the journal of winston churchill spring 2008 • number 138

D E S PAT C H B O XNumber 138 • Spring 2008ISSN 0882-3715www.winstonchurchill.org____________________________Barbara F. Langworth, Publisherbarbarajol@gmail.comRichard M. Langworth CBE, Editormalakand@langworth.namePost Office Box 740Moultonborough, NH 03254 USATel. (603) 253-8900Dec.-March Tel. (242) 335-0615___________________________David A. Turrell, Deputy Editordaturrell@verizon.net19955 Alexandra’s Grove DriveAshburn VA 20147-3112Res. Tel. (703) 924-4928___________________________Editor Emeritus:Ron Cynewulf RobbinsSenior Editors:Paul H. CourtenayJames LancasterJames W. MullerNews Editor:John FrostContributorsAlfred James, Australia;Terry Reardon, Canada;Inder Dan Ratnu, India;Paul Addison,Winston S. Churchill,Robert A. Courts,Sir Martin Gilbert CBE,Allen Packwood, United Kingdom;David Freeman, Ted HutchinsoniiWarren F. Kimball,Michael McMenamin, Don Pieper,Christopher Sterling,Manfred Weidhorn, United States___________________________Address changes: Help us keep your copiescoming! Please update your membershipoffice when you move. All offices for TheChurchill Centre and Allied national organizationsare listed on the inside front cover.__________________________________Finest Hour is made possible in partthrough the generous support ofmembers of The Churchill Centre andMuseum, the particular assistance of theNumber Ten Club, and an endowmentcreated by the Churchill CentreAssociates (listed on page 2).___________________________________Produced by Dragonwyck Publishing Inc.FAST AIRCRAFTFurther to Gene Lasser (FH137:5), I believe the two fastest WW2piston-engine fighters were theNorth American P51, (437 mph at25,000 ft) and Sydney Camm’sbrutal Tempest (435 mph at loweraltitudes, able even to mix it withMe262s and V-1s). Both weredesigned for different roles, atwhich they excelled, but the 2500hprequired to push a Tempest to suchspeeds at low levels meant it wassoon modified to carry up to a tonof bombs and rockets for groundattack, making it one of the first truefighter/attack aircraft. The P51could also carry a one-ton externalpayload, but its low-level performancewas seriously compromised byits beautiful laminar wings.De Havilland’s Mosquito,however, was designed as a bomberwith a two-ton internal payload. Itwas so fast that it did not needdefensive weapons, and becamefaster when its original turrets wereremoved. When fitted with forwardcannon and machine guns, it wasprobably the world’s onlybomber/fighter! For comparison,imagine a 400+ mph B25.The point is, aircraft nomenclatureis problematic, even within abroadly agreed group. Sir Winstonwould have loved the chance to bepedantic, and might have said: “Thisis the sort of nonsense up withwhich I will not put!” But call theMossie the fastest piston-enginebomber and there is not much roomfor pedantry. Nothing came within abull’s roar of it.GREG HUGHES, EMERALD, QLD., AUSTRALIACOMPARISON TROUBLESIn your editor’s essay (FH 136:6) you state, “It seems hardy possibleto compare Bush, who opted forwar at any price, to Chamberlain,who opted for peace at any price.”On the contrary, it is very possibleand instructive to compare them.Neither man understood the worldin which he led his nation. Forexample, Chamberlain predicted“peace” after Munich. In early 1940,FINEST HoUR 138 / 4before Germany invaded Denmarkand Norway, he claimed Hitler had“missed the bus.”Similarly, Bush said we wouldfind weapons of mass destruction inIraq. No such weapons have beenfound. In May 2003, he told us themission had been accomplished inIraq. In October 2004, he told us hehad made no mistakes. The last twostatements were self-corrected inDecember 2005. For months thereafter,he told us we were makingprogress in Iraq; so much progressthat he completely changed strategyand after months of refusing to sendmore troops (even though urged todo so by many supporters) hefinally did so. In short, far frombeing like Winston Churchill, Bushis far more like NevilleChamberlain.JAMES LYNCH, LIVINGSTON, N.J.Editor’s response: I search invain for examples of Chamberlain’s“self-corrections.” Chamberlaindeclared war, which Bush didn’t (tohis later detriment?). And Saddamwasn’t Hitler. Situations compare,but not individuals. There are toomany variables: which is what I suggestedabout the attempt to compareBush and Chamberlain.That silly sign, “MissionAccomplished,” like the sloganbedeckedwallpaper Mr. Bush andhis rivals drape behind their speakingrostrums, referred to theremoval of Saddam, not the end ofthe war—but speaks to the foolhardiness,as you suggest, of backingoneself with slogans. We found noready-made nukes, but the capabilitywas clear, and “WMD” includesbiological and chemical weapons,which did exist and were used. ButMr. Bush exaggerated his case—more or less like the Member ofParliament who, on 19 March 1935,asserted prematurely that Britainhad lost air superiority. That MPwas Mr. Churchill—which doesn’trender Churchill’s larger case lessvalid, nor suggest any comparisonto Bush. Comparisons are cheap,and far too easily indulged.

E D I T O R ’ S E S S AYChurchill’s OptimismChurchill’s optimism for humanity was tempered with a conviction that “the genushomo” never changes. The same imperfect being is presented by the advance of sciencewith increasingly potent and dangerous toys: “This vast expansion was unhappily notaccompanied by any noticeable advance in the stature of man, either in his mental faculties,or his moral character. His brain got no better, but it buzzed the more.” 1His splendid essay, “Mass Effects in Modern Life,” took up his concern about the levellingof man to a low common denominator: “Are not modern conditions—at any rate throughoutthe English-speaking communities—hostile to the development of outstanding personalitiesand to their influence upon events”? 2 Churchill wondered.Would the “moral philosophy and spiritual conceptions of men and nations” hold theirown against “formidable scientific evolutions”? 3 Was it possible that, in abandoning its theocraticprinciples, mankind would lose the ability to distinguish between right and wrong, and substituteinstead a kind of vague, utopian concept of wishful thinking? Churchill worried not somuch that those who forget the past are condemned to relive it, but that the loss of the pastwould mean “the most thoughtless of ages. Everyday headlines and short views.” 4In the end Churchill hoped that a merciful Providence would pass “the sponge of oblivionacross much that is suffered”: a “blessed dispensation,” through which pain would be forgottenand glory and honor exalted. 5 Although often pilloried as an extremist by both the Leftand Right, Winston Churchill genuinely believed in a “middle road” between the radicals andthe reactionaries, the jingoes and the appeasers. He was proud that his country’s constitutionwas unwritten, that “the English never draw a line without blurring it.” 6Sir Martin Gilbert, who, while writing and editing over eight million words aboutWinston Churchill, has the ability to summarize him in a few lines, captured the essence of theGreat Man when he wrote, in his final words of the official biography:“Churchill was indeed a noble spirit, sustained in his long life by a faith in the capacity ofman to live in peace, to seek prosperity, and to ward off threats and dangers by his own exertions.His love of country, his sense of fair play, his hopes for the human race, were matched byformidable powers of work and thought, vision and foresight. His path had often been doggedby controversy, disappointment and abuse, but these had never deflected him from his sense ofduty and his faith in the British people….“In the last years, when power passed, to be followed by extreme old age with all itsinfirmity and sadness, Churchill’s children expressed to him in private the feelings which manyof his fellow countrymen also felt. In August 1955, four months after the end of his Premiership,his son Randolph wrote to him: ‘Power must pass and vanish. Glory, which is achieved througha just exercise of power—which itself is accumulated by genius, toil, courage and self-sacrifice—alone remains’….From his daughter Mary had come words of equal solace nine years later,when at last his life’s great impulses were fading. ‘In addition to all the feelings a daughter hasfor a loving, generous father,” she wrote, “I owe you what every Englishman, woman & childdoes—Liberty itself.’” 7—RML1. WSC, House of Commons, 31 March 1949.2. “Mass Effects in Modern Life,” Strand Magazine, May 1931.3. “Fifty Years Hence,” Strand Magazine, February 1931.4. Gilbert, Winston S. Churchill, vol. V (London: Heinemann, 1976), 319.5. Fourth Alamein Reunion, Empress Hall, London, 21 October 1939. Churchill, In the Balance (London: Cassell, 1951), 119.6. WSC, House of Commons, 16 November 1948.7. Gilbert, Winston S. Churchill, vol. VIII (London: Heinemann, 1988), 1365-66.FINEST HoUR 138 / 6

DATELINES23%: CHURCHILL WAS A MYTH(OR: WHAT A RELIEF!NOW WE CAN ALL GO HOME.)LONDON, FEBRUARY 3RD— The poll to end polls,published today by UKTV Gold and BBCWorldwide, revealed that nearly onequarterof 3000 Britons surveyed thinkWinston Churchill was a myth, while ahefty majority of 58 percent believe thatSherlock Holmes was real. Nearly half saidRichard the Lionheart was fictitious,while nearly one-quarterdoubt the existence of CrimeanWar nurse Florence Nightingale.Canada’s Globe and Mailspeculated that some respondentswere so astonished at the questionsthat they played along andlied—much as people exitingvoting booths tell pollsters theyvoted for X when they reallyvoted for Y.Other “suspected myths”included Mahatma Gandhi,Charles Dickens, the Battle ofWaterloo and the Duke ofWellington. And 33 percent saidthey believed in the existence ofW. E. Johns’s fictional pilotadventurerBiggles.And Biggles said, “Let therebe light.” And Holmes said, “Weshall go on to the end...we shallnever surrender.”And the windsblew and the storm raged, and fordays the vision was bad...BIG FEET, LITTLE GAFFESCHICAGO, JANUARY 8TH— PresidentGeorge W. Bush invokedChurchill here at the UnionLeague: “I did a little researchinto the history, and it turns outWinston Churchill came here in1932—right before I was born.When people think of Churchill,of course they marvel at what hemanaged to do with the Englishlanguage. When people think ofme...” (laughter).“Winston Churchill, whenhe came here, by the way—I dugout a quote that I’d like to read toyou. He said, ‘Some...regardprivate enterprise as a predatorytiger to be shot. Others look on itas a cow that they can milk. Onlya handful see it for what it reallyis—the strong and willing horsethat pulls the whole cart along.’ IWSC in America, 1932: he was 57when he spoke at the Chicago UnionLeague—but 84 when he spoke of “thestrong and willing horse.”don’t know if he said it right herein this very hall, but that’s whathe said. Government policy oughtto recognize who’s pulling thiseconomy, and that would be theentrepreneurs and workers ofAmerica.” (Applause.)The people who actually“dug out” that quotation werePhil and Sue Larson, who wereFINEST HOUR 138 / 7Quotation of the Seasonnewspapers, with their alluringheadlines, do not do justice to the proportionof current events. Everyone is busy,“Theor is oppressed by the constant cares and difficultiesof daily life. Headlines flicker each day beforethem. Any disorder or confusion in any part of theworld, every kind of argument, trouble, dispute,friction or riot—all flicker across the scene. Peoplego tired to bed, at the end of their long, bleak,worrying days, or else they cast care aside, andlive for the moment.—WSC, HOUSE OF COMMONS, 12 DECEMBER 1946contacted by the White House.And there was no reason tosuspect he said it right therebecause we told the WhiteHouse when Churchill said it: atWoodford Green, Essex, on 29October 1959. So it goes!FH’s DEPUTY EDITORELEUTHERA, BAHAMAS, FEBRUARY 25TH—I today received permissionfrom our chairman and executivevice-president to list DavidA. Turrell, our webmaster, asdeputy editor of Finest Hour.I fully realise that Dave andour web committee are preoccupiedwith website reconstructionand do not intend to add to hisburden at this key time. But Ihave been thinking about this along time and there are threereasons for his appointment.First, it is a natural fit. Aseditor and webmaster we workhand in glove with material forFH that also goes (perhaps indifferent form) onto the website.Second, “time, the churl, isrunning.” Dave Turrell is substantiallyyounger than I am,which is actuarily significant.Third and most important,Dave has the understanding,panache and ability eventually tobecome our next editor. He hasthat all-important quality of sensitivityand judgement to avoidpublishing material that is >>

