disaster.
Koss (next page) breaks the literature on Asquith into two periods,
roughly paralleling public thinking.
Books were generally positive until
1970, while the family (especially his
daughter, Lady Violet Bonham Carter,
a close friend of WSC) controlled his
papers and the books based upon
them. After 1970, they become more
realistic and balanced, in part thanks to
• Life of Lord Oxford and
Asquith by John A. Spender and
Cyril Asquith (London: Hutchinson,
1932, 2 vols., 366 and 435 pp.) was
Asquith's authorized biography,
appearing four years after his death.
The two volumes draw heavily on his
own papers plus some official documents and press reports, but tend to
make for fairly dry reading today. >>
FINEST HOUR 146 / 44
ABOUT BOOKS
ASQUITH CORPUS...
• H.H.A.: Letters of the Earl of
Oxford and Asquith to a Friend,
edited by Desmond MacCarthy
(London: Geoffrey Bles, 1933-34, 2
vols., 218 and 212 pp.). In 1916-28
Asquith wrote almost daily to Mrs.
Hilda Harrison, following Venetia
Stanley (see below). The family was
deeply unhappy over this unauthorized
book. The volumes cover the war, its
aftermath, the fragmenting of the
Liberal Party, and Asquith’s comments
on statesmen, artists, and authors.
• Mr Balfour’s Poodle: An
Account of the Struggle Between the
House of Lords and the Government
of Mr Asquith, by Roy Jenkins
(London: Heinemann; New York:
Chilmark, 1954, 320 pp.; republished
1968, 1989), covers the 1911 battle
over the power of the House of Lords.
Asquith had pressed both Edward VII
and George V to appoint a wave of
new (Liberal) peers if the Lords did not
yield their power over budget bills.
• Asquith: Portrait of a Man and
an Era, by Roy Jenkins (London:
Collins, 1964, revised edition 1978) is a
warm and appreciative biography, wellwritten and readable (not always true of
British political biography!). It was once
held to be the definitive treatment of
Asquith’s life, but later revisionist works
and the Venetia Stanley letters have
changed some views.
• Inside Asquith’s Cabinet:
From the Diaries of Charles
Hobhouse, edited by Edward David
(London: Palgrave Macmillan, 1978,
296 pp.) shows how political diaries
can be of value. Hobhouse began his
political career aged thirty in 1892,
retiring in the midst of WW1. As a
recorder of Asquith’s governments—
and of the cut-and-thrust of cabinet
government—he was very perceptive.
• H.H. Asquith: Letters to
Venetia Stanley, edited by Michael
and Eleanor Brock (Oxford
University Press, 1983, 704 pp.) opens
a revealing window into Asquith and
his era. Starting in 1912, the letters
ERRATA
FH 144: 5. Beatty watched the German High Seas Fleet steam into
captivity on 21 November 1918, not 1919 as stated. (See Despatch Box.)
FH 145: 3. Stupidly, the editor miscaptioned the third photo down. It
should, of course, read “Bullock, 30” not “Gilbert, 20.” He also misspelled
his own name in a byline, but nobody noticed....
FH 145: 54. In the righthand column line 6, the word “publicly” has
become “pubicly,” which is not a slap at FDR! Apologies. ,
(about half of the 560 known) reveal a
statesman faced with political ruin over
the Irish problem, who escapes by
leading Britain through the crisis of
1914 into the Great War. Asquith confided utterly in his young friend
Venetia, sharing military secrets
unknown even to the Cabinet or his
commanders. Some were written
during cabinet meetings! He described
political intrigues and wrote openly of
Churchill, Lloyd George and
Kitchener. He was crushed in May of
1915 when Venetia married Edwin
Montagu, and her interest in the letters
ceased. (See also Levine, below.)
• Asquith, by Stephen E. Koss
(New York: Columbia University Press,
1985, 332 pp.) is a solid revisionist
political biography, building on the
shoulders of Jenkins. He makes clear
that he has a different take on many
aspects of his subject’s life, thanks in
part to newly opened archives.
• The Asquiths, by Colin
Clifford (London: Murray, 2002, 544
pp.) draws on Margot Asquith’s own
journals, Asquith’s letters to her, and
unpublished correspondence in family
and many other archives, describing an
extraordinary family in cataclysmic
times—people more than politics.
Margot’s dislike of Churchill (among
others) comes through, but much of
the focus here is on H.H. Asquith’s
children and the war which takes up
half the book.
• Asquith as War Leader, by
George H. Cassar (London:
Hambledon & London, 2003, 288
pp.) argues that during the initial stages
of WW1 (1914-15), Asquith’s oratory,
tact and skill, combined with his
imperturbability and prestige, made
him indispensable. As the war dragged
on, lacking the ruthlessness needed to
win at any cost, he became ill-suited to
direct the nation, and he was maneuvered out of Downing Street by Lloyd
George in December 1916. Cassar
describes Asquith’s part in shaping war
aims and strategy.
• Politics, Religion and Love:
The Story of H. H. Asquith, Venetia
Stanley and Edwin Montagu. Based
on the Life and Letters of Edwin
—Excerpted from Writing about
Samuel Montagu, by Naomi B.
Winston, a 100-page annotated guide
Levine (New York: NYU Press, 1991,
830 pp.) reviews the Venetia story from to be published by the Washington
Society for Churchill. ,
her husband’s writings.
Curt Zoller’s Annotated Bibliography of Works About Sir
Winston S. Churchill, at 410 pages, is the most comprehensive
bibliography of works about Churchill. It includes frank, forthright
reviews on 700 books specifically about WSC. Also listed are works
substantially about Churchill, articles, lectures, reviews, dissertations and theses. The book was a Farrow Award winner in 2004.
Selling for up to $189 on the web, it’s indispensable for the serious
Churchill library. SPECIAL: We include the unabridged Addendum
(specify whether by email or hard copy): $65 postpaid in USA.
TO ORDER: Send check payable to The Churchill Centre,
200 West Madison Street, Suite 1700, Chicago IL 60606 USA. Or
phone toll-free (888) WSC-1874. Credit cards accepted: Visa, Mastercard, Amex and Discover. Postage extra outside USA.
FINEST HOUR 146 / 45
PHILATELY
Churchill Commemorative Stamps
A Partial Update, 1977-1998
CELWYN
BALL
T
his checklist, while not complete, illustrates how Churchill
continues to be a philatelic
subject. Many of these issues arose out
of the anniversary of World War II and
the death of HM the Queen Mother.
“SG” and “Scott” refer to numbers
assigned by the Stanley Gibbons and
Scott postage stamp catalogues.
GREAT BRITAIN
Bernera Locals
(Small island off the Scottish coast.)
1985. Life and Times of The
Queen Mother. Gold foil commemoratives; £10 shows VE-Day celebration
with Churchill on the balcony of
Buckingham Palace.
British Philatelic Exhibition
15-20 October 1985. Life and
Times of The Queen Mother. Small
souvenir sheetlets show SG 129
(Falkland Islands Dependencies) and
SG 538 (Solomon Islands). On the
latter, Churchill is pictured with the
Queen Mother. No values on stamps.
Also overprinted “Specimen” in black.
Isle of Man
5 September 1990. 50th
Anniversary of the Battle of Britain.
SG 449-454. Issued in sheets of
eight (449-50, 451-52, 453-54), and
mounted on three cards with cachet at
top. Churchill is at top righthand
corner with the quotation, “We shall
go on to the end; we shall fight…whatever the cost may be.”
__________________________________
Mr. Ball, of Monckton, New Brunswick, is a
veteran of the WW2 British First Army which
fought in the invasion of North Africa, and a
former chairman of ICS Canada. His new
illustrated catalogue of Churchill stamps
since the first issues will be published shortly
and highlighted in Finest Hour.
ROW 1: Romney,
Hythe & Dymchurch
Railway Local.
ROW 2: Marshall
Islands V-1 and
Gabon souvenir
sheet with the Big
Three at Yalta.
ROW 3: Benin
marks the 1966
Commonwealth
Omnibus honoring
Churchill. British
Philatelic Exhibition
souvenir sheet
reprints Queen
Mother issues, one
showing WSC.
ROW 4: Grenada
Grenadines commemorates Nobel
Prize Winners with
a not-very-good
likeness of WSC.
Bernera gold foil
locals probably
never saw use on
actual postage.
Romney, Hythe & Dymchurch (Locals)
11 May 1977. Issued to pay for
letter and parcel transit on the railway.
Designed and printed by the House of
Questa. 10p value shows the locomotive “Winston Churchill.”
BENIN
20 December 1985. 50th
Anniversary of the Commonwealth
Churchill Omnibus Issue.
SG 878-886, Scott 796a-796j;
souvenir sheet 797. SG 835-45 overprinted in black, “Pre-World Cup
Football Mexico 1986.”
GABON
1995. 50th Anniversary of the
End of World War II.
Scott 813a-813c, souvenir sheet
814. Souvenir sheet shows Churchill,
Roosevelt and Stalin at the Livadia
Palace (see pages 32-35) during the
February 1945 Yalta conference.