DATELINEShagiographic, unfair or trivial. Hisgrasp of “the saga” is considerable,and in his role as webmasterit will only increase. He is alreadyan authority on WSC’s booksthrough his own “Savrola”website (www.savrola.co.uk). Ihope that our readers will thinkwell of this move, and will cometo know Dave as many of us whowork with him do already. RMLREMEMBERING DUFFPRAGUE, NOVEMBER 24TH—Alfred Duff Cooper, arelative of Britain’sConservativeParty leaderDavid Cameron,who left NevilleChamberlain’scabinet in 1938over Munich, wasremembered todaywhen the Czechgovernment presentedCameron with a 1940 letterfrom Duff Cooper to the thenCzech Prime Minister, EdvardBenes, exiled in Britain during theNazi occupation.Duff Cooper never regrettedhis resignation: “I believe it wouldhave been better for Britain andEurope, as well as for Czechoslovakia,if we had stood firminstead of surrendering.”Duff Cooper was appointedMinister of Information inChurchill’s cabinet a few daysafter he wrote to Benes. His fatherwas Cameron’s great-great-grandfather.Cameron said he wasproud of Duff, who died in 1954aged 63. His bond with theCzechs is “in my blood,” Cameronadded. “He stood up for yourcountry, and for freedom.”NYET ON SIR NOËLLONDON, NOVEMBER 12TH— WinstonChurchill personally blocked aknighthood for Noël Coward eventhough the playwright had spiedfor Britain during the war, accordingto The Letters of Noël Coward,published today.FINEST HOUR 138 / 8NoëlCowardNoël Coward was recruitedas a spy in 1938. In 1942 Churchillused the excuse of a relativelyminor court case to block the title.Two months earlier Cowardhad been fined a token £200 forinadvertently breaching wartimecurrency exchange laws by spending£11,000 on a trip to the USA.On 29 December 1942 Churchillwrote to the King: “I have examinedin consultation with theChancellor of the Exchequer, thedetails of the case against Mr NoëlCoward. The Chancellor and SirRichard Hopkins are contentedthat it was one of substance andthat the conferment ofKnighthood upon Mr. Coward sosoon afterwards would give riseto unfavourable comment. Withconsiderable personal reluctance Ihave therefore come to the conclusionthat I could not advise YourMajesty to proceed with this proposalon the present occasion.”Coward was recruited in1938 by Sir Robert Vansittart, aForeign Office mandarin, whoinstructed Coward on a mission tothe U.S.: “Try to get them on tothe topic [of Nazi threat] as muchas possible and let them rip.”In 1940, Coward was recruitedby Sir William Stephenson ofBritish Security Coordination inNew York, who asked him totarget key American opinionformers. The 43-year-old playwright,who worked in secrecy,was vilified by a furious Britishpress who assumed he wasstaying in America as a ruse toavoid the war. In a letter toVansittart dated 21 August 1940, afrustrated but naive Cowardwrote: “Would it be possible to tellthe State Department the truth,which is that I was sent over bythe Ministry of Information towork, with your approval, atgauging various cross sections ofAmerican opinion and reportingon it?....I think it would do awaywith a lot of the false rumour andwild surmise. I am most definitelynot over here on personal business....Ifhowever it were possiblefor me not to be quite disowned inall directions I think it wouldstrengthen my hand.”He later wrote: “If I ran awayand refused to have anything todo with the war and lived comfortablyin Hollywood, as somany of my friends have done, Iwould be ashamed to the end ofmy days.” Coward was knightedin 1970 and died three years later.—CHRIS HASTINGS, DAILY TELEGRAPHFinest Hour’s opinion:Such judgments and assumptionsthat are not warranted bywhat we know of Churchill andCoward’s relationship, as repeatedlysuggested by the literature:• 8 July 1938, WSC to hiswife: “I have not yet lost theimpression of that lovely play ofNoël Coward’s [Operette] and I amashamed to say I have not writtenhim as I meant to do.” —MartinGilbert, ed., Winston S. Churchill,Companion Volume 5, Part 3(London: 1982, 1095).• August 1941: “Mr.Churchill asked if any officer inthe ship had a record of NoëlCoward’s ‘Mad Dogs andEnglishmen.’ This was produced,and Mr. Churchill proved that heknew the words and the tune.”—H. V. Morton, Atlantic Meeting(London: 1943, 62).

•30 November 1964: WSC“had dinner at 7 p.m. so that hecould watch the BBC tribute“Ninety Years On,” the starpackedvariety show introducedby Noël Coward....He enjoyed theprogramme immensely...” —RoyHowells, Simply Churchill(London: 1965, 166).Also incorrect is the notionthat Churchill was a homophobe,given his friendships with peoplelike Eddie Marsh. Repeatedly hisconcern about homosexuals wastheir susceptibility to blackmail byBritain’s enemies.Sir Martin Gilbert sent us hisview of the Churchill-Cowardrelationship: “Churchill was afriend and admirer of Coward,but breaching of currency regulations—asadvised by theTreasury—would always be abarrier to an honour. As youknow, we are mired in honoursscandals just now. Even so, notethat it was a knighthood ‘justnow’ that Churchill advisedagainst—and only ‘on the presentoccasion.’ See my volume VII,1327 on their dinner in May 1945.”Coward himself recalled thatevening in his Future Indefinite(London: 1954, 327-28): “ThePrime Minister was at his mostbenign, and suddenly, towards theend of dinner, looking across thetable at the man who had carriedEngland through her dark years, Ifelt an upsurge of gratitude thatmelted into hero worship. Thiswas a profoundly significantmoment in the history of ourcountry; the long, long hoped-forvictory was so very near, and thefact that we were in the presenceof the man who had contributedso much foresight, courage andgenius to winning it struck Juliet[Duff] and Venetia [Stanley] at thesame instant that it struck me.Emotion submerged us andwithout exchanging a word, assimultaneously as though we hadcarefully rehearsed it, the three ofus rose to our feet and drank Mr.Churchill’s health.” —RML >>AROUND & ABOUTOn the 80th anniversary of the Battle ofPasschendaele, Garrison Keillor (on U.S.National Public Radio’s “Literary Calendar”) quoted afew lines from the immortal poem “In Flanders Fields,”(FH 121:6) and then criticized the poet, John McRae (FH 137:56) forsuggesting that the dead wished the living to “take up the quarrel withthe foe.” Bad advice, Keillor said: It is never right to prolong a war (orwords to that effect). Mr. Keillor forgets the national aspirations that weremet through that conflict, and continue today. From Estonia to Polandand Czechoslovakia, peoples long under the yokes of oppressors werepresented for the first time in anyone’s memory with nationhood. Wewere reminded of this when we fell over Churchill’s review of WorldWar I in The Aftermath, vol. IV of The World Crisis (London: ThorntonButterworth, 1929),159: “The war had been fought to make sure that thesmallest state should have the power to assert its lawful rights againsteven the greatest; and this will probably be for several generations anenduring fact.” Thanks to another (cold) war, it is a fact forever.❇❇❇❇❇Mark Kurlansky, reviewing Nicholson Baker’s Human Smokein The Los Angeles Times, March 9th, said World War II “was a particularlyhard sell. Roosevelt and Churchill did it well and their lies havebeen with us ever since.” He continued with discredited arguments wehave all heard before. For example: Kurlansky says everyone whodragged the western world into the war was an anti-Semite: Churchill,Roosevelt, Chamberlain. Even Hitler, apparently. —DAVID FREEMAN❇❇❇❇❇Terry Reardon of ICS Canada reports a new children’s book,Winston of Churchill, “one bear’s fight against global warming,” for ages6 and up. Churchill, Manitoba, the polar bear capital of the world, isnamed after John Churchill, First Duke of Marlborough. Winston is a“fierce brave bear” alarmed because the ice is melting in polar bear territoryaround Hudson’s Bay. He gathers his fellow bears around him andexhorts them with expressions like “We will fight for ice...we shall defendour island,” etc. Mrs. Winston says Winston’s cigar smoking is pollutingthe air, so he switches to chewing a twig! Details at www.pgcbooks.ca orthe author’s website www.jeandaviesokimoto.com.❇❇❇❇❇David Wondrich writes about “the story of the Manhattan [cocktail]being invented for a dinner at the Manhattan Club hosted by JennieJerome to celebrate Samuel Tilden’s election etc. etc. About fiveminutes of Googling will uncover the fact that Tilden was elected inNovember 1874, when La Jerome was in England, giving birth toWinston Churchill. (In fact, the banquet was held on the day Winstonwas christened; Jennie Jerome’s only connection with the ManhattanClub was the fact that the Club later moved into a mansion which hadonce belonged to her father). Contemporary newspaper accounts of thetwo Manhattan Club banquets held for Tilden’s election make nomention of Jennie Jerome, nor indeed of any woman present—thesewere striclty stag affairs. And old bar guides, one that we have beingoriginally printed in 1860, list many a Manhattan cocktail.” Mr.Wondrich’s piece is on wiki.webtender.com.✌FINEST HOUR 138 / 9

DATELINESTHE TEHERAN PLOTLONDON, NOVEMBER 29TH— CCBoard of Trusteesmember Celia Sandysis presenting in 2008a TV documentary,“The Lion and theBear,” on Anglo-Russian relations.One part is devotedto the TeheranConference in 1943, anda plot to kill the Big Three,masterminded by Hitler’s favoritecommando, Otto Skorzeny, the SSsaboteur who temporarily rescuedMussolini in September 1943.The plot, dubbed “OperationLong Jump” by the Germans, wasfoiled by Soviet agents includingthen-19-year-old Georg Vartanianwho, during the filming, wasasked by Celia Sandys how theyhad succeeded.“Six German radio operatorshad been dropped by parachuteinto the holy city of Qum andmade it to Teheran, where theyestablished radio communicationwith Berlin,” Vartanian said. “Dayand night we scoured the streets.Eventually we found where thegroup was hiding. From then onthe Germans were transmittingmessages to Berlin that were interceptedby the Soviet and Britishintelligence. But the Nazi radiooperators were nobody’s fools,and one sent a coded message,‘we are under surveillance.’“The Nazis decided againstsending the main group, led bySkorzeny, to certain death,” hetold Celia. “Your grandfather wasstaying at the British Embassy,where he had security guards. Butthe U.S. Embassy was on the city’soutskirts and staying there wastoo risky, so Roosevelt stayed inthe Russian Embassy.” (See theDanny Mander story page 20.)“The street between theSoviet and British Embassies,which were located close to eachother, had been sealed off. Theystretched a six-metre tarpaulinsheet to make something like apassage, guarded by Soviet andBritish machine-gunners. All theparticipants in the TeheranConference were able to go backand forth safely. According tosome information, the Nazisplanned to get into the BritishEmbassy through a water supplychannel and assassinate Churchillon his birthday, November 30th.But these plans were foiled. I wasclose enough to see your grandfather,Stalin and Roosevelt. Whatstruck me was their confidenceand calmness.”“You must have had acertain amount of luck,” said Ms.Sandys. Vartanian agreed: “Luckis important for many professions,and all the more so for that of anintelligence agent.”—DAILY TELEGRAPH RUSSIA SUPPLEMENTWSC AND THE PRESSLONDON, FEBRUARY 8TH TO MAY 11TH—ChurchillCentre andMuseumheadquarters,theCabinetWarRooms, isoffering anexcitingtemporaryexhibit on WSC as celebrity, fromhis birth announcement in TheTimes to his death in 1965.Artifacts include a letter fromWinston to his mother detailinghis contract to act as a war correspondentfor the Morning Post inSouth Africa, and his letter fromthe Staats Model School Prison inPretoria (both from the ChurchillArchives Centre).The General Strike of May1926 is documented by copies ofThe British Gazette, edited byChurchill on behalf of the governmentin the offices of the MorningPost. A section on Churchill thejournalist displays his prolificoutput of articles and his contractswith various newspapers.Visitors will learn aboutFINEST HOUR 138 / 10Churchill’s craving for newsduring the Second World War.Each morning he would readalmost every paper, sometimeseven ringing the Daily Mail atmidnight to get his news beforethe papers went to press.“Churchill and the Press” isaccompanied by an impressivearray of original newspapers,domestic and foreign, courtesy ofJohn Frost’s Historical Newspapercollection, as well as images fromAssociated Newspapers and theImperial War Museum.The Churchill Museum andCabinet War Rooms, at CliveSteps, King Charles Street (tubestation Westminster) are opendaily from 9:30am to 6pm, the lastadmission being at 5pm.Admission costs £12, with childrenunder 16 free and studentsand senior citizens £9.50. There isno extra charge for the Exhibition.LOYAL SUPPORTERSLONDON, NOVEMBER 21ST, 1934— A DailyMail article from the John FrostHistorical Newspaper Collectionreveals what may be the firstParliamentary intervention byChurchill’s supporters in the campaignfor rearmament. It reads:“Mr. Churchill last nighttabled amendment in reply to theKing’s Speech on the opening ofthe new session of Parliament:‘That in the present circumstancesof the world the strength ofBritain’s national defences and,especially of air defences, is nolonger adequate to secure thepeace, safety and freedom of yourMajesty’s faithful subjects.’“This is a drastic step and ashe is supported by six of the mostinfluential ‘back benchers’ in theHouse of Commons it is awarning to the Government.”Those joining Churchill wereSir Robert Horne, Chancellor ofthe Exchequer, 1922; LeopoldAmery, Dominions Secretary 1925-29; Captain Freddie Guest,Secretary for Air 1919-22; EarlWinterton, Undersecretary for

India 1925-29; and Robert Boothby,Parliamentary Private Secretary toChurchill, 1925-29.Although Brendan Bracken,Harold Macmillan and AlfredDuff Cooper joined Churchill’s“troublesome young men,” this isthe earliest list we have seen ofthese individuals of conscience.MoD TO SELL WAR OFFICELONDON, DECEMBER 26TH— After morethan a century’sillustriousservice, theMinistry ofDefence is planningto sell theOld War OfficeBuilding oppositeHorseGuards. TheMinistry will ask £35 million forthe deteriorating but well-locatedbuilding, standing over undergroundtunnels that once connectedit to some of the most sensitivesites in Whitehall.The War Office was used bySecretaries of State for War andsenior staff officers until the MoDwas created in 1964. Churchill wasbased there between 1919 and1921. Kitchener and Lloyd Georgeworked there as war minister andmunitions minister during theFirst World War, and T.E.Lawrence was stationed there in1914, drawing maps of the MiddleEast based on his travels.The secret passages and theirconnections gave pause, and theMinistry of Defence consideredselling it to another governmentdepartment to retain their benefit.But officials decided to put thebuilding on the market while“maintaining the integrity” of theGovernment Secure Zone of protectedWhitehall sitesARABELLA CHURCHILLGLASTONBURY, SOMERSET, DECEMBER 20TH—Sir Winston’s granddaughter diedtoday aged 58—the same age asher father, Randolph Churchill, athis death in 1968. In her twenties,Arabella, daughter of Randolphand the former June Osborne, ranoff to join hippies in Glastonbury,where she helped found the localfestival. Her son Jake, from herfirst marriage to Jim Barton, wasborn on a sheep farm they wererunning in Wales. Mr. Barton lefthis wife and son a year later. Atthe time of her death, Jake Bartonwas being arrested in Australia ondrug charges. Arabella also leavesa daughter Jessica, 19, from hersecond marriage to Ian “Haggis”McLeod, a juggler fourteen yearsher junior. R.I.P.THE SEARCH FOR MARIOLONDON, FEBRUARY 18TH— A Britishgame company producing “alternatereality” video games is developinga game called “TurningPoint: Fall of Liberty,” whichimagines what might have happenedhad Churchill been killedwhile crossing Fifth Avenue, NewYork, on 13 December 1931. (“MyNew York Misadventure,” FH136:24.) The game producers aretrying to find Mario Contasino,the driver of the car involved, orhis descendants. So they’ve enlistedgenealogists in the UnitedStates. There is no record in theU.S. Census, from 1790-1930, ofanyone with the last name ofContasino. A search of Ellis Islandand Castle Garden immigrationrecords records only GiuseppeContasino, who arrived in 1913 atthe age of 1. There are no SocialSecurity records that record thedeath (from about 1960 to present)of anyone named Contasino.So far, it’s a dead end. —THE TIMESFinest Hour’s opinion: Thegenealogists might have had betterresults if they had searched for“Constasino” instead of“Contasino”! Then again, Churchillhimself might have misspelled thename in his 1932 account.It would appear that The NewYork Times was responsible for themisspelling “Contasino,” and forwrongly describing Churchill’sFINEST HOUR 138 / 11mistake while crossing FifthAvenue. From the Central Parkside WSC looked left, which wasof course correct. His mistake wasto continue to look left after hewas half-way across (as one doesin Britain) when he should havelooked right at the traffic comingup the avenue, includingConstasino’s car. (In those daysFifth Avenue had two-way traffic.)Churchill was admitted toLenox Hill Hospital on 13December and discharged on the21st. The book WSC autographedfor Constasino was My Early Life:priceless if it ever surfaced today.The “what if?” scenario is agame which can be playedforever: “What if Japan had notattacked Pearl Harbor?” etc.Churchill himself enjoyed thegame, per his 1931 article, “If LeeHad Not Won the Battle ofGettysburg.” (FH 103:28). —JRLDENTURES’ FINEST HOURLONDON, FEBRUARY 20TH— Two lettersfrom 1952 and 1954, to be auctionedby Bonham’s in March,revealed a key ally without whomSir Winston might have struggled:his dentist.Throughout his life,Churchill feared that problemswith his teeth would affect hispublic speaking, one of his mostpowerful attributes. So herelied on Sir Wilfred Fish, themost acclaimed dentist of his generation,to supply him with denturesto deliver his rallying calls.Churchill showed his appreciationin 1954, when he wrote Fish confirminghis nomination for aknighthood. Churchill, then 79,also enclosed a set of his falseteeth for repair. He wrote: “I amvery glad it fell to me to recommendyou for a well-deservedhonour. I enclose one set of denturesand I should be so muchobliged if you would tighten themup a little for me. The others areworking very well.”Churchill’s false teeth, weremade to Fish’s specification by >>

DATELINESERRATAFH 136 page 29 column 3:In the note entitled “Not WSCon Castro,” Carole Martyn’sname was misspelled, for whichapologies. Also, the allegedstatement by WSC about Castrowas not made during the 2005Queen Mary 2 lectures but originatesfrom other sources.FH 137 page 20, column 2:The CBE should be identified asthe “Most Excellent Order...”not “Most Noble Order.” “MostNoble” is the prefix for theOrder of the Garter.DENTURES...dental technician Derek Cudlipp.One of the spares kept by Cudlippin case of emergency was donatedby his family to the Royal Collegeof Surgeons Museum in London.A spokesman said: “ForChurchill, a well-fitting denturewas a crucial physical and psychologicalprop. It allowed him tospeak effectively—a vital attributefor any politician, and especiallyfor one whose speaking skillswere so central to his success.”Churchill’s original dentureswere made from hardened rubber,but he found them uncomfortableand often put them in his pocket.Once he sat on them, prompting afrantic repair. A second versionwas made with a larger palate,which he found more comfortable.When Churchill was a 16-year-old schoolboy at Harrow, hismother complained about howmuch money was being spent onhis dental bills. Later he sufferedfrom pain in his gums and wastormented by toothache, whichdeveloped into an abscess andmade his face swell to twice itsnormal size. A painful wisdomtooth was extracted in his teens,when he recorded that he went tosleep under anaesthetic and“snored through the whole performance.”He lost many frontteeth in his 20s, prompting theneed for an upper set of dentures.Churchill suffered from apronounced lisp, which laterbecame a trademark that hewanted to preserve with “softfitting” dentures. His sessionswith Sir Wilfred were accompaniedby brandy in place of mouthwash,and two cigars.When WSC’s patience worethin at times of crisis, he wouldplace his thumb against the dentureswhile he was wearing themand flick them against a wall.Glimpses: Marion Davies—PAUL BROSTER, DAILY EXPRESSThe actress and mistress of William Randolph Hearst, Miss Davies entertainedChurchill at her Santa Monica home on his California visit in 1929.She offers (unintentionally?) the following hilarious vignette in herposthumous memoirs, The Times We Had: Life with William RandolphHearst (New York: Ballantine Books, 1975). —JUDITH KAMBESTADChurchill was my house guest. Hecame with [his brother Jack], hisson Randolph and Randolph’scousin John, who liked to play the piano.They arrived in Charlie Schwab’s railroadcar, and they stayed at the beach house.MGM gave a big reception for Churchill.He had a sort of lisp, but it didn’t comeout over the microphone. He couldn’tfigure it out and I can’t figure it out, but alisp just does not register.We went to the opening of theGrand Hotel, and afterwards there was abig party at the Roosevelt. I was workingthen, so I didn’t see much of Churchill.He was a very good house guestWORTH1000.COMbecause he had so many things to dothat he didn’t become a nuisance. And he stayed quite awhile,maybe three or four weeks....He liked his scotch and his cigars. Theywere what kept him alive...[When we visited England] Churchill asked us to come downfor the weekend at his home....He had a place outside of London,and he had this huge brick wall which he had built all by himself. Andhe built a brick garage [cottage -Ed.]. He was quite an artist. Hepainted apples and oranges and occasionally a bottle of gin orsomething like that—but very artistically....He had a big pond with swans, white and and black swans.And one day they were fighting. One grabbed the other by the throatand it was horrifying. Churchill was picking up stones and throwingat them. He said, “Oh, you bally bloaters!” One swan was undoubtedlygoing to kill the other one, but he couldn’t stop it. He kept throwingrocks and stones and I decided that I didn’t want to look anylonger. I was chicken-hearted. I went up to the house with his sonRandolph, and we sat before the fireplace. It was always cold inEngland. When he came back he said, “One is dead, naturally.”I said, “Why do you have swans that fight?” Dumb Dora.Churchill said, “Just show me one that doesn’t fight!” I didn’t knowanything about swans; I didn’t even know what the swans know. Ionly knew Gloria Swanson. ✌FINEST HOUR 138 / 12

ON ANIMOSITY“I have always felt that a politician is to bejudged by the animosities he excites among hisopponents.” Many of us will ruefully recognizeand relate to Winston Churchill’s reflection.Wit &WisdomIn November 1906, Churchill gavethis toast to the Institute ofJournalists. The laughs were over hisreferences to heavy press criticism ofthe new Liberal government, ofwhich he was a part. His later reference toThe Times Book Club—which producedcheap editions of current books—waslikely prompted by his feud with the TBC,which prematurely brought out a cheapedition of Lord Randolph Churchill.(WSC believed a cheap edition would cutinto the sales of the standard edition.)THE PRESSWinston S. ChurchillIwould like to pay a small tributeto the London press, whichalways says so many kind thingsabout the government (laughter),and can always be relied upon alloccasions and in all difficulties togive their unflinching and unstintedsupport.Still, even if there were anydoubt of the government being sustainedat every stage by the exertionsof the press, I am inclined tothink we might be able to pullthrough—in a sort of way.It is astonishing to a publicman to notice how keenly sensitiveof journalistic criticism is the ordinaryprivate person. Whatever mayhappen he always desires to keepup appearances in the press.I heard a story of an Americaneditor who received the followingletter from a prominent citizen:“Dear Sir, I regret to informyou that on my way home from thesaloon this evening I fell into apolitical altercation with ColonelJonas D. Walker, of this town, in thecourse of which a slight misunderstandingarose, and I am very sorryto think that in the end I shot him. Ishould add that, carried away bythe excitement of the moment, I alsoscalped him (laughter). But Iearnestly hope that no exaggeratedaccount of this painful episode willappear in the columns of yourpaper” (laughter).If any public man in thiscountry had been drawn into such adoubtful action, he would havebeen haunted by no fears like thosewhich beset the writer. He wouldknow that there were two sides tothe question, and that if one sectionof the press took one view the othersection would express the opposite.He would go to bed with the fullconsciousness of being able to readin the Daily News next morning thatanother blow had been struck onthe side of liberty (laughter) thatthere had been another exhibition ofmoral indignation in a righteouscause, and that no great popularmovement had been carried tosuccess without occasional acts ofviolence (more laughter).The Times, on the other hand,would insist that the perpetrator ofthe deed should be brought tobook—I might almost say broughtto the Book Club (laughter). Hewould be reminded that hismethods of conducting politicalarguments were unworthy of acivilised age and invited to refer tothe methods of the manager of theTimes Book Club (laughter).Politicians do well always topay close attention to anything saidabout them in the press of a civilnature. This civility is only a markof the high standard that journalismhas reached in this country. For myown part I have always felt that apolitician is to be judged by the animositieswhich he excites amonghis opponents. I have always setmyself not merely to relish but todeserve thoroughly their censure(cheers).I asked myself whether thepower of the press is as great asever. If considered by the increasedoutput, I would say that the powerof the press has increased lately.The machinery of the press growsmore and more powerful, but dothe writers get more and more powerful?I am inclined to think thatjournalism is hampered rather thanaided by the ever-growing force ofits machinery.The French press is not sowealthy nor so well equipped as theBritish, but French journalists individuallyplay their part in the politicalcontrol of their country. Therethe Chambers are divided betweenthe politicians and the journalists; inEngland Parliament is controlled bylawyers and Scotsmen (laughter).In England the individualwriter ought to exert a greaterinfluence than is the case atpresent. The signed article, I think,ought to be a much more prominentfeature in British journalismthan is the case today.I gladly propose the toastbecause the Journalists’ Institutegives journalists a sense of corporateexistence, and enables them tobe sure that in any great point ofprinciple they will not have to fightsingle-handed. The Institute has alofty mission to perform, and exercisesa high standard in the mannerof performing it (cheers). ✌FINEST HoUR 138 / 13

1 2 5 - 1 0 0 - 7 5 - 5 0 Y E A R S A G O125 YEARS AGO:Spring 1883 • Age 8“Does not quite understand themeaning of hard work”Winston was not doing well atSt. George’s School, wherehe ranked eleventh among elevenboys in the Winter term. Hemoved up to ninth in the springterm only because there were onlynine boys in his Division.The Spring Report showedwhy: “Does not quite understandthe meaning of hard work—mustmake up his mind to do so nextterm. Writing good but so terriblyslow—Spelling about as bad as itwell can be.”Churchill’s mother wouldnot have been surprised by thespelling report, as evidenced by aletter in early June: “My dearMamma, I hope you will comeand see me soon. Did Everest giveyou my flour I sent you. Give mylove to my ants, and tell not toforget to come down. I amcomeinge home in a month.”While Winston’s general performancehad “improved,” thenumber of days he was lateincreased to nineteen against fourthe previous term.100 YEARS AGO:Spring 1908 • Age 33“That made a bad impression”Winston had begun to courtthe beautiful ClementineHozier. The match was by nomeans foreordained. In fact, onthe first occasion when Churchillwas in Clementine’s company, hedid not make a good impression.Their first meeting hadoccurred at a dance in 1904, whereChurchill lived up to a descriptionof him by his first love PamelaPlowden, who said that the firsttime you meet him you see all hisfaults, but “the rest of your lifeyou spend in discovering hisvirtues.” Winston had noticedClementine and asked his motherJennie to introduce them. Yearslater, Clementine politely recalledto her son that his father “…juststared. He never uttered one wordand was very gauche—he neverasked me for a dance, he neverasked me to have supper withhim. I had of course heard a greatdeal about him, nothing but ill. Ihad been told he was stuck up,objectionable etc. And on thisoccasion he just stood and stared.”Winston met Clementineagain at a dinner party in March1908, in his last days at theColonial Office. The party wasgiven by Clementine’s great-auntwho, while ostensibly asking herto attend at the last minutebecause there were only thirteenfor dinner, was obviously intenton matchmaking. Churchill waslate as usual and was seatedbetween Clementine and the guestof honour, who thought herself anauthority on colonial matters andhad a low opinion of the Undersecretaryfor the Colonies. Not1908: Winston and Clementineby Michael McMenaminsurprisingly, Churchill ignored theguest of honour and devoted allhis attention to Miss Hozier.That Churchill fell in lovewith a girl as beautiful and brilliantas Clementine is no surprise.That he was able to win her loveafter not one but two inauspiciousdebuts is a testament to the accuracyof Pamela Plowden’s endearingobservation.75 YEARS AGO:Spring 1933 • Age 58“He thinks Englandis going Fascist”Hitler had been Chancellor ofGermany for less than threemonths when, on 23 March, theReichstag passed legislationgiving him full dictatorial powers.Prime Minister RamsayMacDonald spoke in the House ofCommons that same day on hisgovernment’s disarmament proposals.Notwithstanding his deepinvolvement in foreign affairsgenerally and disarmament specifically,including the naval disarmamenttreaty of 1930, Mr.MacDonald casually observed that“I cannot pretend that I wentthrough the figures myself.”Winston Churchill immediatelyrose to his feet and objectedto giving Germany “equality ofstatus” in the forthcoming disarmamentconference and to urgingFINEST HOUR 138 / 14