FINEST HOUR 146 / 46
GRENADA GRENADINES
Nobel Prize Winners (FH 90).
Scott 1771-73 and three souvenir
sheets, Scott 1774-76. Scott 1776
depicts Churchill.
MARSHALL ISLANDS
1994. World War II.
Scott 489. Shows V-1 over
London with Churchill quote on tab.
1995. Churchill souvenir sheet.
NICARAGUA
24 January 1996. 50th
Anniversary of the End of WW2.
Scott 2142a-h. Issued in two
strips of four, top and bottom on
centre gutter. Depicts bombers over
Remagen Bridge. Scott 2142b shows
Churchill, FDR and Stalin at Yalta.
TANZANIA
12 December 1994. 50th
Anniversary of D-Day, 6 June 1944.
SG 1998-2015. Printed se-tenant
in sheetlets of six: SG 1998-2003,
2004-09 and 2010-15. SG 2005 shows
engineers working on a Churchill tank
on Gold Beach, Normandy.
15 July 1996. “They Shaped the
20th Century” World Figures Issue.
Scott 1481a-h, 1482a-h. Scott
1482g shows Churchill, Roosevelt and
Stalin at Yalta.
UNITED STATES
1991-1995. World War II. The
following sheetlets have historic value
in illustrating the war:
LEFT: Isle of
Man’s Battle of
Britain souvenir sheet, a
handsome
depiction with
WSC portrait
and quote at
upper right.
RIGHT:
Marshall
Islands’ 1995
Churchill $1
souvenir sheet
and 60c value.
BELOW
RIGHT:
Nicaragua
elaborately
marks the end
of WW2 with
souvenir sheet
and stamps
including WSC.
BOTTOM
LEFT:
Tanzania
included Al
Jolson and
Amelia Earhart
among
shapers of the
20th century
along with
Churchill,
Roosevelt and
Stalin.
FINEST HOUR 146 / 47
Scott 2559a-j: World at War, 1941.
Scott 2697a-j: Into the Battle, 1942.
Scott 2765a-j: Turning the Tide, 1943.
Scott 2838a-j: Road to Victory, 1944.
Scott 2961a-j. Victory at Last, 1945.
Roosevelt and Churchill are mentioned on several sheet labels and
shown together on Scott 2559d. ,
BELOW: Tanzania’s outstanding set of commemoratives
marking the anniversary of D-Day included a Churchill tank.
CHURCHILL PROCEEDINGS
Churchill and the
Future of Democracy
2009 International Churchill Conference
I N T R O D U C T I O N B Y R I C H A R D M. L A N G W O R T H
I
n his 1932 book Thoughts and Adventures,
Churchill assembled his “Big Four” futurist essays,
contemplating trends he could already then see,
which would affect the evolution of democracy, the nature of government, and the nature of man. His moving,
powerful and prescient essays contemplate issues that are
ever-present, as worthy of attention today as they were
eighty years ago.
“Mass Effects in Modern Life” argued that advances in science, technology and communication are
suppressing individual achievement, and warned of the
rise of the collective at the expense of the individual: “Are
not our affairs increasingly being settled by mass
processes? Are not modern conditions...hostile to the development of outstanding personalities and to their influence upon events; and lastly if this be true, will it be for
our greater good and glory?” Such questions merit examination by thoughtful people.
The newspapers do “a lot of thinking” for people, Churchill continued. Substitute “media” for “newspapers” and he could be speaking about the superficiality
of modern news reporting. Yes, he wrote, it provides, “a
tremendous educating process. But it is an education
which passes in at one ear and out at the other. It is an
education at once universal and superficial.” Such conditioning, he went on, would produce “standardized citizens, all equipped with regulation opinions, prejudices
and sentiments, according to their class or party.”
Churchill also wondered whether the leveling
process that produces today’s politicians would discourage the emergence of “great men” (which of course he
considered himself, among others). Was the “great man”
theory of history dead? Was this a good thing? (See Manfred Weidhorn’s following overview.)
“Consistency in Politics” discussed political
conduct—not of the Left or the Right, or any particular
philosophy, but the standards of conduct for responsible
officeholders. Consistency is a virtue, Churchill declared—but the key to consistency amid changing circumstances “is to change with them while preserving the
same dominating purpose.”
Examples of this application may be seen today
in our leaders’ approaches to subjects such as energy production, the new Russia, the rise of Asia and the Pacific
Rim; the European Union replacing traditional nationstates; Free Trade amidst subsidized or nationalized industries; and the role of the State in the economy.
“Ideas acquire a momentum of their own,”
Churchill wrote. He could have been thinking of opinion
polls when he added: “The stimulus of a vast concentration of public support is almost irresistible in its potency.” Are ideas that contribute to the growth of the
collective dangerous to liberal democracy? “There is not
one single social or economic principle or concept in the
philosophy of the Russian Bolshevik which has not been
realised, carried into action, and enshrined in immutable
laws a million years ago by the White Ant.”
A statesman, Churchill concluded, “should always try to do what he believes is best in the long view
for his country, and he should not be dissuaded from so
acting by having to divorce himself from a great body of
doctrine to which he formerly sincerely adhered.”
FINEST HOUR 146 / 48
“Shall We All Commit Suicide?” considered the
implications of the nuclear age. Written in 1924, almost a
decade before Einstein wrote his famous letter to Roosevelt, warning of the dangers implicit in splitting the
atom, Churchill’s message thunders with urgency across
the years: “May there not be methods of using explosive
energy incomparably more intense than anything heretofore discovered? Might not a bomb no bigger than an orange be found to possess a secret power to destroy a whole
block of buildings—nay, to concentrate the force of a
thousand tons of cordite and blast a township at a stroke?”
Mankind, he adds, “has never been in this position before. Without having improved appreciably in
virtue or enjoying wiser guidance, it has got into its
hands for the first time the tools by which it can unfailingly accomplish its own extermination....Death stands at
attention, obedient, expectant, ready to serve, ready to
shear away the peoples en masse; ready, if called on, to
pulverize, without hope of repair, what is left of civilization. He awaits only the word
of command. He awaits it
from a frail, bewildered being,
long his victim, now—for one
occasion only—his Master.”
“Fifty Years Hence”
speculates on the world of
1980, predicting the effects of
science and communication—
biotechnology, cell phones, television, air travel, the age of
instant information: “projects
undreamed of by past generations,” as Churchill put it:
“...forces terrific and devastating...comforts, activities,
amenities, pleasures”—juxtaposed to an unaltered
mankind: “The nature of man
has remained hitherto practically unchanged. Under sufficient stress—starvation, terror,
warlike passion, or even cold
intellectual frenzy—the modern man we know so well will
do the most terrible deeds, and his modern woman will
back him up.”
Can humans change their nature sufficiently to
prosper in this world where pleasures and dangers crowd
in upon them? Churchill wondered. Governments, he
wrote, in lines very striking today, “drift along the line of
least resistance, taking short views, paying their way with
sops and doles, and smoothing their path with pleasantsounding platitudes. Never was there less continuity or
design in their affairs, and yet towards them are coming
swiftly changes which will revolutionize for good or ill
not only the whole economic structure of the world but
the social habits and moral outlook of every family.”
Read alongside his 1934 article, “Restoring the
Lost Glory of Democracy” (page 12), “Fifty Years Hence”
encapsulates his concerns about the future of our form of
government: “Democracy as a guide or motive to
progress has long been known to be incompetent. None
of the legislative assemblies of the great modern states
represents in universal suffrage even a fraction of the
strength or wisdom of the community. Great nations are
no longer led by their ablest men, or by those who know
most about their immediate affairs, or even by those who
have a coherent doctrine.”
Some say we have replaced the old moral compass of religion with a kind of secular humanism and
vague internationalism, an urge
to do right and to understand
and accept the most extreme
among us. Churchill described
and feared that development. It
was vital, he wrote, “that the
moral philosophy and spiritual
conceptions of men and nations should hold their own
amid these formidable scientific
evolutions. It would be much
better to call a halt in material
progress and discovery,” he
continued, “than to be mastered by our own apparatus and
the forces which it directs.”
Today’s challenges are
not the same as in Churchill's
time. It is foolish, writes Paul
Alkon, to believe that our times
are simply a replay of his.
Churchill's lasting value lies in
his approach to challenges: not
what he did in 1915 or 1940,
but the broad principles that
motivated him, the concepts he
stood for: liberty, individuality, magnanimity—his belief
in his country, and its fraternal sisters across the seas, as a
force for good
The 2009 Churchill Conference offered outstanding discussions on these futurist essays, which read
as though they were written yesterday. May we learn
from them, and teach others through our work. ,
FINEST HOUR 146 / 49
CHURCHILL PROCEEDINGS
Churchill for Today:
Views and Counterviews
1. Churchill and the Aristotelian Tradition
L A R R Y P. A R N N
Dr. Arnn became President of Hillsdale College in 2000, launching an ambitious financing program (the
College does not accept government funds). Previously he was President of the Claremont Institute, publisher of The Claremont Review of Books, and director of research for Sir Martin Gilbert. Under his aegis,
Hillsdale College Press is reprinting the Official Biography, and has now progressed through Volume V. In
2004 he won our Somervell Prize for “Never Despair,” the best article of the past year in Finest Hour. He
is a member of The Churchill Centre College of Fellows.