France to disarm:…when we watch with surpriseand distress the tumultuousinsurgence of ferocityand war spirit, the pitiless illtreatmentof minorities, thedenial of the normal protectionsof civilized society tolarge numbers of individualssolely on the ground of race—when we see that occurring inone of the most gifted, learned,scientific and formidablenations in the world, onecannot help feeling glad, thatthe fierce passions that areraging in Germany have notfound, as yet, any other outletbut upon Germans….As longas France is strong, andGermany is but inadequatelyarmed there is no chance ofFrance being attacked withsuccess, and therefore no obligationwill arise underLocarno for us to go to the aidof France.Churchill then attackedRamsay MacDonald for theDisarmament Conference inGeneva, declaring it “a solemnand prolonged farce” and that“we have been brought muchnearer to war.” Anthony Eden hasa reputation as one who opposedappeasement throughout the1930s. Eventually he did, but notin 1933. He delivered the government’srebuttal to Churchill, in thecourse of which he said that toblame MacDonald for the deteriorationof international relationswas a “fantastic absurdity.”On 7 April 1933, Hitlerended the autonomous status ofthe regional German states andmade himself Governor ofPrussia, ousting his vice-chancellor,Franz von Papen. On 13 April,Jews were banned from national,local and municipal office.Churchill spoke the same day inthe House of Commons and oncemore attacked MacDonald’s disarmamentpolicy:The rise of Germany to anythinglike military equalitywith France, or the rise ofGermany or some ally or otherto anything like military equalitywith France, Poland or thesmall states, means a renewalof a general European war.What the Prime Minister proposedso recently for the disarmamentof Europe seems tomove towards German equalityin armaments. He is suspectedall over the continent ofwishing to help Germany atthe expense of her neighbours.The other day he spread on thetable at Geneva a vast plan forbringing all the armamentsdown and thus bringingGermany much nearer toequality with her neighbors.He told us an (extraordinaryadmission) that he had notgone through the figureshimself, but he took responsibilityfor them. It is a verygrave responsibility. If everthere was a document uponwhich its author should haveconsumed his personalthought and energy it was theimmense disarmament proposal.I doubt very much whethereven the Committee ofImperial Defence was consultedupon it. We have not beentold whether the heads of allour fighting services were consultedupon it. Unknownhands have prepared it and itsauthor tells us that he has notmastered it either in its scopeor detail.Contemporaneously withHitler’s early months in office,Churchill continued to fight arear-guard action against the government’spolicy of giving dominionstatus to India. As a consequence,his many enemies in theConservative Party attacked hismotives. Samuel Hoare was in theforefront of those doing so. In oneletter in early April, Hoare wrote:Winston has convinced himselfthat he will smash theGovernment sooner or later….Ibelieve that at the back of hismind he thinks that he will notFINEST HOUR 138 / 15only smash the Governmentbut that England is goingFascist and that he, or someonelike him, will eventually beable to rule India as Mussolinigoverns north Africa. I believethat he is wrong, but no doubthe sees around him at themoment a good deal of evidencein the break-upEuropean governments thatgives colour to his thought.50 YEARS AGO:Spring 1958 • Age 83“A medical marvel”Churchill had been invited byPresident Eisenhower to visitthe United States in the spring of1958. He had been ill duringMarch while in France and hiswife did not want him to go. Shewrote to their daughter Mary:Papa, for the first time, showshesitation about going toAmerica….Of course—I hopehe won’t go. If he does notmake one or two speeches &television appearances, thevisit will be a flop as regardsthe American People who wantto see and hear him. Then if helets himself be persuaded tomake public appearances, itwill half kill him.Churchill cancelled his tripand returned to England in April.His illness returned but he hadrecovered by mid-month. BrendanBracken wrote to LordBeaverbrook on 21 April after hevisited with WSC:Our friend Winston is, ofcourse, a medical marvel. Hehad disregarded all the normallife-lengthening rules and haswitnessed, doubtless withregret, but with some complacence,the burial of most of hisdoctors, save Charles. The sunis Churchill’s greatest lifemaintainerand the lack of ithas probably played some partin creating his present condition.✌

We’ll Always Have Boston:Bill Buckley, ChurchillianRICHARD M. LANGWORTHBOSTON CHURCHILL CONFERENCE, 1995. Left: WFB with Lady Soames, admiring on her father’s oratory. Right: Harvard’s SteveMitby one of six student speakers (see 1994-1995 Proceedings) seeks a Yale man’s autograph. Still with us, Steve is now anAssociate at the Houston law firm Baker Botts, specializing in commercial and intellectual property trial and appellate work.My first encounter with William F. Buckley,Jr. was as a college senior in 1963. I hadresponded to one of his annual appeals,which subscribers to National Reviewexpect as part of their reading matter: hiseloquent confession that a journal devoted to capitalismhas had, not exactly ipso facto, another losingyear, and cannot continue without the help of itsfriends. I said I could not spare a penny to save apublication I simply couldn’t imagine beingwithout. (College campuses in those days werehotbeds of ideas from left to right, not the closedshops so many of them are today.)“For heaven’s sake don’t apologize,” BillBuckley shot back personally, to my surprise anddelight. “It is enough to know you are with us.”Later I had the pleasure to be published twicein National Review, first with a 1980 story about howto save the Detroit auto industry. Mr. Buckley sentanother note: “Nice going, hope the President takesThe title (with a nod to “Casablanca”) is from my friendJudge Douglas Russell, who was with us in Boston in 1995.it in.” Of course Mr. Reagan was a subscriber, andhe took it in, and the auto industry was saved.Next I wrote about Latvia, “The Once and FutureRepublic,” speculating on a rebirth of Baltic nationhood“in the event of some unforeseen futurebreakdown of the Soviet Union.” It isn’t what theypay at National Review, but the unerring way theymake good your predictions.And with Bill Buckley I’ve largely been eversince, always with immense admiration for hisability with words, which is equally what attractsso many to Winston Churchill. If Churchill snaredus with what Robert Pilpel called “roast beef andpewter phrases,” Buckley galvanized us with hissheer breadth of interest, from Rosalind Tureck’sBach recitals to running as a Conservative forMayor of New York, from sextant navigation toskiing the Alps with David Niven, from serving asa United Nations diplomat to diving two and a halfmiles down to visit the Titanic. And he deliveredthis fusillade of experience using all the words inMr. Webster’s dictionary.He had a Churchillian characteristic rare inFINEST HoUR 138 / 16

politics today: collegiality toward the opposition. In1975, when Bill Buckley first sailed the Atlantic, TheNew York Times reported that he had arrived in theAzores “accompanied by John Kenneth Galbraith,celebrating his retirement from the Harvardfaculty.” Bill immediately wrote to the Times: “TheGalbraith on board was not my friend, the six-foot11-inch emaciated Menshevik, John Kenneth, butmy friend, the chunky, five-foot 11-inchManchesterist, Evan; and anyway, surely it wasHarvard, not Professor Galbraith, that had reason tocelebrate.”John Kenneth Galbraith had meanwhilewritten the Times: “William F. Buckley, Jr. was boastingas usual when he told you that I’d sailed to theAzores as a member of his crew. He is not thatbrave; nor, may I say, am I.” Later, Galbraith readBuckley’s account of the voyage which, he wrote,“takes me to sea, makes me part of the wholeadventure. Mr. Buckley should give up politics andconcentrate on writing. He cannot afford to haveserious people think he is a failed politician whenhe is a master of a higher craft.”The Churchill Centre’s great trifecta, in 1995,was bringing William Buckley, Arthur Schlesinger,Jr. and William Manchester to the same conferencein Boston. Each of them provided us with specialmoments. I will never forget Bill Manchester, oldand ailing, astonished and in tears when an audienceof 400 rose as one to applaud the author of TheLast Lion: Winston Spencer Churchill; or ArthurSchlesinger, the great historian, referring to SirWinston as “history’s impresario...the largesthuman being of our time.” But most of all I rememberBill Buckley’s speech.He began by recalling his coverage, as editorof the Yale Daily News, of Churchill’s famous “Mid-Century” oration at M.I.T. in 1949. Then he trackedChurchill’s bittersweet postwar political career. Ithought his speech ordinary at the time, only torealize later, readying it for publication, howexquisitely crafted a tribute it was, and how generousto Winston Churchill—for Bill had never reallywarmed to Churchill, had called him a “peacetimecatastrophe.” And yet he gave us words that willlive forever in our annals: >>Five Letters: RML and WFBA few wisps of correspondence on matters Churchill, which are perhaps more precious to theeditor now that there will be no more. Readers will be amused to note the relative economy of wordsby WFB compared to the waterfall of words by... RMLDecember 1995“A hasty note, which however you won’t get for awhile since I’m at the sea, but itspurpose is to thank you for your extraordinary courtesies at Boston. You could not havebeen more thoughtful, kinder, more generous, and if I performed anything for you or Mr.Churchill, that’s only a poor contribution in an attempt at requital. Warmest, BillJune 1996Can you tell me the term for the debate strategy in which the debater muddies up the waters witha side issue while avoiding the main issue, on which he is on weak ground? As Andrew Robertsreports in our next issue, David Irving’s second Churchill volume claims that the present QueenMother supported Hitler’s “peace offer” in June 1940 and that the proof is to be found in Box Number23 of Lord Monkton’s papers at the Bodleian. But the Bodleian says Irving has never seen the box, letalone opened it—which obfuscates the simple fact that the Queen Mum, like most of theEstablishment, had no initial confidence in Churchill; so it’s not exactly earthshaking that she onceentertained the notion of “scuttling,” as Churchill put it. Thus, whatever the Queen Mother thought isinconsequential; and whatever is in the mysterious box can hardly be profound.I have taken National Review Online to task for a statement that Churchill let Coventry burn in1940 rather than reveal his access to the “Ultra” decrypts. If you’ve not read this, see Peter McIver,“Winston Churchill and the Bombing of Coventry” on our website. Regards, RichardGlad to have that Coventry story, nicely handled by Mr. McIver. The first part of yourquery suggests we’re talking about ignoratio elenchi, refuting a different point while ignoringthe primary point. Does that do it? Advise. XX WFB. continued >>“FINEST HoUR 138 / 17

BILL BUCKLEY, CHURCHILLIAN...Mr. Churchill had struggled to diminish totalitarianrule in Europe which, however,increased. He fought to save the Empire, whichdissolved. He fought socialism, which prevailed.He struggled to defeat Hitler, and hewon. It is not, I think, the significance of thatvictory, mighty and glorious though it was, thatcauses the name of Churchill to make the bloodrun a little faster....it is the roar that we hear,when we pronounce his name. It is simply mistakenthat battles are necessarily more importantthan the words that summon men to arms.The battle of Agincourt was long forgotten as ageopolitical event, but the words of Henry V,with Shakespeare to recall them, are imperishablein the mind, even as which side won thebattle of Gettysburg will dim from the memoryof those who will never forget the wordsspoken about that battle by Abraham Lincoln.The genius of Churchill was his union of affinitiesof the heart and of the mind, the total fusionof animal and spiritual energy....It is my proposalthat Winston Churchill’s words wereindispensable to the benediction of that hour,which we hail here tonight, as we hail thememory of the man who spoke them; as wecome together, to praise a famous man.Above all, he was so nice! Riding to the hotel, Iasked if there was any Churchill fact he needed thatmight have eluded him. “Ah, do you know when hewas born?” Bill winked. After his speech we firedquestions, as at National Press Club luncheons: “Ifyou could have Churchill to yourself for an evening,what would you say to him?” WFB replied: “Iwould say, ‘Please talk non-stop.’”We come together to praise a famous man,each from our station, each with our memories.Thanks to Bill Buckley, I got into my bones theessential structure of a fund appeal; I’ve lost trackof the times I’ve used his National Review subscriptiontally: “the combined circulation of Finest Hourand the Reader’s Digest is twenty million copies.”Thanks to him, I ventured beyond lake sailing intothe Atlantic. Thanks to him, I know what CheGuevara, Barry Goldwater and WhittakerChambers were really like. Thanks to him, I knowhow to essay an obituary, for his touch on these wasa model. Thanks to him I developed an appreciationfor Bach, especially on a harpsichord. Thanksto him, and Sir Winston, I’ve seen the heights towhich the English language can rise. Thanks to him,I know what I owe my country.“For every thing there is a season.” Among hisfriends there seemed a resignation that it was timefor him to go. Just weeks ago he penned hisfarewell to his best friend, Evan Galbraith; last yearhe mourned the loss of his wife, wondering whatwas left that made life worth living. Bill married hiswife Pat the same day in 1950 that Elizabeth Taylormarried the first of eight husbands. He was alwaysproud of that.“Five Letters continued...October 1999A Churchill Centre member and mutual friend of ours writes angrily over your 24September column, saying your view of World War II is “intellectually and viscerally veryclose to Pat Buchanan’s.” Why, he says, you’ve written that “if Hitler had got to Moscow itmight have been better for us.” I replied that (a) you didn’t say that and (b) I don’t find legitimate speculationabout alternate outcomes of the war outrageous.But my quibble is with your statement that, had Hitler conquered Moscow, things “could havebeen worse.” Surely, in an all-out battle between Hitler and Stalin, absent Britain and America, Hitlerwould have won. Maybe not in 1942, but eventually. That would be good? With the Anglo-Americansneutralized or uninvolved, and with the resources of the Caucasus and Ukraine—which, remember,Hitler didn’t lose immediately after Stalingrad—would we not have faced a Nazified Europe and anuclear Third Reich? Hitler wasn’t that far away from the bomb, and his rocket scientists were workingon means to deliver it. We saw what the V-2 did to London, even in his final months.A friendly academic wrote me recently: “Personally I get a little bored repeatedly recording this,but there’s something wrong with the notion that if Hitler had been free to concentrate on Stalin, bothof them would have wound up dead.” —Kindest, RMLMy thought has always been that Nazism had absolutely no eschatology, and wouldwither on the vine. Only the life of Hitler kept it going, and I can’t imagine he’d have lastedvery long. The Communists hung in there for forty-six years. —Warmest ever, WFB“FINEST HoUR 138 / 18

RIDDLES, MYSTERIES, ENIGMASDid FDR call him a “stinker”?Q : What is the source of Roosevelt’s description of his firstmeeting with Churchill, in July 1918 at Gray’s Inn, when he thoughthim a show-off and a “stinker”? —Andrew RobertsAThe source is Joseph P.xKennedy’s papers. Kennedywrote that FDR complained thatChurchill “acted like astinker...lording it all over us....”My Roosevelt and Churchill: TheComplete Correspondence (1984, vol.II, 355), quotes the “stinker” remarkfrom Michael Beschloss, Kennedyand Roosevelt (1980, 200, 230).Beschloss had special access to theJoseph Kennedy papers, and seemsthe first to publish the “stinker”remark. Daun van Ee (Library ofCongress) reports a slightly differentversion in Amanda Smith, ed.,Hostage to Fortune: The Letters ofJoseph P. Kennedy (2001, 411): Adiary entry for 28 March 1940quotes FDR as saying: “‘I alwaysdisliked him [Churchill] since thetime I went to England in 1917 or1918. At a dinner I attended heacted like a stinker.” Smith’s“editor’s note” (xxxiv) mentionsvarious versions of her source texts,but gives no indication that thistext was altered.Is Kennedy’s recollectionplausible? Would Roosevelt haveused the word “stinker”? Yes. Itsounds like him. He seems to havesunk to today’s level of four letterwords only rarely. (His mother, aformidable woman, surely forbadevulgar language.) He threw outthe occasional “damn,” and used“son of a bitch” at least once in,ironically, a reference to JoeKennedy! (As in, to EleanorRoosevelt, “I never want to see thatson of a bitch again...”—also takenfrom Beschloss.)—WARREN F. KIMBALLAtlantic StarQI am at a loss as to whyxChurchill did not receive theAtlantic Star. From my research ofdetails of the award of the warservice medals and campaignmedals for World War II, and thequalifications required, it wouldappear that the length of time SirWinston spent on Royal Navy battleshipswhen he crossed theAtlantic, or flew back across theAtlantic battle zone, he would havequalified for the medal in question.—REGINALD G. BEINTAThe Atlantic Star was awardedxin the Royal Navy for sixmonths’ service afloat in theAtlantic or home waters between 3September 1939 and 8 May 1945,and to personnel employed inconvoys to North Russia and theSouth Atlantic. Personnel must firsthave qualified for the 1939-1945Star, with the qualifying time forthis not counting toward theAtlantic Star. The same requirementsapplied to the MerchantNavy. There were separate requirementsfor RAF air crew and Armygunners who served afloat, whichwould not apply to Churchill.Winston Churchill did not meetthese requirements.One further comment by PaulCourtenay: One could not haveboth the Atlantic and the Franceand Germany Stars; it was one orthe other. If you qualified for both,you were given the one you earnedfirst, to which was attached a claspfor the second award stating“Atlantic” or “France andGermany,” denoting the entitlementwhich did not bring you afurther star; when the medal itselfwas not worn, the clasp was representedby a rosette on the ribbon.Had WSC qualified for the AtlanticStar, he would have earned a clasp,but not an extra medal.—DOUGLAS S. RUSSELL (AUTHOR OFTHE ORDERS, DECORATIONS AND MEDALSOF SIR WINSTON CHURCHILL)FINEST HOUR 138 / 19Send your questions to theArmy TerminologyQPlease explain thexdifferences in theBritish army terms “commissioned,seconded,gazetted,” which are oftenapplied to Churchillwithout explanation.AAn officer is commissionedinto a particular regiment orcorps; this is a formal status,accompanied by a documentsigned by the Queen (in facsimilethese days). So you don’t receive afresh commission every time youare posted from A to B. Receipt of acommission is published in theLondon Gazette, hence “gazetted.”Once you have your commission,you are frequently sent to jobsoutside your regiment (perhaps toa headquarters staff or a trainingdepot as an instructor or to a specialisation,e.g., linguist, parachutist,military attaché, etc.). Youremain a member of your own regimentor corps and receive a postingto and from your assignment.Sometimes you volunteer (orare invited) to fill a vacancy inanother similar regiment; in thiscase you would be attached (sometimescalled “seconded”) for a temporaryperiod. Sometimes thismight become permanent—if itsuits all three parties—in whichcase your transfer would begazetted. —PHCQNever DespairRecently without warning, Iwas slandered by a colleaguewho then resigned, denouncing allof us and leaving a mess for hissuccessors to clean up. Can youplease recommend the most appropriateChurchill quotation for sucha situation.A“The spectacle of a number ofmiddle-aged gentlemen whoare my political opponents being ina state of uproar and fury is reallyquite exhilarating to me.”—HOUSE OF COMMONS, 21 MAY 1952 ✌

Present at the Creation:Danny Mander Guardingthe P.M. at Teheran, 1942-43At the 2006 Churchill Conference, anengaging Lancashire man held theaudience spellbound recounting hisexperiences with the Military Police inTeheran in 1942-43, where he twiceguarded Churchill—the second time atthe critical conference which began tocreate the postwar world.20aRNCAN INTERVIEW WITH SUSAN KIDDERDanny Mander was born in Lancashireto a Scottish mother and Englishfather in 1917, and after school became ajourneyman engraver. In 1939 he volunteeredfor the Military Police, and attendedthe Police College in March 1940. He was dischargedin April 1946 and later emigrated to theUnited States. Now 91, Danny is an active real estatebroker in California, where he is regularly taken forthirty years younger. He is living testimony to thelate Alistair Cooke’s vow that he would never retire,“because I’ve observed that my friends who retireimmediately keel over.” Danny and his wifeHeather live in Sacramento.True to history, Danny has recorded his recollectionson a CD, and has made plans to publish asmall book. The CD is available for US$20 in USAand US$24.95 elsewhere, plus US$5 shipping anywhereby airmail. Credit card orders can be made onwww. mmpublishing.com or send check or moneyorder (US$ only) to MM Publishing, PO Box 791,Aromas California 95004.Susan Kidder is a recent transplant from New England toWisconsin, and founder of the Winston Churchill book groupof Wisconsin. WSC was Susan’s inspiration since middleschool years: “I learned the power of the spoken word, whichI used to disarm my verbal tormenters!”MILITARY POLICE AT TEHERAN, 1943: Lance Corporals Crabband Oakenful; Sergeant Mander; Lance Corporals Peugh and Nortley.FINEST HoUR 138 / 20Susan Kidder: How did you get to Teheran?Danny Mander: In June 1942 I was posted toTeheran to ferret out German spies. With Iranianagreement, German “occupational plants” had beensent there in 1937-38, hoping to be absorbed into theIranian community by the time Hitler got throughRussia, easing his access to Iranian oil fields. Asmanagers of newspapers, railways, local industry,even the branch of a police station, they were expertsin their fields and had learned the language well.Fortunately, our own secret branch of the IntelligenceCorps, the Field Security Police, were nondescripttypes who merged into the community and werequickly able to identify the culprits. One by one theywere arrested at pistol point, and taken to a wing ofan Iranian jail allotted to us for our questioning. Wetreated them humanely but questioned them closely,and when we had learned enough we put them on atrain to Basra, Iraq. From here they were sent by boatto India for safekeeping until the end of the war.Taking our prisoners to the railway station wasthe most dangerous time. “Relatives” would appearto bid them good-bye, trying to pass them guns,knives and cut-throat type razors....It was hazardouswork, and the only advice we had was to be careful.

21aR,crop slightly attop to kill whitespot over hisheadCRUISING SPEED: Danny and Heather Mander at the CanadianLegion Vimy Ridge dinner, San Francisco, April 2006.Their fate in India was far better than Allied soldiersin German camps. I always found Indian Army soldiersto be friendly and hospitable. But without theField Security Police of the British army, we couldnever have achieved such intelligence success—andit was all done without a shot being fired.SK: Were these agents dedicated Nazis?DM: Hard to tell. There were no Nazi salutesor Heil Hitlers. They were clearly middle class andwell educated. Had Hitler won, they would haveenjoyed a comfortable life with more freedom thanin Germany. They had come to Iran with fewregrets, and as the war progressed I am sure theyfelt they had chosen right. They behaved well underthe circumstances, not like desperately oppressedpeople, and not like dedicated Nazis.SK: Your next job, I gather from your tapes,was creating a route between Teheran and Sheba, 30miles northwest of Basra, as a supply route toRussia—part of Lend-Lease aid to the Soviets. Thiswas all behind-the-scenes work, very important butsometimes missed in the history books.DM: You would be amazed at what Lend-Lease entailed that the American public never knewabout. I set off with three other policemen, a Jeepand a pick-up truck, bedding in a tent so as not towaste any time packing and and repacking. Expertsfrom the Royal Engineers rode with us, checkingevery bridge over the dried-up stream beds (whichbecame raging torrents in the wet season). My jobwas to read the poor quality maps and try to keepus on the dirt and gravel roads. We went from sealevel to three or four thousand feet, where there wassnow; then down to the terrific heat of the sandyplains, then up to the 3000-foot Teheran plateau.I could not remember how long it took to dothis survey—until the time I saw convoys travelingthis route to Russia after I had been moved fromTeheran to Ahwaz in early 1944. This was a forsakenplace on the River Karun, which empties into thePersian Gulf—hot and filthy, with lots of malaria.We took precautions against malaria, but we caughtsandfly fever instead.At Ahwaz I finally saw the results of myouting with the Royal Engineers. Convoys wererolling from Basra with cargoes from America,Britain and Canada, where we’d put them on trainsfor Teheran. The railway was built before the war bya consortium of British, Dutch and German engineers;it winds up and around huge mountains, andon the top you can look back and see six or sevenstations in the distance. There are also scores oftunnels. I’d never heard of this monumental undertakinguntil I saw it. Its builders were proud of it, asthey had a right to be.Moving military material to Russia was a phenomenalachievement. Americans never knew theextent of Lend-Lease—and it was all for free. I amsure the Russians never paid a bean, although I readnot too long ago that Britain paid off its last Lend-Lease loans to the United States in 2006.My job in Ahwaz was to administer securitycheckpoints. In August 1942, I was ordered to organizesecurity for an upscale conference of “senior officials”—BritishAmerican, Russian and Iranian. Bynow, Iran had decided to ditch Germany and to beon our side. This showpiece meeting was at an oldchateau on large grounds, the like of which I hadn’tknown existed in Ahwaz. It was like a king’s palace.The participants assembled. As each generalstepped out of his car he was given a raffle-typeticket to reclaim it. He would then walk into thegarden, where he was smartly saluted by three lancecorporals (British, Russian, American), with fixedbayonets. Farther on he was saluted by three corporals,then three sergeants. As they dined, it wasinteresting to see the British and Americans stacktheir arms in a corner, while the Russians sat withtheir rifles between their knees!Making conversation, I asked what happenedto the Lend-Lease Studebaker trucks, laden witharms and medical supplies, that we had sent on therailway cars to Russia. The Russians replied thatthey were in storage. So I asked, “Why aren’t theybeing used?” They replied: “We are saving them tofight the Americans.” Quite a straight answer—andwith venom to go with it. >>FINEST HoUR 138 / 21

PRESENT AT THE CREATION...SK: In August 1942 you first encounteredChurchill, who flew in from Cairo, where he hadjust installed Alexander and Montgomery in theMiddle East Command. How did you come to beassigned?DM: I was thoroughly vetted. A sergeant-majorcross-examined me on everything: schooldays, religion,church attendance, first job, social activities,sports (football, cricket, running). Was I a nonsmokerand non-drinker? Yes. “Right,” he said,“report at 5AM tomorrow morning, and bring acomrade you can trust.” I chose Charlie Oakenful.The next morning we drove out to a disusedairfield named “Qualy Morguey” (area of wildrabbits). Other cars began to arrive, loaded withforeigners: Russians, Persian generals, Americanbrass. We had no inkling of what was about to takeplace.Sometime after 6 am an American plane thesize of a jet liner touched down and taxied to wherewe were all assembled. A side door opened and arather rotund figure appeared, wearing a siren suitand a large cigar. There was no doubt who he was.The brass made a receiving line and WinstonChurchill was introduced to each “victim.” Charlieand I were at the end, and realized we were not partof the “high echelon.” So, as he got to me, I steppedout of line, saluted him (which he returned) andopened the car door for him to enter. He smiled andmuttered, “Thank-you, corporal.” We were off andrunning on a “harmonious friendship”!At the British Legation in Teheran, the kitchenstaff had breakfast ready, despite the early hour.Charlie and I took turns walking around the building,mainly guarding the rear access. I called formore help at the front, where locals were gathering,realizing something was up; it would have beeneasy for a terrorist to mix with them and get inside. Iwill never forget the “breakfast dessert,” which weshared: peaches with their stones removed, filledwith liquid chocolate, cream on top, and the slicepreciously cut replaced at jaunty angle in the cream.Having spent two years in the UK when no fruitwas imported, it was wonderful to see such lusciouspeaches. They tasted as good as they looked.I was asked to command a motorcycle escortfor the embassy limousine which would takeChurchill to the Shah’s summer residence atShimran for lunch. From here we went to thesummer residence of the British Minister, where thePrime Minister decided to take a swim in the pooland a walk around the gardens. I followed closely,trying to answer his avid questions about plants and22ARMCCOMEDY ATTEHERAN, 1943:Sergeant MajorBancroft (left) andSergeant Mander(right) are “takinginto custody” a“drunk” personifiedby the Armyphotographer atthe TeheranConference. Therewas certainlyplenty of drinkavailable for thekey figures, butDanny noticedthat Stalinremained firmlysober, andChurchill wasonly somewhattottery on oneoccasion after along dinner withthe Russians.flowers.Mr. Churchill always noticed and talked topeople allocated to serve and guard him. Jokingly,he invited me to join him in the pool. Of course heknew that as a bodyguard I could not do so, and helaughed when I had to refuse. In short, he behavedas a normal person—not at all stand-offish.Rather than return to Teheran, the PrimeMinister decided to stay overnight at this cooler altitude,so Charlie and I were on continual duty allnight long. The next morning, astride the motorcyclesagain, we escorted the PM to the “airport,” andhe flew off to visit Stalin in Moscow.SK: What were your impressions of the “BigThree” at the November 1943 “summit conference”?DM: It was a fraught time for Churchill, andhe dictated to stenographers non-stop when returningto his room after a session with Stalin andRoosevelt. This I admired, for he always returnedfresh as a daisy inside and out, ready to face anothergrueling meeting. It is a lesson anyone in such animportant position should learn.He never went to a social event without emptyinghis mind of all that had transpired at theplenary sessions beforehand. This also impressedme. It made such a difference to his attitude as hewent off to his next meeting, usually of a very differentcalibre to the last. How wonderful he must havefelt to be fresh every time in mind and spirit. It wasa great trait.FINEST HoUR 138 / 22