J
ames Muller writes in his introduction to the new edition of Thoughts
and Adventures the following sen__tence: “The essay on the adequacy of
Parliament’s political choices leads directly to the largest question that
Churchill takes up in Thoughts and Adventures—the significance of the transformation of political life by modern
science, which he considers in the remarkable essays toward the end of the
volume.”
The first science of the West was philosophy: the
wish to know the world around us and our place in it; to
know what is our good, and the good of the other beings.
The questions it asked were: What is justice? What is
truth? What is right? What is it to be human?
Modern science is defined by Thomas Hobbes
this way: “Reason then is but a scout or a spy to range
abroad and find the way to thing desired.” Modern science is a system of experimentation to find the way to
the things we want. This directs the mind away from the
evaluation of our wants—from the attempt to rank them
and discipline them according to some standard we discover by the observation of nature. We focus not upon
the refinement or disciplining of our wants, but rather
upon their fulfillment
At first this is not controversial. Who opposes
finding a cure for cancer? Health is a good thing. But
what if the aim is rather to improve not only the health
of the race, but also its strength, intelligence or beauty?
And what if the means proposed is eugenics, applied either through the control
of breeding practices or the culling of undesirable populations?
Once one understands the possibilities opened up by modern science,
then the theme of this Churchill conference becomes in part a question. Advancing science—surely. Unchanging
mankind—who knows?
One of the charms of Thoughts and Adventures, and its able introduction by its editor, is how
plainly these questions are shown—not as a set of deductions such as I have just made, but rather as practical
problems that peoples and the statesmen who lead them
must address. One cannot read these essays without seeing yet again that Churchill was a remarkable man.
On technology, Churchill asks a question in
“Mass Effects in Modern Life.” Ask yourself if you see
this happening:
“I have no hesitation in ranging myself with
those who view the past history of the world mainly as
that of exceptional human beings, whose thoughts, actions, qualities, virtues, triumphs, weaknesses and crimes
have dominated the fortunes of the race. But we may
now ask ourselves whether powerful changes are not
coming to pass, are not already in progress or indeed far
advanced. Is not mankind already escaping from the control of individuals?”
Next, ask if you agree with his assessment of the
decline of leadership when he writes:
FINEST HOUR 146 / 50
“Certainly we see around us today a marked lack
of individual leadership. The late Mr. John Morley,
statesman and philanthropist, man of letters and man of
affairs, some years ago towards the close of his life delivered an oration in which he drew attention to the decline
in the personal eminence of the leaders in almost all the
important spheres of thought and art. He contrasted the
heads of the great professions in the early 20th century
with those who had shone in the mid-Victorian era. He
spoke of ‘the vacant Thrones in Philosophy, History,
Economics, Oratory, Statecraft, Poetry, Literature,
Painting, Sculpture and Music, which stood on every
side. It is difficult to marshal today in any part of the
English-speaking world an assembly of notables who either in distinction or achievement can compare with
those to whom our grandfathers so gladly paid attention
and tribute.”
S
omething about the position or station of Churchill
can be found in the juxtaposition of two things in
him. The first is what he was for. It is obvious that
he fought all his life for popular rule and government by
consent. He came into Parliament under a Prime Minister of glorious family who opposed government by consent, who supported the right of the well-born to take a
leading part in politics by virtue of their birth.
Churchill never agreed with this. He quit the
party of that man on the ground that its proposals would
divide the nation along class lines. I mean protectionism
or tariffs, which for Churchill as for England has been
much more a political than an economic issue.
Having adopted this cause, Churchill saw fundamental dangers to its success. Technology is the condition
of the liberal society for a reason explained in the first
book of Aristotle’s Politics. Slavery is unjust, Aristotle
writes, except in cases of incompetence, which are few.
Therefore slavery must be ameliorated by, for example,
the prospect of liberation.
Why only ameliorated? Why not ended? Aristotle writes that, “if the shuttle could weave, and the plectrum pluck the lyre without a guiding hand, foreman
would not need workers, nor masters slaves.” In the liberal society, it is necessary for some to slave so that others
may have leisure to learn, to teach, and to rule. This
means, mind you, that in the mind of Aristotle, classical
politics contain an element of injustice. They cannot be
perfected, except, perhaps, by the liberation of technology.
Is there anything more terrible than that? In
Churchill’s essays, war is more terrible, for two reasons:
The march of science makes weapons more horrible, and
it piles up resources that make it affordable to fight wars.
No longer do we have to stop fighting in the winter. We
are rich enough to go on killing each other, and the
whole of society participates, embittered and inflamed.
Churchill shares the position of Aristotle, the
philosopher and his kinsman as a statesman. It is their
business to see above and beyond the city-state, to test its
claims against nature and the commandments of reason.
By doing this, they place themselves in a position both to
protect and to elevate their city or state in the name and
for the sake of standards that are beyond any law.
Churchill is famous as a defender of his country
and the West. The defense began decades before the battles of 1940—decades before the writing of these essays.
It was plain in his speech on army reform in 1901 that
Churchill was graced with an ability to see beyond the
claims of his country. Thus he was a champion and exemplar of his country’s nobility and goodness.
I
n contemplating the individual versus the collective
Churchill deploys an entomological simile. “It is a curious fact that the Russian Bolsheviks in carrying by
compulsion mass conceptions to their utmost extreme
seem to have lost not only the guidance of great personalities, but even the economic fertility of the process itself.
The Communist theme aims at universal standardization. The individual becomes a function: the community
is alone of interest: mass thoughts dictated and propagated by the rulers are the only thoughts deemed respectable. No one is to think of himself as an immortal
spirit, clothed in the flesh, but sovereign, unique, indestructible. No one is to think of himself even as that harmonious integrity of mind, soul and body, which, take it
as you will, may claim to be ‘the Lord of Creation.’ Subhuman goals and ideals are set before these Asiatic millions. The Beehive? No, for there must be no queen and
no honey, or at least no honey for others. In Soviet Russia we have a society which seeks to model itself upon the
Ant. There is not one single social or economic principle
or concept in the philosophy of the Russian Bolshevik
which has not been realised, carried into action, and enshrined in immutable laws a million years ago by the
White Ant.” (The termite, which has no queen.)
But this gloomy passage is followed by a statement of hope—and of hope in common people, not in
the arising of a great leader:
“But human nature is more intractable than antnature. The explosive variations of its phenomena disturb
the smooth working out of the laws and forces which
have subjugated the White Ant. It is at once the safeguard and the glory of mankind that they are easy to lead
and hard to drive.”
Churchill then submits a potent statement of
danger for today: >>
FINEST HOUR 146 / 51
CHURCHILL PROCEEDINGS
ARNN...
“Is it then true that civilization and democracy,
when sufficiently developed, will increasingly dispense
with personal direction: that they mean to find their own
way for themselves; and that they are capable of finding
the right way? Or are they already going wrong? Are they
off the track? Have they quitted the stern, narrow highroads which alone lead to glorious destinies and survival?
Is what we now see in the leading democracies merely a
diffusion and squandering of the accumulated wisdom
and treasure of the past?”
It was no more a choice for Churchill to go back
to the ancient city-state than it was for Aristotle to go forward (if forward is the direction) to the modern liberal society. “Mankind has gone too far to go back, and is
moving too fast to stop,” Churchill writes. “There are too
many people maintained not merely in comfort but in existence by processes unknown a century ago, for us to af-
ford even a temporary check, still less a general setback,
without experiencing calamity in its most frightful form.”
Churchill makes this point several times in his
life, as in admonishing Americans at Harvard in 1943:
“There is no halting-place at this point. We have now
reached a stage in the journey where there can be no
pause. We must go on. It must be world anarchy or
world order.”
He was thinking about the unprecedented power
of science in “Fifty Years Hence” when he concluded:
“It is this power called Science which has laid
hold of us, conscripted us into its regiments and batteries, set us to work upon its highways and in its arsenals;
rewarded us for our services, healed us when we were
wounded, trained us when we were young, pensioned us
when we were worn out. None of the generations of men
before the last two or three were ever gripped for good or
ill and handled like this.” ,
Churchill for Today
2. A Contrarian’s View of Churchill as Philosopher
MANFRED WEIDHORN
Dr. Weidhorn is Professor of English Literature at Yeshiva University in New York and the dean of
scholars on Churchill’s literary heritage. He has written four books on Churchill, three of which remain in
print. The first of these was Sword and Pen: A Survey of the Writings of Winston Churchill (1974), still one
of the standard works in its field. Born in Vienna, where his family was chased out by Hitler, he was
raised in Brooklyn and educated at Columbia University and the University of Wisconsin. He is a
contributor to Finest Hour and a member of The Churchill Centre’s College of Fellows.
I
n “Mass Effects in Modern Life,”
Churchill confronts the Great Man vs.
Great Forces theories of history. But
his written record is inconsistent. His
1930s essays, and his novel Savrola written
thirty years before, emphasize Great
Forces. But in his other works we find a
mish-mash, with leanings toward the
Great Man theory, which he certainly held
later in his life.
One explanation is that as a historian, he must take note of historical forces; but as a
working politician, he has to believe in the impact made
by a highly placed individual—otherwise, how can he (or
any politician) run for office with the mantra, “I can
make a difference”?
In “Consistency in Politics,”
Michael McMenamin will argue in
these pages that the legacy of Churchill
is “liberty.” This is incomplete.
Churchill’s legacy is in fact “Liberty and
Social Justice.” That was especially true
in his radical phase, but remained true
even in his long Conservative period,
when he was often to the left of the
American Democratic Party (except on
the New Deal). Let the record show
Michael’s concession that Winston S. Churchill was a
lifelong Liberal!
In “Fifty Years Hence” Churchill writes: “Who
shall say that the world itself will not be wrecked, or
indeed that it ought not to be wrecked?” )(italics added).
FINEST HOUR 146 / 52
This reminds me of the days of my youth when at 9 pm
every Sunday on the radio, Walter Winchell gave
alarming world news, followed at 9:15 by Jimmy
Fiddler, who provided swinish Hollywood gossip. A wag
said, “First you listen to Winchell and fear that the
world is coming to an end; and then you listen to
Fiddler and fear that it isn’t!”
Churchill commits a blooper when he says, near
the beginning of the essay, “We assume that progress will
be constant.” Wrong. We assume that progress exists!
The idea of “progress” is a complex issue. Actually,
there are five quite separate aspects of it: 1)
Technological or absolute progress—what Churchill
mainly deals with in his essays. 2) Intellectual progress.
In the words of Nobel physicist Steven Weinberg: “The
more we learn about the universe, the less do we understand it.” 3) Emotional progress. Freud’s “Work and
Love” remain central: the loss of a job or love is not consoled by learning about the Big Bang or by putting a
man on the moon. 4) Moral progress, e.g., 175 million
lives ended by fellow human beings in the 20th century.
5) Spiritual progress: God grows remote, and no satisfying theory replaces Him.
T
he basic human need is for a narrative that
explains how we got here and where we are going.
Religion provided that, until it became unsatisfactory. Reason and science were to have replaced religion,
but have proved to be no more satisfying. Hence there is
no exit from the human condition, i.e., no progress.
To help locate Churchill’s observations on the
intellectual roadmap, President Harry Truman’s quest is
useful. You will remember his famous demand: “Give me
a one-handed economist! All my economists say, On the
one hand...On the other.”
When it comes to the value of secular, worldly, scientific knowledge, the “one-handed” school is totally
negative. That school includes Augustine, Thoreau,
Gandhi and Tolstoy, all of whom argue that such knowledge (including, or especially, the creature comforts that
result from it) contributes nothing to human fulfilment.
The “two-handed” school, as represented by
Rabelais, Shakespeare and Horace Walpole, celebrates,
unlike the first group, the advances that result from scientific knowledge but, on the other hand, also takes note
of the destructive consequences.
In “Mass Effects in Modern Life,” Churchill
mainly takes the two-handed approach, except for this
sentence: “This material progress, in itself so splendid,
does not meet any of the real needs of the human race.”
He ends the essay with a typical two-handed flourish, as
do many modern essays on this question, such as
Bertrand Russell’s.
Who’s right? Perhaps the matter is put to rest by
Woody Allen’s would-be commencement address: “More
than at any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness,
the other to total extinction. Let us pray we have the
wisdom to choose correctly.” This is two-handedness,
collapsed into one hand. ,
Churchill’s
classic book of
essays in its
earliest and
latest forms.
Left: A very fine
jacketed
Keystone
Library edition
published in
1933, shortly
after the first
trade edition.
Right: The latest
edition by ISI
Press, with a
new introduction
by James W.
Muller and
extensive new
footnotes by
Paul Courtenay.
Available to
members for
$17.40 from the
Churchill Centre
Book Club (see
page 37).
FINEST HOUR 146 / 53
CHURCHILL PROCEEDINGS
On Liberty: Churchill’s
“Consistency in Politics”
MICHAEL McMENAMIN
Mr. McMenamin is a first amendment and media defense lawyer in Cleveland and co-author of Becoming
Winston Churchill: The Untold Story of the Young Churchill and His American Mentor [Bourke Cockran].
He is the co-author of the exposé Milking the Public: Political Scandals of the Dairy Lobby from LBJ to
Jimmy Carter. A long-time contributor to Finest Hour and to Reason, he has also written for The Wall Street
Journal, The Sacramento Bee, The St. Louis Post Dispatch, The Cleveland Plain Dealer, and The Nation.
B
efore you can judge a politician’s
“consistency in politics,” as described in Churchill’s Thoughts
and Adventures, you need to know what
principles the politician professes to hold.
I’ve studied Churchill’s political
principles, and how he acquired them,
for twenty years. When I started, it was
not that easy to find much literature on
the subject. Save civilization and people
don’t tend to care that much what your
political principles were, or whether you were consistent
in applying them.
My own interest in the subject came about after
reading his book For Free Trade, a collection of speeches
leading up to the election of 1906, which resulted in a
Liberal Party landslide. As a contributing editor to the
libertarian political journal Reason, whose motto is “free
minds and free markets,” I was struck by several passages
in For Free Trade. Here is one of them:
The theory of Protection is either right or wrong. The
doctrines that (by) keeping out foreign goods, more
wealth and consequently more employment will be
created at home are either true or they are not true. We
contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift
himself up by the handle.
Another passage in this obscure little book by
Churchill which impressed me was this:
You may, by the arbitrary and sterile act of
government—for, remember, governments
create nothing and have nothing to give
but what they have first taken away—you
may put money in the pocket of one set of
Englishmen, but it will be money taken
from the pockets of another set of
Englishmen, and the greater part will be
spilled on the way. Every vote given for
protection is a vote to give governments
the right of robbing Peter to pay Paul, and
charging the public a handsome commission on the job.
Churchill’s arguments on Free Trade were as cogent and persuasive to me in the 1990s as they must have
been ninety years earlier. So inspired, I persuaded my editors at Reason to run an article in the form of a “debate”
on Free Trade featuring young Winston Churchill and
Richard Gephardt, majority leader of the House of Representatives and at the time the most prominent national
supporter of protectionism. Gephardt didn’t stand a
chance and neither would any protectionist today, among
which President Obama is prominent.
In my quest to learn more about Churchill’s political principles, I sent a copy of my Reason debate article to Churchill’s official biographer, asking if he could
recommend books exploring Churchill’s political philosophy. By return mail I received a gracious letter from Sir
Martin Gilbert and, to my delight, an autographed copy
of his then-out-of-print book Churchill’s Political Philosophy, which I promptly read.
FINEST HOUR 146 / 54
In reading that book, I was struck by the following comment from Eric Seal, Churchill’s Principle Private Secretary from September 1939 through mid-1941.
Seal seemed to describe principles which were the same
for Churchill then as when WSC was a young man:
The key word in any understanding of Winston
Churchill is the simple word “Liberty.” Throughout his
life, through many changes and vicissitudes, Winston
Churchill stood for liberty. He intensely disliked, and
reacted violently against, all attempts to regiment and
dictate opinion. In this attitude, he was consistent
through his political life.
When Paul Addison published his political biography Churchill on the Home Front, he too described
Churchill’s political and economic philosophy in a way
which reinforced my impression from For Free Trade:
Churchill…detested all peacetime plans for the regulation
and control of the economy. They smacked to him of regimentation and dictatorship. Churchill was often dismissed
as an adventurer but it was, of course, this quality of individualism for which, above all else, he stood.
By now I was certain that you could characterize
Churchill (as he did himself ) as a “liberal” in the European sense, or a “classical liberal” as used in America
today, i.e., a believer in individual liberty and free markets. But how and when did Churchill begin to acquire
these principles? It was not from his father, whose “Tory
Democracy” was more a slogan than a philosophy.
Churchill began to form his political principles
in the summer of 1895, before he met his American
mentor, Bourke Cockran. While that is apparent now, it
was certainly not apparent to me at the time. Yet
Churchill left any number of clues for those who wanted
to know how and when he began to acquire the classic
liberal principles which he followed more or less consistently throughout his career. Here are just a few.
While much is made of Churchill’s 1897 selfeducation in India, he actually started much earlier. In
the summer of 1895, he read Henry Fawcett’s 1865
classic Manual of Political Economy. Fawcett was a
strong free-market liberal and the Manual of Political
Economy was based upon the work of John Stuart Mill,
with whom Fawcett served as a Member of Parliament.
Churchill wrote to his mother in the summer of 1895
about Fawcett’s book:
…I have now got a capital book—causing much
thought—and of great interest. It is a work on political
economy by Fawcett. When I have read it—and it is very
long—I shall perhaps feel inclined to go still farther afield
in an absorbing subject. But this is a book essentially
devoted to “first principles”—and one which would leave
at least a clear knowledge of the framework of the subject
behind—and would be of use even if the subject were not
persevered in.