When we took Churchill to the RussianEmbassy, the OGPU (Soviet secret police) weretrying to hide behind every tree on the great lawn.It seemed very silly, because we all could see them.It was very different from the security we weretrained to provide. We never used large numbers ofmen; but we placed them far more strategically.The only time I saw the PM the worse foralcohol was when I helped him walk back to ourlegation after one of those long dinners with theRussians. It was a fine, clear night and he and Edenchose to walk rather than ride in the limousine.They were still on their feet—just. I put my armwithin his to hold him steady and had a corporal dothe same for Mr. Eden. Thus they continued straightand upright to the British consulate, talking together(but not carousing!) in proper British fashion.November 30th was Churchill’s 69th birthdayand his turn to host dinner at the British Legation.The Russians were uncooperative on security andtrusted no one. The Americans were the opposite,entrusting Roosevelt to our own police.Roosevelt could not use the stone steps at thefront door, so carpenters had made a ramp up to therear kitchen door, which was situated along anarrow alley. His car drove up, and his driver pulleda folding wheelchair from the boot. As he unfoldedit I lifted FDR from his car into the chair. I wasimpressed by his size, his large head and massivechest. From the waist up he was a great lookingman, but his buttocks and legs were wasted awayfrom polio. As he was being pushed up the ramp tothe kitchen door, Churchill welcomed him inside.Stalin was a different kettle of fish. He drankmultiple toasts but with very small glasses, andalways remained firmly sober. I remember himarriving at the circular drive around a lily pond atthe bottom of the Legation steps. A corporal whosprang to open the car door for him had to use twohands: It contained heavy panels of bullet-proofsteel. As Stalin stepped out, a surge of Russian officersfrom the cars following behind rushed up toenclose him totally, so no one else could get near. Itwas all done quickly. I remarked at the time that theonly person who could put a knife in Stalin’s backwere his own officers.SK: How did you save Marshal Voroshilov?DM: The Stalingrad Sword, which the Britishmade to present to the Russians, was on display atour legation. Stalin said Voroshilov had earned thistrophy, so the Marshal decided to visit us to familiarizehimself with it before presentation. He wantedto read the inscriptions, which were in English onone side of the blade and Russian on the other.As Voroshilov arrived, cars shuttling to andfrom the American Embassy were sweeping throughour gate without stopping to make it difficult forany hidden sniper. Voroshilov, already inside, waswalking up the drive, which had a hedge on eitherside. I called to him to get out of the way, but hedidn’t understand English and strolled on as if deaf!With a convoy approaching at high speed, Itook immediate action. Running across a strip oflawn, I jumped the hedge, grabbed him around thewaist like a Rugby tackler, and bowled him over thehedge just as the motorized convoy whizzed past.He was completely stunned as we got up andbrushed off bits of grass. I tried to apologize, but herealized I had taken him out of mortal danger, andtried to say thanks. A legation staffer later told mehe had come inside very shaken, asking for waterand a chair to sit on. Hopefully he said his prayersto whatever deity Communists still prayed to.SK: What was your relation with Detective-Sergeant Thompson, Churchill’s bodyguard?DM: When I learned that a film was beingmade about him I wrote to the BBC offering informationabout the Teheran Conference, but I neverheard from anyone. I liked Thompson and got onwell with him on Churchill’s visits. We talked a lot,and I gave him the benefit of my local knowledge.Walter always made the decision as to where ina car Churchill would sit, and he was the man in thePM’s room. Legation security was left to theMilitary Police, helped by infantry guards insideand outside the walls. The units chosen were onesChurchill had been associated with in his early militarylife. I was never regarded as working for WalterThompson; my job was security as a whole.Wherever the PM landed was the jurisdiction of theBritish military, and Walter was off-duty exceptwithin the quarters where Churchill slept.I have been a regular member of the ChurchillCentre for many years, and have visited BlenheimPalace and Bladon churchyard in England. When wewere in the church no one else was there, and mywife Heather asked me to play “Amazing Grace” onthe organ. No way, I replied, Sir Winston’s favoritewas “The Battle Hymn of the Republic.” I played atfull blast. We were both thrilled to hear it in his ownbackyard. I trust he heard it loud and clear.I have ad-libbed these words, not referring tomy CD or my notes. It certainly brings back manymemories of those years. The magnitude of it allwas and still is in my mind astonishing. I can hardlybelieve it ever happened.✌FINEST HoUR 138 / 23

THE FRENCH CONNECTION (1)Lion of Britain, Cross of Lorraine:Churchill and de Gaulle“THE CROSS OF LORRAINE IS PART OF THE HERALDIC ARMS OF LORRAINE IN EASTERNFRANCE. IT WAS ORIGINALLY HELD TO BE A SYMBOL OF JOAN OF ARC, RENOWNED FORHER PERSEVERANCE AGAINST FOREIGN INVADERS (IN HER CASE,THE ENGLISH)....DURINGWORLD WAR II, THE CROSS WAS ADOPTED AS THE OFFICIAL SYMBOL OF THE FREEFRENCH FORCES UNDER GENERAL CHARLES DE GAULLE.” —WIKIPEDIATERRY REARDONCharles André Joseph Marie de Gaulle wasborn on 22 November 1890 in Lille,France. He graduated from the Frenchmilitary academy in 1912, was woundedthree times in World War I, and spentthirty months as a prisoner of war, making repeatedbut unsuccessful escape attempts.The interwar years saw de Gaulle makerapid strides in the army thanks to a mentor,Marshal Philippe Pétain, head of the French army.Pétain brought de Gaulle into his inner circle in1925 and after two years as a battalion commanderde Gaulle was promoted to the secretariat of theCouncil Superior of National Defence, where hewas involved in a planning capacity from 1932 to1937. His criticisms of the Army’s lack of new ideas,such as tank brigades, were frostily received by theHigh Command, which was committed to the illusoryand incomplete Maginot Line. 1One high-profile member of the FrenchParliament, Paul Reynaud, agreed with de Gaulle’sconcerns, and de Gaulle bombarded him with sixtytwoletters over the next four years. Reynaudbecame Prime Minister in March 1940, and in Maypromoted Major de Gaulle to temporary General,commanding a tank division. Summoned back toParis, he was given the position of Under Secretaryof State, over the objections of Pétain and FrenchArmy head General Maxime Weygand. 2On 9 June 1940, with France reeling underthe German assault, Reynaud sent de Gaulle toLondon to request more assistance from the BritishAir Force. Of his first meeting with Churchill atDowning Street de Gaulle later wrote: “Mr.In honor of our first Churchill Symposium in France(“Churchill and France,” 6-7 June 2008), Finest Hour ispleased to offer two articles on the topic, the first being anoverview by FH contributor Terry Reardon of ICS Canada.Churchill seemed to me to be equal to the rudesttask, provided it also had grandeur....The humour,too, with which he seasoned his acts and words,and the way in which he made use, now of graciousness,now of anger, contributed to make onefeel what mastery he had of the terrible game inwhich he was engaged.” 3On 16 June, accompanied by de Gaulle,France’s war production liaison in London, JeanMonnet, implored Churchill to expend all hisremaining air squadrons in the battle of France.Churchill wrote later: “I told him there was no possibilityof this being done....My two French visitorsthen got up and moved towards the door, Monnetleading. As they reached it, de Gaulle, who hadhitherto scarcely uttered a single word, turned back,and, taking two or three paces towards me, said inEnglish: ‘I think you are quite right.’” 4Churchill flew to France four times in Mayand June, trying to bolster the French leadership.De Gaulle supported the British War Cabinet’s offerof “indissoluble union” between the two nations,transmitted to Reynaud on 16 June, together withChurchill’s proposal to meet Reynaud in Brittanythe next day. But the French Council, led byWeygand and Pétain, was hostile to the proposal,saying that “in three weeks England will have herneck rung like a chicken.” A union with Britain,Pétain added, would be “fusion with a corpse.” 5With the collapse of France, and the formationof a quiescent if not collaborationist governmentat Vichy, the only member of the Governmentwho decided to carry on the fight from England,who thus became the spokesman for free France,was Charles de Gaulle.In mid-June de Gaulle obtained Churchill’spermission to use the BBC to broadcast an appeal ofresistance to his countrymen. “France does notstand alone,” he said. “Behind her is a vast empireFINEST HoUR 138 / 24

and she can make common cause with the BritishEmpire which commands the seas and is continuingthe struggle....The flame of French resistance mustnot and shall not die.” 6Reynaud had now resigned and his successorPétain sought an armistice with Hitler, whoseterms prescribed that the French Fleet “shall be collectedin ports to bespecified and theredemobilised and disarmedunderGerman or Italiancontrol.” Althoughthe German governmenthad solemnlydeclared that it hadno intention of usingthe French fleet, thiswas not believed bythe British WarCabinet. Thus theCabinet took inChurchill’s words “ahateful decision, themost unnatural andpainful in which Ihave ever been concerned....Butno actwas ever more necessaryfor the life ofBritain and for allthat depended uponit.” 7 The Britishaction on 3 Julyfocused on theFrench fleet in Mersel-Kebirand Oran inNorth Africa.The Frenchfleet was givenseveral options: joining the British fleet in the war,sailing to a French port such as Martinique fordemilitarization, or scuttling. With no satisfactoryresponse, the Royal Navy commenced hostilitiesand the bulk of the fleet was sunk or disabled.De Gaulle was not informed of the actionuntil it had commenced and his initial reaction wasanger, but when General Spears, British LiaisonOfficer to the former French government, met withhim two days later, he found de Gaulle “astonishinglyobjective.” On 8 July de Gaulle broadcast toFrance: “…the government at Bordeaux had agreedto place our ships at the enemy’s discretion....oneday the enemy would have used them againstEngland or against our own empire. Well, I saywithout hesitation that it is better they should havebeen destroyed....Our two ancient nations, our twoFINEST HoUR 138 / 25great nations, remain bound to one another. Theywill either go down both together or both togetherthey will win.” 8On 24 August 1940 Churchill spoke in theHouse of Commons “Our old comradeship withFrance is not at an end. In General de Gaulle andhis gallant band that comradeship takes an effectiveform. These FreeFrenchmen havebeen condemned todeath by Vichy, butthe day will come,as surely as the sunwill rise tomorrow,when their nameswill be held inhonour, and theirnames will begraven in stones inthe streets and villagesof a Francerestored in a liberatedEurope, to its fullfreedom and itsancient fame.” 9Dakar, thecapital of the Frenchcolony of Senegal,was controlled byVichy, and Churchillpressured the BritishChiefs of Staff tomount an operationwith the Free Frenchto take the port,which would beuseful as a base inthe battle of theAtlantic. The attack,between 23 and 25September 1940, was a disaster, with Vichy forcesmounting a strong defence. Vichy and Germanpropaganda took advantage of their victory, and theBritish and American press were also highlycritical. 10 While Dakar did not diminish Churchill’sconfidence in de Gaulle, their relationship rapidlydeteriorated. Although in late 1940 de Gaulle’sforces consisted of an army of 140 officers and 2109men, and a navy of 120 officers and 1746 ratings,his attitude and deportment were those of a majorplayer in the war. 11In November 1940, without advisingChurchill or the British Government, de Gaulleannounced an Empire Defence Council, with thewording of the manifesto reading like a declarationof war on Vichy. He included an unrealistic and >>STUDY IN CONTRAST: De Gaulle and Churchill at Casablanca inJanuary 1943. The Prime Minister, who always believed in a smilingcountenance “when one is about to encounter the unknown,” is hisusual ebullient self. For the reason why General de Gaulle looks like heis experiencing a bad case of constipation, please see page 27.

CHURCHILL AND DE GAULLE...arrogant offer to the United States of air and navalbases in the French possessions of the Westernhemisphere, which were administered by Vichy. 12The next few months saw many incidents ofanti-British actions and comments by de Gaulle, butin June 1941 came a serious disruption. Two countriesin the Levant, Syria and Lebanon, had beenmandated to France after World War I, and after thearmistice were governed by Vichy. In June 1941 anallied force of mainly Free French troops commencedan offensive, and in July Vichy asked for acease-fire and an armistice. De Gaulle laid down hisconditions, but these were ignored by the British,and the Free French were not permitted to have anycontact with the Vichy forces, which were granted“full honours of war.” 13Beside himself with rage, de Gaulle ventedhis anger on General Spears and the BritishMinister of State in the Middle East, OliverLyttelton, who in his memoirs admitted that theFree French should have been consulted. Lytteltonwired Churchill that “de Gaulle worked himselfinto a state of bitter hostility to everything English”and “was rude and offensive.” 14Churchill replied: “I am sorry you arehaving all this trouble with de Gaulle....It might bewell if you could let him see the gulf on the edge ofwhich he is disporting himself.” Churchill alsotelegraphed de Gaulle suggesting he return toEngland “in order that I may discuss with you personallythe difficulties which have arisen.”De Gaulle ignored the suggestion. When on27 August 1941 a reporter for the Chicago DailyNews asked him why Britain had not formally recognizedthe Free French as a government-in-exile,he replied: “England is carrying on a wartime dealwith Hitler in which Vichy serves as a go-between.Vichy serves Hitler by keeping the French people insubjection and selling the French Empire piecemealto Germany....Britain is exploiting Vichy in the sameway as Germany; the only difference is in her purposes.What happens in effect is an exchange ofadvantages between hostile powers which keepsthe Vichy Government alive as long as both Britainand Germany agree it should exist.” 15Realizing he had gone too far, de Gaulletried to stop the publication, and after this failed,claimed he had been misinterpreted. He finallyreturned to London on 1 September; but the daybefore, Churchill had issued a directive that noperson in authority was to see him, and that “he isto stew in his own juice.”On 12 September de Gaulle met withChurchill, who was determined to put him in hisplace. Churchill informed his private secretary, JohnColville, that he would speak only through an interpreter(see James Lancaster’s following article).“An hour slipped away and I began to fearviolence,” Colville wrote. “I had decided it was myduty to burst in, perhaps with a bogus message….Iwent in to find the two of them sitting side by sidewith amiable expressions on their faces. De Gaulle,no doubt for tactical purposes, was smoking one ofthe Prime Minister’s cigars....The Entente wasCordiale again, at least temporarily.” 16On 7 December 1941 the United Statesentered the war. Roosevelt had been supportive ofVichy and Marshal Pétain, and negative toward theFree French, especially its erratic and explosiveleader. The invasion of the islands of St. Pierre andMiquelon on 24 December 1941 (FH 136: 18-22)reinforced the U.S. government’s disdain for deGaulle, which continued throughout the war.In 1942 things didn’t get any better. In May,British forces landed on the Vichy-controlled islandof Madagascar without Free French participation orany warning to de Gaulle. The general, againfurious, cabled his commanders in Africa and theLevant, stating that they must have no relationswith the invaders. 17 De Gaulle backed off afteranother meeting with Churchill, but he was soonagain to be out of step with “Les Anglo-Saxons.”“Torch,” the invasion of North Africa, wasset to commence in November 1942. Churchill hadwritten to Roosevelt stating his intention to advisede Gaulle the day before the landing; but Rooseveltdemanded that he not be told until after a successfullanding. When eventually informed, de Gaulleroared: “I hope the Vichy people will fling theminto the sea! You don’t get France by burglary!” 18Again, however, de Gaulle calmed down,and at lunch at Chequers that same day he politelylistened while Churchill explained the reasons forthe secrecy. But de Gaulle interpreted this as stemmingfrom the pro-Vichy American stance.De Gaulle further entrenched the Americannegative opinion when he refused to fly toCasablanca in January 1943 to discuss powersharing with French General Henri Giraud, whohad recently escaped from a German prison. Hisattitude was that this was purely a French affair.The Americans, of course, were certain thatGiraud was a better bet than de Gaulle, but withChurchill expressing the opposite opinion, theyagreed to a sharing of power. Roosevelt cabledWSC: “We’ll call Giraud the bridegroom, and I’llproduce him from Algiers, and you have the bride,de Gaulle, down from London, and we’ll have ashotgun wedding.” 19The President, somewhat perversely enjoyingChurchill’s discomfort, cabled to Secretary ofState Cordell Hull: “We delivered our bridegroom,General Giraud, who was most cooperative on theFINEST HoUR 138 / 26

impending marriage, and I am sure was ready to gothrough with it on our terms. However our friendscould not produce the bride, the temperamentalLady de Gaulle.” 20Ultimately, under pressure from his FreeFrench National Committee, de Gaulle relented andarrived in Casablanca on 22 January; he and Giraudcould not agree, but they did issue a statement ontheir mutual objective: the liberation of France. 21 DeGaulle’s stubbornness left Churchill “in a whitefury” according to Robert Murphy, American representativein Algiers. However, at the request ofRoosevelt, de Gaulle did agree to shake hands withGiraud for thebenefit of the cameramen,and thephotographsreceived a widecirculation. 22WhenChurchill and deGaulle arrivedback in England,Churchill gaveorders that “themonster ofHampstead”(where de Gaullelived) was not tobe allowed to leavethe country andstir up troubleabroad. The twodid not meet againuntil 2 April 1943.De Gaulle beganby saying that he was a prisoner and would be sentto the enemy alien prison on the Isle of Man (whichhe pronounced “eel-o-mon”). Churchill responded,“No, you are very distinguished, and so would goto the Tower of London!” But WSC did agree toallow de Gaulle to travel back to Algiers. 23Agreement could still not be reached withGiraud, and Churchill laid the blame on de Gaulle.When meeting with the U.S. Senate on 19 May 1943,Churchill said that he had “raised de Gaulle as apup…now he bit the hand that fed him.” 24With further pressure from WashingtonChurchill was close to a split with de Gaulle, butAnthony Eden and most of the British Cabinetinterceded. Of an Algiers meeting with Eden on 25May, de Gaulle recounted: “Mr. Eden goodhumouredlysaid ‘Do you know that you havecaused us more difficulties than all our otherEuropean allies put together?’ ‘I don’t doubt it,’ Ireplied, smiling also. ‘France is a great power.’” 25On 3 June 1943 an agreement of sorts wasFINEST HoUR 138 / 27reached between de Gaulle and Giraud, althoughsoon after de Gaulle was able to manoeuvre hisrival out of the joint leadership. Harold Macmillan,Allied Minister in North Africa and a future primeminister, recalled a 3 1/2 hours drive with deGaulle to the Algerian seaside on 14 June 1943, andbathing naked with de Gaulle sitting “in a dignifiedmanner on a rock, with his military cap, hisuniform and his belt...It is very difficult to knowhow to handle him....I’m afraid he will always bedifficult to work with. He is by nature an autocrat.Just like Louis X1V or Napoleon. He thinks in hisheart that he should command and all othersshould obey him. It isnot exactly ‘Fascist’(an overworkedword), it is authoritarian.”26 The anglophobicactions of de Gaullecontinued, althoughthese did not reflecthis respect and admirationfor Churchill,and some lightmoments wererecorded. On 13January 1944Churchill and deGaulle lunched inMarrakesh, withBritish Ambassador tothe French Committeeof Liberation AlfredDuff Cooper, andafter lunch Churchilldecided that if he spoke French it would add alighter touch to the occasion. He remarked to DuffCooper, “I’m doing rather well, aren’t I? Now thatthe General speaks English so well, he understandsmy French perfectly.” Everyone including deGaulle burst out laughing. 27A clash occurred over D-Day, where thedetails were again withheld from de Gaulle beforehand.Invited to London from Algiers, de Gaulletook his time and eventually arrived on 4 June.Churchill met with him and after discussing theinvasion passed him on to General Eisenhower, whogave specific information on the operation and askedhim to broadcast after the landing. WhenEisenhower said he too would be broadcasting, deGaulle responded that he would not take secondplace in the broadcast and that Eisenhower had noright to instruct the French people on civil administrationmatters, which was part of his speech.Churchill, already in an agitated state over theimpending landing, flew into a rage, only slightly >>THE LARGER PICTURE: Roosevelt cabled Churchill to bring de GaulleCasablanca and meet with rival General Giraud: “We’ll call Giraud thebridegroom, and I’ll produce him from Algiers, and you have the bride,de Gaulle, down from London, and we’ll have a shotgun wedding.”Despite the photograph, the wedding was not a success.

ENTENTE CORDIALE: Paris, Armistice Day, 11 November 1944. Tears streaming down his face, Churchill strides down the ChampsElysees with de Gaulle in a tumult of cheers from liberated Parisians. Also in the photograph,left to right: British Ambassador toFrance Alfred Duff Cooper (far left, bareheaded); WSC’s naval aide Cdr. “Tommy” Thompson (RN uniform), and British ForeignMinister Anthony Eden. De Gaulle’s son Philippe is just visible behind his father’s right shoulder. This particular photograph wasuniquely autographed by Eden and Churchill at the bottom, and by de Gaulle in the upper left corner, which makes it priceless.CHURCHILL AND DE GAULLE...lessened when informed that de Gaulle wouldspeak, but not immediately after Eisenhower.Then the question was broached as tovetting the draft of the speech beforehand. In theend it was not done and de Gaulle gave a magnificentspeech exhorting “the sons of France, whoeverthey may be, wherever they may be, the simple andsacred duty is to fight the enemy with every meansin its power.” De Gaulle went on to give heartfeltthanks to the British for their effort in the liberationof France. On hearing him, tears welled up inChurchill’s eyes. Noticing a certain skepticism inhis Chief of Personal Staff, General Ismay, he said:“You great tub of lard! Have you no sentiment?” 28With the Normandy bridgehead established,de Gaulle left England on 16 June and wrote toChurchill, “Upon leaving Great Britain, to whichyou kindly invited me at a moment of decisiveimportance to the successful conclusion of this war,I would like to extend my sincerest thanks for thewelcome extended to me by His Majesty’sGovernment....I have been able to see and feel thatthe courage and power of the people of GreatBritain were of the highest order and that their feelingsof friendship for France were stronger thanever. I can assure you, in return, of the deep confidenceand unbreakable attachment which Francefeels towards Great Britain.” 29While the balance of the war still saw skirmishesbetween the two men, there were now moreoccasions of warmth and mutual admiration. On 10November 1944 Churchill flew to Paris. He was metat the airport by de Gaulle and driven to the Quaid’Orsay, where he was to stay. The accoutrementswere of the highest class. Churchill’s included aFINEST HoUR 138 / 28

golden bath, prepared by Goering for his own use;Churchill was still more delighted to find thatAnthony Eden’s bath was only of silver. 30The following day, Armistice Day, de Gaulleconducted Churchill in an open car across the Seineand the two men walked the Champs Elysees,teeming with thousands of cheering Parisians. Thediarist and MP Harold Nicolson stated that Edentold him that “not for one moment did Winstonstop crying, and that he could have filled bucketsby the time he received the Freedom of Paris.” Hesaid “they yelled for Churchill in a way that he hasnever heard any crowd yell before.” 31At an official luncheon de Gaulle said, “It istrue that we would not have seen [the liberation] ifour old and gallant ally England, and all the Britishdominions under precisely the impulsion and inspirationof those we are honouring today, had notdeployed the extraordinary determination to win,and that magnificent courage which saved thefreedom of the world. There is no French man orwoman who is not touched to the depths of theirhearts and souls by this.”It was General Spears, not Churchill, whoremarked, “the hardest cross I have to bear is theCross of Lorraine,” though WSC certainly sharedthose sentiments. So why did he not abandon deGaulle after so many provocations? The answer isin Churchill’s own words. In France’s darkest hourChurchill had whispered to him, “L’homme dudestin.” 32At Casablanca in 1943 he said of de Gaulle:“His country has given up fighting, he himself is arefugee, and if we turn him down he’s finished. Welljust look at him! He might be Stalin, with 200 divisionsbehind his words....France without an army isnot France. De Gaulle is the spirit of that Army.Perhaps the last survivor of a warrior race.” 33Churchill added in August 1944, “ I havenever forgotten, and can never forget, that he stoodforth as the first eminent Frenchman to face thecommon foe in what seemed to be the hour of ruinof his country and possibly, of ours….”34Of Churchill’s dismissal following the 1945British general election, de Gaulle wrote: “To mindsinclined towards sentimentality this disgrace suddenlyinflicted by the British Nation upon the greatman who had so gloriously led her to salvation andvictory might seem surprising. Yet there wasnothing in it that was not in accordance with theorder of human affairs....[Churchill’s] nature, identifiedwith a magnificent undertaking, his countenancechiselled by the fires and frosts of greatevents, had become inadequate in this era of mediocrity.”35 On 6 November 1958 in Paris, Churchill waspresented with the Croix de la Libération by deGaulle, now French President, who remarked: “Iwant Sir Winston to know this. Today’s ceremonymeans that France remembers what she owes him. Iwant him to know this: the man who has just hadthe honour of bestowing this distinction upon himvalues and admires him more than ever.” 36Upon Churchill’s death on 24 January 1965de Gaulle wrote to Queen Elizabeth, “In the greatdrama he was the greatest of all.” 37✌Endnotes1. Kersaudy, François, Churchill and De Gaulle (NewYork: Atheneum, 1983), 22.2. Lacoutre, Jean, De Gaulle The Rebel 1890-1944(London: Collins Harvill, 1990), 190.3. De Gaulle, Charles, The Call to Honour (New York:Viking, 1955), 57-58.4. Churchill, Winston S. The Second World War, vol. 3,Their Finest Hour (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1949), 215.5. Ibid., 213.6. De Gaulle, op. cit., 84.7. Churchill, op. cit., 232.8. Lacoutre, op. cit., 249-50.9. Kersaudy, op. cit., 8710.Ibid., 100-02.11. Berthon, Simon, Allies At War (New York: Carroll& Graf, 2001), 46.12. Kersaudy, op. cit., 115-16.13. Ibid., 139.14. Berthon, op. cit., 125.15. Ibid., 136.16. Colville, John, Footprints in Time (London:Collins, 1976), 113-15.17. Berthon, op. cit., 169.18. Lacoutre, op. cit., 397.19. Berthon, op. cit., 234.20. Kersaudy, op. cit., 243.21. Berthon, op. cit., 246.22. Kersaudy, op. cit, 255.23. Ibid, 267.24. Ibid, 273.25. Ibid, 280-81.26. Macmillan, Harold, The Blast of War 1939-45(London: Macmillan, 1967), 345-46.27. Kersaudy, op. cit., 310.28. Berthon, op. cit., 311.29. Kersaudy, op. cit., 358.30. Ibid., 374.31. Nicolson, Harold, Diaries and Letters 1939-1945(London: Collins, 1967), 412.32. Churchill, op. cit., 182.33. Moran, Lord, Churchill Taken from the Diaries ofLord Moran (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1966), 88.34. Churchill, Winston S., The Dawn of Liberation(Toronto: McClelland & Stewart, 1945), 206.35. Kersaudy, op. cit., 413.36. Ibid., 424.37. Ibid., 428.FINEST HoUR 138 / 29