I found Churchill’s reference to “first principles”
interesting in light of what he later wrote about Bourke
Cockran in Thoughts and Adventures, in an essay which
follows immediately upon his “Consistency in Politics.”
After referring to the Democrat Cockran’s support for
McKinley for President in 1896—opposing the candidate of his own party, William Jennings Bryan, over the
issue of free silver—and Cockran’s subsequent return to
the Democrat fold in 1900, Churchill wrote:
Cockran by that frequent recurrent to first principles…
had evolved a complete scheme of political thought
which enabled him to present a sincere and effective front
in every direction according to changing circumstances.
[emphasis added]….Above all he was a free-trader and
repeatedly declared that this was an underlying doctrine
by which all the others were united.
As early as 1904 Churchill acknowledged in a
letter to Cockran the influence his mentor had in developing his political principles: “I would like to think that
under different skies and different lands we are fighting
in one long line of battle for a common cause.”
Fifty years later, Churchill was saying the same
thing about Cockran, in a 1954 speech accepting an
honorary degree from the State University of New York:
There was another thing Bourke Cockran used to say to
me. I cannot remember his actual words but they
amounted to this: “In a society where there is democratic
tolerance and freedom under the law, many kinds of evils
will crop up but give them a little time and they usually
breed their own cure”….I remain a strong supporter of
the principles which Mr. Bourke Cockran inculcated into
me on my youthful visit before most of you were born.
Was Churchill consistent in his basic precepts
throughout his career? At age 23, he had already declared
himself to be a Liberal in his political principles. As he
wrote in a letter to his mother from India in 1897:
There are no lengths to which I would not go in opposing
[the Conservatives] were I in the House of Commons. I
am a Liberal in all but name. My views excite the pious
horror of the [Officers’] Mess. Were it not for Home
Rule—to which I will never consent—I would enter
Parliament as a Liberal. As it is—Tory Democracy will
have to be the standard under which I shall range myself.
As more countries turn to protectionism in response to the financial crisis of 2008, “the old phrases of
1903” stand up fairly well to the special interests who >>
FINEST HOUR 146 / 55
CHURCHILL PROCEEDINGS
McMENAMIN...
are seeking higher tariffs to maintain higher prices without sacrificing market share. They are prompted by the
same impulses motivating British and American protectionists in the early 1900s.
Amid the controversies of 1934 over Home Rule
for India and German rearmament, where Churchill’s
stands were as principled as they were unpopular, he took
the time to oppose unsuccessfully the Gambling Bill of
1934. On four occasions he spoke against this bill, which
he believed posed serious dangers to civil liberties.
The bill sought to legalize gambling for dog racing and football while making participation in sweepstakes illegal. Churchill was appalled at the hypocrisy, but
the bulk of his opposition was addressed to the infringement on civil liberties the gambling bill called for. Three
things aroused his concern. First, the bill called for press
censorship by prohibiting newspapers from publishing
the list of Irish Sweepstakes winners. Second, the bill provided for warrantless police searches of private homes.
Third, the bill granted government the authority to open
private mail to find contraband sweepstakes tickets.
In addressing his own party leaders on the government bench, he told them: “you have lost your sense
of proportion.” Then, turning to the Labour Party he
said more ominously to Clement Attlee:
I put it to the Leader of the Opposition who all his life
has fought for liberty that they owe it to themselves and
their movement, in view of what is taking place all over
the world, to be particularly careful, on all questions
which arise, to preserve the liberty of the individual.”
[emphasis added]
By “what is taking place,” Churchill meant the rise of fascism generally and Nazi Germany in particular. Keep
that in mind when reading “Consistency in Politics.”
His detractors claim he wasn’t consistent, but
they’re wrong. Churchill wasn’t perfect. He would instinctively compromise in order to achieve progress. But
his politicw were more consistent than those of any other
British politician of his generation. And individual liberty was at its core. ,
Democracy in the Age of Information
PAUL ALKON
Dr. Alkon, an Academic Adviser to The Churchill Centre, is Leo S. Bing Professor Emeritus of English and
American Literature at the University of Southern California. He has published books on Samuel Johnson,
Daniel Defoe and science fiction, along with a unique Churchill work, Winston Churchill’s Imagination
(2006). In 2003 he won our Somervell Prize for his Lawrence of Arabia features in Finest Hour 119.
I
n a 1941 essay entitled “Wells, Hitler,
and the World State,” George Orwell
condemned as naive and dangerous
the political views of H.G. Wells. So,
very often, had Churchill, although he
and Wells were friends. His objections
mostly centered on what he regarded as
Wells’s gullible approval of the Soviet
Union and ungrateful disapproval of the
capitalist system which allowed him to
prosper as people bought his novels.
Orwell also suggested, paradoxically, that Wells
was “too sane to understand the modern world.” How
can there be too much sanity? This difficulty, Orwell
explained, arose because we don’t live in a sane world,
but Wells “was, and still is, quite incapable of understanding that nationalism, religious bigotry and feudal
loyalty are far more powerful forces than what he himself
would describe as sanity. Creatures out
of the Dark Ages have come marching
into the present, and if they are ghosts
they are at any rate ghosts which need a
strong magic to lay them.”1
In 1941, the most conspicuous
creatures of the Dark Ages were Hitler
and his legions. That Churchill understood this is clear from the warning in
his “Finest Hour” speech that under
Hitler, “the whole world” would “sink
into the abyss of a New Dark Age.”2
Despite their contempt for Wells’s politics, Orwell
and Churchill admired his novels, especially his scientific
romances. In 1931, Churchill, after castigating (as usual)
Wells’s political views, praised the novels:
...when I came upon The Time Machine, that marvellous
philosophical romance….I shouted with joy. Then I read
FINEST HOUR 146 / 56
all his books. I have read them all over since. I could pass
an examination in them. One whole long shelf in my
small library is filled with a complete edition.3
Churchill goes on to applaud the accuracy of
Wells’s predictions: air warfare, tanks and the like. But
Orwell gets at something more general, Wells’s presentation of a new way to regard the entire future:
...it was a wonderful experience for a boy to discover
H.G. Wells. There you were, in a world of pedants, clergymen and golfers, with your future employers
exhorting you to “get on or get out,” your parents systematically warping your sexual life, and your
dull-witted schoolmasters sniggering over their Latin
tags; and here was this wonderful man who could tell
you about the inhabitants of the planets and the bottom
of the sea, and who knew that the future was not going
to be what respectable people imagined.4
The novels, in other words, invited readers to consider change, not stability, as the norm. Churchill
emphatically agrees. The characteristic feature of modern
life, which distinguishes it from past history, he insists, is
the inevitability of rapid change. Churchill didn’t learn
this from Wells. But that lesson in the novels surely
accounts in some measure for Churchill’s attraction to
them. It was a matter of affinity more than influence,
although Orwell was right too in remarking: “I doubt
whether anyone who was writing books between 1900
and 1920, at any rate in the English language, influenced the young so much. The minds of all of us, and
therefore the physical world, would be perceptibly different if Wells had never existed.”5
When The Time Machine was published in 1895,
Churchill was twenty-one. It was life in the 20th
century, not fiction, that impressed on him change, not
stability, as the new norm for society, as for individuals.
Looking back in his 1930 autobiography, Churchill
wrote that he had “drawn a picture of a vanished age. The
character of society, the foundations of politics, the
methods of war, the outlook of youth, the scale of values,
are all changed, and changed to an extent I should not
have believed possible in so short a space without any
violent domestic revolution.”6 and “scarcely anything
material or established which I was brought up to believe
was permanent and vital, has lasted. Everything I was sure
or taught to be sure was impossible, has happened.”7
It is in the light of this disconcerting realization
that we can best approach Churchill’s “Consistency in
Politics.” Like My Early Life, it was published in the
aftermath of World War I, the most shattering interval
of early 20th century change.
Churchill’s fundamental premise is clearly stated:
“The only way a man can remain consistent amid
changing circumstances is to change with them while
preserving the same dominating purpose.” Because circumstances are always and inevitably changing, changes
in political tactics, strategy, and even beliefs must when
necessary be embraced and announced: “A Statesman
should always try to do what he believes is best in the
long view for his country, and he should not be dissuaded from so acting by having to divorce himself from
a great body of doctrine to which he formerly sincerely
adhereed.”8 No lesson could be more clear. No lesson
could be harder to apply in practice, whether as a politician or in judging politicians to decide if their shifting
allegiances and ideologies are in pursuit of a steady and
worthy larger goal, or mere trimming for the sake of
immediate advantage.
Over his lifetime, Churchill himself was astonishingly adaptable in coping with changing circumstances.
Most of us would agree that despite some mistakes and
deplorable contradictions, he went with considerable
success and steadiness of worthy purposes, from fighting
for England on horseback to serving as Prime Minister
in the era of hydrogen bombs.
But it’s easier to see this now. There was less agreement about the worthiness of Churchill’s changing
attitudes and allegiances in his own day—when, for
example, he switched parties twice. “Consistency in
Politics” is partly an implicit apologia and defense of his
own political transformations. But Churchill’s explicit
examples are from the comfortably distant and less controversial past: Edmund Burke, Robert Peel, William
Gladstone, Joseph Chamberlain.
I’ll be surprised if anybody jumps up today to disagree about Peel or Gladstone. But good luck to us all if
we try to apply it to current politics. I hope we don’t try.
It’s better to go home and keep Churchill’s essay in
mind as a caution against over-hasty judgements, and an
invitation to try as best we can in the whirl of immediate
events and our own shifting opinions to look for the
dominating purposes—worthy or unworthy—that may
motivate political pronouncements. ,
Endnotes
1. George Orwell, “Wells, Hitler and the World State,” in Dickens,
Dali and Others (London: HBJ, 1973), 123.
2. Winston S. Churchill, Blood, Sweat, and Tears (New York:
Putnams 1941), 314.
3. Winston S. Churchill, “H. G. Wells,” in the Collected Essays of
Sir Winston Churchill, 4 vols. (London: Library of Imperial History,
1975), III 52-53.
4. Orwell, “Wells, Hitler and the World State,” 122.
5. Ibid., 121.
6. Winston Churchill, My Early Life (New York: Simon &
Schuster Touchstone, 1996), xxi.
7. Churchill, My Early Life, 67.
8. Winston S. Churchill, Thoughts and Adventures (London:
Thornton Butterworth, 1932), 23, 29.
FINEST HOUR 146 / 57
Finest Hour Reader Survey, 2009
In which we finally get what’s coming to us.
Interest:
Leadership
Writings
Statesmanship
Humor
Paintings
Family
Other
COMPILED BY BARBARA LANGWORTH
O
ur latest reader survey was available on the internet for the first time. Webmaster John Olsen created a form whereby members could enter their
opinions online. Mailed-in entries were keyed in by Barbara Langworth who compiled the data using John’s database system. We received about 200, half by each method.
Not everyone filled in all the blanks so the totals
vary. Respondents were from the USA, Canada, UK, Singapore, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and Australia.
About 65 percent of those who responded to our question about age were over 60
Age
No.
%
years old, This statistic is not
60+
113
65
quite so grim as it may ap50-59 40
23
pear. The average age of
40-49 16
9
members who state their age
30-39 3
2
(based on our database) is 55
20-29 2
1
thus only 23 percent of those
replying to the survey were in
the average age bracket. The average age is 55 in the
U.S., 59 in Canada.
Of 164 who responded to the “occupation” question, under half were retired or semi-retired. Common
occupations were attorneys, lawyers, medical professionals and educators, businessMembership length
people, accountants,
Years No.
%
managers, administrators and
10+
94
50.1
consultants. They included a
5-10 30
16.0
pastor, photographer, sports3-5
40
21.5
caster, U.S. marshal and
0-2
23
12.4
Blackjack dealer! Over half
were longtime members.
Nearly all told us where they had heard of us.
Among “Other” enHeard via:
No.
%
tries were “don’t reFriend
42
21.8
member,” personal
CC website
23
11.9
contacts, magazines
Bookseller
21
10.9
or books, Chartwell;
Internet
20
10.4
and one or two via
War Rooms
11
5.7
the English-Speaking
Local Event
11
5.7
Union, and Fulton
Other
65
33.6
Memorial. Despite
our flyers twice being
shipped with Levenger books, none mentioned Levenger.
No.
170
167
166
124
69
65
17
%
21.9
21.7
21.5
15.1
9.0
8.5
2.3
We asked what
interests you most
about Churchill (778
ticks, right) and what
Churchill items do
you collect (484 ticks,
Collect:
No.
%
below).
Books
178
36.8
We asked for
DVDs
77
15.9
your interest in Finest
Churchilliana
55
11.4
Hour, the Chartwell
Videos
54
11.2
Bulletin and website.
Recordings
49
10.1
Three-quarters of you
Art
35
7.2
said “high,” and the
Stamps
17
3.5
rest “moderate.” All
Nothing
8
1.7
but six wanted more
Other
11
2.2
or the same level of
publications and web
services.
In answer to the question about readership level,
42.3 percent said they read Finest Hour cover to cover,
38.1 percent said “thoroughly,” and 19.1 percent read
“selections.” Only one person said they “flip through it.”
Among “publications read,” 464 ticks were distributed
between Finest Hour (39 percent), the Chartwell Bulletin
(32 percent) and “Churchill Proceedings” within Finest
Hour (29 percent).
What is your favorite feature of Finest Hour?
Repsondents listed (in order): articles by Churchill
and book reviews (by far the highest votes), glossy cover,
Books Arts & Curiosities, Action This Day, feature articles, cover story, Wit & Wisdom, Riddles, Mysteries,
Enigmas, Churchill Proceedings, Editor’s Essay, World
War II, Quiz. Several approved of recent in-depth articles
such as the Ed Murrow story, “This...is London.”
Is Finest Hour just fine as it is?
Ninety-five percent (142) said yes, while five percent (seven) said no. A typical response was: “Great as it
is, rich and robust with interesting and compelling topics. It will stand the test of time as a literary collectable.”
Mailed questionnaires (but not web participants)
rated Finest Hour contents, distributing 925 ticks over
FINEST HOUR 146 / 58
favorite article subjects, 285 over favorite illustrations,
and 1,369 over favorite standing departmments in the
magazine, distributed as follows:
Interest area:
Youth/family
On WW1
On WW2
Post-WW2
Articles...
By WSC
Relevance
Literary
Quotations
No.
88
142
137
103
%
9.5
15.4
14.8
11.1
ticks
32
34
36
33
high
15
20
32
13
some
13
12
3
16
132
107
104
98
14.3
11.6
11.2
10.6
34
35
34
33
29
18
21
21
5
13
10
9
Illustrations
Cartoons
Paintings...
By WSC
Of WSC
count %
109
38.3
ticks
33
high
15
some
10
34
30
11
8
16
15
Department
Book Reviews
Wit & Wisdom
Leading Myths
Old Books
Editor’s Essay
Action this Day
Riddles
Despatch Box
Quiz
Bibliography
Around&About
Datelines
Ampersand
Book Club
Other
count %
140
10.2
125
9.1
123
9.0
116
8.5
105
7.7
102
7.5
100
7.3
78
5.7
77
5.6
76
5.6
70
5.1
66
4.8
55
4.0
73
5.3
14
1.5
ticks
37
35
35
31
34
26
34
29
33
28
27
32
26
29
high
30
22
19
23
20
17
19
11
9
13
8
15
10
14
some
7
12
15
6
14
8
12
10
11
7
15
14
10
11
92
84
32.3
29.5
General recommendations
We asked how you would improve it and received
sixty comments: “More book reviews....articles about collecting Winston Churchill’s books….more on
Churchill’s relevance today….analysis of his voluminous
writings….Victorian moral attitudes, with modern application.…famous Churchillians now in the news….continue to publish opposing views and perspective, such as
Diarmaid Ferriter’s take on de Valera….essays, speeches
and talks by others about WSC….Churchill during the
interwar years 1919-39….‘then and now’ photos.…the
people around Churchill….relationships with friends,
family, and enemies, personal and professional....shorter
articles, more pictures.”
Occasionally, advice was contradicslight nil
tory: “More excerpts from scholarly writ2
2
ings” and “I like the newer, scholarly
1
1
format” were countered by “more for the
0
1
average reader, less from scholars and ac3
1
ademics.” Some said “I have no interest
in stamps and skip those articles,” while
0
0
others said, “more stamps.”
4
1
3
0
Specific recommendations
3
0
“The problem of objectively understanding and writing about wars and history....lighter articles such as Terry
Reardon’s on St. Pierre et Miquelon in
slight nil
the autumn 2007 issues, to balance more
7
1
scholarly articles by Martin Gilbert and
other academics....an issue devoted to his
7
0
writings, the Nobel Prize....the cars
6
1
Churchill owned (an article has long
been gestating on this)....more excerpts
from Langworth’s Connoisseur’s Guide
slight nil
to the Books of Sir Winston Churchill
0
0
....how Churchill studied history and ap1
0
plied or ignored it in various situations.”
1
0
One reader recommended “more on
2
0
WSC’s early Parliamentary Bills between
0
0
1906 and 1914: No other statesmen
1
0
thought of the conditions of the working
3
0
man in the early 20th century.”
7
1
11
2
“The Relevance Thing”
8
0
More readers prefer articles relating
4
0
Churchill to today’s world than readers
3
0
who don’t want them. A sampling:
6
0
“More articles with relevant actuality, re3
1
lations between nations, globalisation.…
more on WSC’s relevance to today’s
challenges and crises….how would he
react to today’s issues on war, healthcare?...how would he
handle the dreadful happenings in the UK—the EC,
crime, mass immigration, growing Muslim population?...more contemporary comment on WSC’s relevance
in a vastly changed and changing world.” But one reader
raised a caution: “I do have a concern at bringing
Churchill into modern issues and allowing writers to take
advantage of the publication to air their modern views.”
We think we’re already doing that...
Some of you asked for things we believe we are >>
FINEST HOUR 146 / 59
READER SURVEY
already doing: “A Churchill Calendar of activities during
past and/or forthcoming quarter” (see website and
Chartwell Bulletin)...lists of Best Books by and about
Churchill (see FH 140, but we’ll do more of this)....current news related to Churchill” (see Datelines and
Around & About)....info on upcoming lecture series
events at Cabinet War Rooms” (see Chartwell Bulletin)....where readers can find good Churchill photographs and sculpture to purchase (see winstonchurchll.org
and click on “shop”)....Churchill’s influence on today’s
Middle East/Muslim situation, for which he is often
blamed (see “Churchill and the Founding of Iraq,” FH
132)....more diary extracts or articles from people close
to Churchill (see recent articles by Messrs. Bullock and
Golding, FH 143-45; we publish such new material, but
published diaries by colleagues are not within our right
to reprint)....bring back stamps and Churchilliana.” (We
heard you; see issues from FH 140 on.)
Finest Hour Design and Layout
Few comments were offered, and some was contradictory. On the one hand: “Break up the print with cartoons or Churchill’s paintings, photographs of his early
days where relevant,” and “I believe the magazine would
benefit from a more contemporary feel and look. The articles and features, whilst very interesting are dated in
presentation and layout.” On the other hand: “The publication continues to be well designed; don’t change a
thing; you can’t improve on it,” and “It was very good
when I joined five years ago and it is better now.”
However, the reader survey preceded one of our periodic redesigns. Commencing with FH 145, the magazine was altered by eliminating white-on-black caption
blocks, adding more white space and leading between
lines of type, cutting back on line rules, using more sansserif type and photo “bleeds” (off the page edge). We typically redesign every five years. Readers concerned with
layout and design should look at this issue, and FH 145,
and tell us what you think of the changes.
Some things are unavoidable. Not being A-4 format, Finest Hour is going to appear “foreign” to Europeans the moment they take it from its envelope—
despite our insistence on English spelling for Englishoriginated material (see “FH is Bilingual,” page 7).
We always aim to improve readability, because
Finest Hour is more type-driven (like The Spectator)
than art-driven (like Architectural Digest).
The editors are not graphic designers, and, while we
deprecate the modern tendency toward acres of white
space and enormous titles, an art director could surely
improve the product—at a price. However, there are
higher priorities, including a deputy editor, and, recog-
nizing actuarial reality, a plan for succession.
Your praise was both humbling and encouraging:
“Every time I learn something new (WSC decreed that a
cat must always be at Chartwell—I had no idea!)...Finest
Hour is one of the most professional quality publications
one can receive.…I have each issue from #1....superb; no
suggestions for improvement....an exceptional job together with the newly formatted website….the frequency
of publication is just right for me….I read FH cover to
cover and enjoy it greatly….I learn a lot about Churchill
from many angles….I wouldn’t change a thing.…I enjoy
everything—have learned so much and think our editor
is terrific….I like FH in its entire form—all subjects…. I
love Finest Hour, just make it larger….always look forward to my copy…. the book reviews are excellent.”
Chartwell Bulletin and Churchill Proceedings
Most readers approved of our 2007 decision to expand the Chartwell Bulletin to cover all event and news
items, while devoting an expanded Finest Hour to “all
Churchill, all the time.” One reader “missed coverage of
events in FH, while realizing that the Chartwell Bulletin
is now the vehicle for this.” A few readers thought that
Churchill Proceedings (scholarly papers from conferences) should revert to its previous format as a separate
publication. But most approved of running the Proceedings within issues of FH, which produces those papers up
to three years earlier than they were being produced in
the old separate format. And, of course, our new website
feature, “Finest Hour Online,” offers more scholarly papers that don’t make FH for reasons of space.
Effective with issue 21, The Chartwell Bulletin was
redesigned to match the appearance of the website—
which is important, because many members now read it
only on the web. Hard copies of the Chartwell Bulletin
are mailed only to U.S. members. Both the UK and
Canadian organizations have opted to read it via our
website, where it is posted up to a month before the hard
copy is mailed. Many Americans also read it online.
We were interested to know if American members
also wanted an email-only Bulletin. While 60 percent
said they would prefer it by email, only 20 percent said
they would want it only by email, and over 40 percent
said they would “disapprove” or “disapprove strongly” if
this was the only way they could read it. (Three said they
would drop their membership!)
Website (www.winstonchurchill.org)
We were anxious to know how often you use the
website and were encouraged by the results. Nearly twothirds of you use it monthly, and six percent use it daily.
On the other hand, there are 36 percent who never use it
FINEST HOUR 146 / 60
at all. As “Finest Hour Online” continues to expand,
those who don’t use it at all will unfortunately miss the
material not in our print publications.
Favorite website features garnered 400 ticks:
One reader commented: “There’s not enough time in
the day to digest all this information!” More specific criticisms were:
Interest
No.
%
“Finest Hour arNews
58
15.0
ticles are slow to
Quotations
43
11.1
be available onWSC speeches 41
10.6
line and help in
Myths
41
10.6
access is perfuncPublications
39
10.1
tory…. the webQuote of Season 33
8.5
site rarely works.
Action This Day 29
7.5
I’ve been diAudio-Video
24
6.2
rected to go
Calendar
23
6.0
there to renew
Quiz
20
5.2
my membership
Local News
20
5.2
but it never
Educators
15
3.9
works….when I
contact support,
they tell it me it doesn’t work and to use snail mail—
there are broken links though I think most of those have
been repaired….The chronological web version of Action
This Day is a little difficult to navigate.”
Webmaster John Olsen is sensitive to these concerns, but the new website still requires masses of old material to be converted and new .pdf files of back issues to
be posted, so it’s a matter of time. Never hesitate to contact the webmaster if you have any trouble; he wants to
help and acts promptly.
General Criticisms
We asked “what bugs you” and fifty-three replied.
Some said, “I’m not bugged about anything.” Complaints included: “[One of our trustees] is welcome as a
Churchillian but I don’t like reading him and will not attend events where he is a speaker….We need more outreach to the younger generations. Having been a member
since I was 13, and now approaching 40, I find that people of my generation are not as familiar with the
Churchill saga….Throughout the administration of
George Bush, one of the worst Presidents ever, you compared him favorably to Churchill.” We take issue with
the last. We avoid modern comparisons; quite often we
have said they are non-sequitur. The Jablonsky article on
the “Bush Doctrine” was more critical than complimentary. G.W. Bush did speak at one of our events; that’s
something we’ll cover regardless of who is president.
On the other hand, many respondents had no complaints at all: “We get 20-30 magazines a month; Finest
Hour is the one I read from cover to cover.”
Conference Comments
The most common complaint about conferences
was expense: “Pricey for an average guy like me….way
too expensive….too far away….too expensive locations….should not always be the same time of year.”
Suggestions included: “Could we try one on a campus in
the summer to see if it could be offered for less and provide more educational time?...a gathering of Churchill
Centre Associates (contributors to the endowment).…
too expensive for retirees; some kind of senior citizen discount might be considered.” (Note: The average age at
conferences is much higher than the overall average age.
We’ve always thought this is because older members have
more time to spare, but their support is crucial.)
Local Chapters
“The affiliates and chapters need a press kit designed by the Centre—one was promised in San Francisco, but it has not been delivered—the press kit would
provide suggestions and materials on how to promote
and advertise our local activities….why don’t Australia
and NZ support WC as in the US and Canada, now that
it’s clear he was the fall guy for Gallipoli?”
We asked if there was a local branch near you. Sixtyeight percent said yes the rest said no; most of the latter
would like a branch near them. Members were split over
whether they wished to attend local events, but if there
were a local chapter or branch in their area, 84 percent
said they’d attend.
Lastly we asked if you felt if your local chapter was
effective. A hearty 77 percent said yes but 23 percent
thought a chapter was not functioning. Several specific
comments on chapters were passed on to their leaders.
Best Features
We asked what The Churchill Centre does best, and
ninety-two members replied: “Keeps subjects varied, diverse, compelling and informative....the episodes in his
life and leadership….classy events with very big headline
speakers….publications, book reviews, Churchill Tours
and activities….Churchill Museum at the Cabinet War
Rooms….the Centre is responsive to members with a
friendly, courteous staff....stays true to Churchill....outstanding website and journal….fine symposia and seminars….conference topics, speakers and venues are all very
attractive....adds real substance to what one already
knows about Churchill….clearing house for ideas….a
wonderful job keeping WSC’s memory alive….educates
young people and their teachers….thought-provoking articles….inclusiveness: I feel I belong.”
Thanks to all who took the trouble to respond, and
be assured we are listening to your thoughts. ,
FINEST HOUR 146 / 61
Level 3
7. What were the warnings which
Churchill sent to Stalin between April
and June 1941, which were mainly
ignored? (W)
8. Young Winston wrote his
mother from his Brighton school in
1885: “Tell Oom I got my coat.” Who
was Oom? (P)
9. Which event prompted WSC
to broadcast in June 1940: “We have
become the sole champions now in
arms to defend the world cause”? (W)
10. What is the date of this ditty?
You’ve heard of Winston Churchill
This is all I need to say
He’s the latest and the greatest
Correspondent of the day. (P)
Level 2
13. Churchill’s Amid These
Storms was published in New York in
1932. What was the title of the British
edition? (L)
14. Which of Churchill’s relations was known as the “Father of the
American Turf”? (P)
15. In February 1938 WSC
spoke about the new Foreign Secretary,
Lord Halifax: “What is the point of
crying out for the moon, when you
have the sun, and you have that bright
orb of day from whose effulgent beams
the lesser luminaries derive their radiance.” Who was the “bright orb”? (C)
16. Which Churchill book, published in 1910, did he describe “as a
guide for some and as an armoury for
others”? (L)
17. On 12 November 1943
Churchill cabled Roosevelt, saying that
this would be a good time to rid ourselves of “that turbulent Knight.” Who
was the Knight? (C)
18. In which speech did
Churchill say: “Do we not owe it to
ourselves, to our children, to mankind
tormented, to make sure that these
catastrophes shall not engulf us for the
third time”? (S)
Level 1
19. Who wrote the excellent
monograph on Churchill in the 2004
edition of the Oxford Dictionary of
National Biography? (L)
20. Why was 13 August an
important historical date for Winston
Churchill? (P)
21. How old was Churchill when
Asquith made him Home Secretary? (S)
FINEST HOUR 145 / 62
24. Where did Churchill say in 1904:
“To think you can make a man richer
by putting on a tax is like a man
thinking he can stand in a bucket and
lift himself up by the handle”? (S)
Answers
(1) My Early Life. (2) Fulton, Missouri.
(3) Franklin Roosevelt. (4) Germany. WSC
used almost the same words in the House
of Commons again in 1943. (5) “…the sun
in his eyes and the wind in his teeth.” (6)
Winston Churchill.
Level 4
1. “When does one first begin to
remember? When do the waving lights
and shadows of dawning consciousness
cast their print upon the mind of a
child?” These are the opening sentences
of which Churchill book? (L)
2. Where did Churchill give the
Iron Curtain speech? (S)
3. Who cabled Churchill on 8
December 1941: “Today all of us are in
the same boat with you...and it is a
ship which will not and can not be
sunk”? (W)
4. “Those who choose the
moment for beginning wars do not
always fix the moment for ending
them.” (1918.) To which country did
Churchill refer ? (W)
5. At a Conservative fête in 1938
WSC told the Duchess of Buccleuch:
“Put Neville Chamberlain with the
shun in his eyes and the wind in his
teesch.” Translate. (M)
6. Whom did an 1897 Daily
Chronicle reviewer describe as
“Pushful, the Younger”? (M)
23. At a White House luncheon in
1943, when a guest brought up India,
WSC asked: “Are we talking about the
brown Indians in India, who have multiplied alarmingly under the benevolent
British rule? Or are we speaking of the
red Indians in America who, I understand, are almost extinct?” Who was
the guest? (M)
(7) That Germany was preparing to invade
Russia. (8) His nurse Mrs Everest, aka
“Woomany” or “Woom.” (9) The decision
of Pétain on 16 June to seek an armistice
with Hitler. (10) 1900, after WSC returned
from South Africa in July. (11) Winston
Churchill. (12) Bourke Cockran.
Each 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?
22. After which speech in May 1940
did WSC say to his old friend
Desmond Morton, “That got the sods,
didn't it”? (M)
(13) Thoughts and Adventures. (14) His
maternal grandfather Leonard Jerome, who
founded the Coney Island Jockey Club and
Jerome Park. (15) Prime Minister Neville
Chamberlain. (16) The People’s Rights.
(17) Charles de Gaulle. (18) Speech to a
joint session of the U.S. Congress, 26
December 1941.
JAMES LANCASTER
11. From whom in
1910 did King George V
receive a letter with this
observation? “It must not however be
forgotten that there are idlers and
wastrels at both ends of the social
scale.” (C)
12. “I must record the strong
impression which this remarkable man
made [in 1895] upon my untutored
mind. I have never seen his like, or in
some respects his equal.” Who is the
young Churchill describing? (C)
(19) Professor Paul Addison. (20)
Anniversary of the Battle of Blenheim,
1704. (21) Thirty-five (youngest Home
Secretary since Sir Robert Peel in 1822).
(22) Leaving the Commons chamber after
his “Blood, toil, tears, and sweat” speech on
13 May 1940. (23) Helen Ogden Mills
Reid, Vice President of the New York
Herald Tribune and sister of Colonel
McCormick, the redoubtable publisher of
the Chicago Tribune. (24) Free Trade Hall,
Manchester.
Churchill Quiz
REGIONAL AND LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS
Chapters: Please send all news reports to the Chartwell Bulletin: [email protected]
LOCAL COORDINATORS (USA)
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
V7S 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])
Fulbright & Jaworski, 666 Fifth Ave.
New York NY 10103; tel. (212) 318-3388
Churchill Centre Chicagoland
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, Goldsboroughdd
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
tel. (305) 668-4419; mobile (305) 606-5939
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
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
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
thechurchillcentresouthtexas.com
Don Jakeway ([email protected])
170 Grassmarket, San Antonio, TX 78259
tel. (210) 333-2085
Winston Churchill Society of Michigan
Richard Marsh ([email protected])
4085 Littledown, Ann Arbor, MI 48103
tel. (734) 913-0848
Sir Winston Churchill Society of
Vancouver Island
Sidney Allinson, Pres. ([email protected])
3370 Passage Way, Victoria BC V9C 4J6
tel. (250) 478-0457
Churchill Round Table of Nebraska
John Meeks ([email protected])
7720 Howard Street #3, Omaha NE 68114
tel. (402) 968-2773
Washington (DC) Society for Churchill
John H. Mather, Pres. ([email protected])
PO Box 73, Vienna VA 22182-0073
tel. (240) 353-6782
New England Churchillians
Joseph L. Hern ([email protected])
340 Beale Street, Quincy MA 02170
tel. (617) 773-1907; bus. tel. (617) 248-1919
Churchill Centre Seattle
www.churchillseattle.blogspot.com
Simon Mould ([email protected])
1920 243rd Pl., SW, Bothell, WA 98021
tel. (425) 286-7364
Churchill Society of New Orleans
J. Gregg Collins ([email protected])
2880 Lakeway Three
3838 N. Causeway Blvd., Metairie LA 70002
tel. (504) 799-3484
®
Covers:
The Memorial Screen at
St. Paul’s Cathedral, London
A memorial to Sir Winston in St. Paul’s Cathedral was long considered.
Nelson and Wellington are both buried there, and their memorials are a
central focus within the Crypt. But Churchill is buried at Bladon, and the
only memorial to him within the Cathedral records the position where the
coffin stood at his funeral, a spot now hidden beneath the Dome Sanctuary.
The memorial screen was chosen in 2000, and Somerset blacksmith
James Horrobin was given the commission. Comprising a pair of centre
gates and two smaller gates, the screen is emblazoned with reminders of
Churchill’s life, the Order of the Garter, the Order of Merit, and the Shield of
the Cinque Ports.The location is significant. It lies on the centre axis of the
Crypt, in line with the Nelson and Wellington tombs, directly below Wren’s
great dome, and centred on Nelson’s tomb. The area also contains many
memorials to significant national figures and events, including the chamber
of the great commanders of World War II.
The screen was dedicated in 2005 by The Queen’s cousin, HRH The Duke
of Kent. The Dean of St. Paul’s called Sir Winston “one of our nation’s
greatest servants.” A moving service included several of Churchill’s
favourite hymns. A specially composed choral piece, a Motet, blended
Churchill’s words “In war: resolution. In defeat: defiance. In victory: magnanimity. In peace: goodwill.” The service was attended by family members
led by Sir Winston’s daughter Lady Soames. Also in attendance were Lady
Thatcher, Sir Edward Heath, Members of Parliament and members of The
Churchill Centre.
Obscure London Churchilliana
Other Churchill sights in London not frequently visited include the
Commando Memorial at Westminster Abbey, which Churchill dedicated in
May 1948 (Finest Hour 125, Spring 2007: 14-15); the former London
Magazine on the Hyde Park Serpentine, which Churchill had guarded
during the 1911 Agadir Crisis, convincing Prime Minister Asquith that he
was a man of action fit to run the Admiralty (Finest Hour 88, Autumn 1995,
14); the seated bronze figures of Churchill and Roosevelt on a bench in
New Bond Street (Finest Hour 143, Summer 2009: 14); and Number Ten
Annexe: the ground floor offices next to the Cabinet War Rooms,
Churchill’s main headquarters after Downing Street was considered unsafe
from bombing attacks during the Blitz (Finest Hour 144: 7).
On Churchill Tours formerly conducted by the editor, we occasionally asked
Sir Martin Gilbert to lead walking tours of these London spaces. At the Annexe, he was always careful to point out the filled holes in the ground floor
walls, which once contained brackets for the steel air raid shutters.
,