THE FRENCH CONNECTION (2)“Français! C’estmoi, Churchill,qui vous parle....”Churchill’sFrenchJAMES R. LANCASTERDE GAULLE SAID THAT BY LEARNING ENGLISH HEWAS ABLE TO UNDERSTAND CHURCHILL’S FRENCH.WSC OFTEN SPOKE “FRANGLAIS,” BUT IS THEREEVIDENCE OF MALICE AFORETHOUGHT? ARETHERE STORIES OF THE COMMENTS ANDREACTIONS OF FRENCHMEN (AND WOMEN) WHICHECHO DE GAULLE’S REMARK? YES—AND THEYSUGGEST WSC’S FRENCH WAS RATHER GOOD.Was Churchill’s French really as bad as weare led to believe? It is variouslydescribed on a scale from poor to execrable,not only by some of his contemporariesbut also by later writers. Thiscalumny needs to be redressed. Here is my case.In learning French, Churchill was luckier thanmost of us; he had a mother who was fluent in thelanguage. Jennie Jerome had lived in Paris with hermother Clara and her two sisters from 1867 to 1870,and from 1871 to 1874, a total of six years. Jenniespoke perfect French.Many years later, in 1908, Churchill was fortunatein marrying someone whose French was alsoimpeccable. Clementine Hozier had learned theFrench language first from her governess, Mlle.Gonnard, and then from Mlle. Louise Henri,described by Mary Soames in Clementine Churchillas an intelligent and remarkable woman. 1In the summer of 1899 Lady Blanche Hozierand her family moved to Puys, a small village bythe sea near Dieppe. Come the school year, the fourchildren moved to Dieppe. By the time the familyreturned to Scotland in February 1900, asClementine’s daughter writes, she “distinguishedherself by winning, in open competition with studentsfrom all over the country, a handsome solidsilver medal for French, presented by the Sociétédes Professeurs Français en Angleterre. Shereceived it from the hands of Monsieur JulesCambon, the French Ambassador.” 2Of Churchill’s Harrow schooldays the Frenchhistorian François Bédarida writes: “He was strongin History and French.…He started to use Frenchphrases and expressions.…Later in life it wasalways a pleasure for him to speak French. WhenFINEST HoUR 138 / 30

he was twelve years old he acted the role ofMartine, the wife of Sganarelle in Le Médecin malgrélui” (Molière’s The Reluctant Doctor). 3Winston’s French improved when he went tothe Army Class under the auspices of Louis MartinMoriarty, a charming Parisian with remarkablepowers of conversation in both English and French.It improved still further when, in his last year at theschool, he was taught by the distinguished Frenchteacher Bernard Jules Minssen. 4 In 1891 the HarrowHeadmaster, the Rt. Rev. J.E.C. Welldon, insistedthat Winston spend a month with the Minssenfamily near Versailles, to improve his French.In a December 1891 letter to his mother hewrote: “I have already made great progress inFrench. I begin to think in it….M. Minssen says Iknow far more than he thought I did.” 5 OnChristmas Eve he told his mother that the Minssenfamily reported “Son progrès est merveilleux” (“He ismaking excellent progress”). 6 Of this there can beno doubt. He passed into Sandhurst with arespectable 60% in French.His letters to his mother at this time are anamusing juxtaposition of French and Englishwords. For example: “We arrived at Dieppe où nouspartook of de bon Café au lait. Le chemin de fer était trèsconfortable…Après le déjeuner we went for a walk.We saw nothing but soldiers—De Seine de l’artillerie,des cuirassiers et des chasseurs a pieds.” 7Henceforth and for the rest of his life,Churchill was never afraid to use French words andphrases when there was no exact equivalent inEnglish. In one of his letters to the Morning Postfrom the Sudan in 1898 he wrote: “The quarrel is àl’outrance” (“the quarrel has reached a stage wherethere is no turning back”). In a letter to Clementinefrom the Western Front in 1916 he says he is “d’unpied à l’autre” (“twiddling my thumbs”). There arehundreds of similar examples. Nor was he hesitantin using French maxims and quotations. Of LordCromer, who helped him with The River War inApril 1899, he cited the maxim, “On ne règne sur lesâmes que par le calme” 8 (“One can only impose one’sauthority on other people by being calm and confident”).By 1899, Churchill’s French had matured significantly.In 1944 one of his first French biographers,Jacques Arnavon, wrote of these years: “Hewas already at home with the French language. Ithad improved year by year. At this period of his lifeit was written French which attracted him. In lateryears he became more confident in speaking inFrench, to the point where he could make shortspeeches in the language.” 9Churchill’s self-education was based on widereading, including books in French. Authorspopular with the British at the turn of the centurywere Montaigne and Voltaire, but Churchill alsoamassed a significant library on Napoleon, aboutwhom he once hoped to write a biography. On onebuying spree in Paris he came away with almost300 books. How many of them he read we do notknow, but this is how he came to read French documentsand letters with consummate ease.In meetings he could almost always followa conversation. Which is just as well, because mostFrench people he met only had a smattering ofEnglish. This was in the days when French was thelingua franca. There were exceptions of course.General Nivelle spoke good English, as did GeorgesClemenceau, who lived in America from 1865 to1869 and married Mary Plummer, an orphan fromSpringfield, Massachusetts. But even here it is probablethat Clemenceau and Churchill spoke Frenchwhen on French soil. For example, in AnthonyMontague Browne’s Long Sunset there is an accountof Churchill’s last meeting with Clemenceau.Churchill asked him, “What have you left?”Clemenceau replied: “Il me reste mes griffes” (“I’vestill got my claws”). 10 This indicates that the conversationwas in French. The “claws” were a referenceto Clemenceau’s popular nickname “Tiger.”Another Clemenceau story in Long Sunset isabout the day in 1918 when he met Churchillwearing the uniform of an Elder Brother of TrinityHouse. He asked Churchill why he was dressed upas a semi-retired naval officer. Churchill replied inFrench: “Je suis un Frère Ainé de la Trinité” (“I am anElder Brother of the Trinity”). Clemenceau, thinkingChurchill was a member of the Holy Trinity,replied, “Quelle belle situation!” (“What a wonderfulposition!”). 11While on the subject of Clemenceau, for whomChurchill had the greatest admiration, and aboutwhom he wrote two brilliant monographs, it isworth recording that Churchill knew by heart thewell-known song Le Père la Victoire (The Father ofVictory), which the singer Paulus made famous in1889. The title of this popular song was attached toClemenceau after he became Prime Minister inNovember 1917 and saved his country in the lasttwelve months of the First World War.François Bédarida writes that Churchill knewall the verses of Le Père la Victoire by heart, and thathe once recited the whole song to de Gaulle duringthe Second World War. 12 This is corroborated by deGaulle himself when writing about Churchill’s visitto Paris on 11 November 1944: “On my orders theband played Le Père la Victoire. And it was only hisdue. Besides, I remembered that at Chequers, on theevening of a black day, he had sung me our oldsong by Paulus word perfectly.” 13After lunch on that memorable day, DuffCooper, then British Ambassador, recalled: “We >>FINEST HoUR 138 / 31

CHURCHILL’S FRENCH...went upstairs—de Gaulle, Coulet, Massigli,Chauvel and Palewski on one side of the table,Winston, Anthony, Alec Cadogan and I on the other.We talked for about two hours—Winston talkingmost of the time in his uninhibited and fairly intelligibleFrench.” 14Mobilizing Frenchand Sending It into BattleSoon after becoming Prime Minister on 10May 1940, Churchill realised that there wasan urgent need to put some backbone intoan increasingly demoralised French cabinet.He flew to Paris on 16 May, again to Parison the 31st, to Briare, near Orleans, on 11 June, andto Tours two days later. All these meetings havebeen admirably recounted in General Spears’sbooks Prelude to Dunkirk and The Fall of France.Churchill’s long familiarity with the French languagehad prepared him for these critical meetings,“for this hour and for this trial.”At the first meeting on 16 May in Paris (at theQuai d’Orsay, the French Foreign Office)—asarchives were being thrown onto bonfires in thegarden—Churchill spoke in French most of thetime. Lord Ismay recalled that he “dominated theproceedings from the moment he entered the room.There was no interpreter, and he spoke throughoutin French. His idiom was not always correct, andhis vocabulary was not equal to translating all thewords which he required with exactitude. But noone could be in any doubt as to his meaning.” 15It was at this meeting that he asked GeneralGamelin “Où est la masse de manœuvre?” (“Whereare your reserves?”)—a military phrase whichChurchill probably remembered from MonsieurMoriarty’s Army Class at Harrow. 16 The answerwas “Aucune” (“None”).During this same 16 May meeting Ismay tellshow General Gamelin recounted a tale of unmitigatedwoe, to which Churchill responded with:“Evidently this battle will be known as the Battle ofthe Bulge.” But “Boolge” was the nearest WSCcould get to “Bulge” in French. 17 Fair enough: thenearest French word is saillant (salient) but Frenchhistorians always refer to La Bataille des Ardennes,never to La Bataille du Saillant. So “Boolge” it is!There were two interpreters at the subsequentmeetings: Roland de Margerie translated fromEnglish into French, and Captain Berkeley translatedfrom French into English. Churchill spoke inEnglish, interspersed frequently with French wordsand phrases. At the meeting in Paris on 31 May,when discussing the evacuation of British andFrench soldiers at Dunkirk, Churchill interruptedRoland de Margerie by exclaiming that they wouldleave French soil “bras dessus, bras dessous” (“arm inarm”). 18The French Prime Minister Paul Reynaudspoke good English, but at the Briare meeting on 11June, there was one occasion when, after listeningto Churchill speaking French, as a debating tactic heasked for a “traduction” (“translation”). 19 Spearsdescribes one of Churchill’s perorations at thismeeting: “I ceased taking notes and watched him,hypnotised. He found wonderful flashing words toexpress his fiery eloquence. They came in torrents,French and English phrases tumbling over eachother like waves racing for the shore when drivenby a storm.” 20Churchill’s spoken French was his own creation.As was his English, where he often inventednew words, such as “paintatious” to describe placesworthy of his brush. That he often spoke “franglais”was intentional. There is his memorable phraseduring a heated discussion with de Gaulle inCasablanca in January 1943 when he said “Si vousm’obstaclerez, je vous liquiderai!,” which needs notranslation. It should be remembered that de Gaullespoke little English when he first arrived inLondon, and it is fair to assume that when they metthey both spoke in French. De Gaulle’s Englishimproved over time, allowing him to joke that thisallowed him to understand Churchill’s French.Churchill’s private secretary, John Colville,wrote an amusing description of a meeting betweenChurchill and de Gaulle, in the summer of 1941. Itstarted off badly. As Terry Reardon mentions in theprevious article, Colville went in after a while only tofind them smoking the Prime Minister’s cigars andtalking in French, “an exercise which Churchill couldnever resist and one which his audience, even whenthey spoke with the purity of de Gaulle, invariablyfound fascinating.” 21 And at his last meeting withChurchill, in Nice on 22 October 1960, de Gaulle,now President of France, enjoyed listening toChurchill’s stories about the old days, recounted in aFrench which needed no translation. 22Brigadier Ian Jacob has left us an amusingaccount of Churchill’s ability to translate an Englishtext into French on the fly. On 30 January 1943Churchill flew from Cairo to Adana in Turkey tomeet with President Inönü. Prior to the meeting hehad prepared a paper reviewing Anglo-Turkishrelations. The idea was that a member of the BritishEmbassy in Ankara, Paul Falla, would translate thepaper into French as it was read by Churchill. Butafter a few minutes Churchill waved Falla asideand translated his own text directly into French.Jacob, whom Churchill had introduced to theTurks as “le fils du Maréchal Jacob” (“the son ofFINEST HoUR 138 / 32

[Field] Marshal Jacob”), noted for that day:This amounted to doing orally with no time at allfor thought or preparation, a long Unseen intoFrench, no small task. The PM’s French is fairlyfluent, and he was rarely stuck for a word. But ofcourse he could only make a perfectly literaltranslation, and his accent is almost pureEnglish….The PM waded resolutely on, and cameout at the far end bloody but unbowed. It wasreally quite a tour de force, of an unusual kind!Peculiar though it all was, I do not think anyonefelt like laughing. They couldn’t help admiringhis determination and self-possession. 23Churchill asFrench Writer and SpeakerIn his writing, Churchill frequently usedFrench words and phrases where the contextand the meaning were appropriate. And heused them accurately. Some might even thinkthat he could write French verse. In hisdelightful postwar book about his hobby, Paintingas a Pastime, there is the delightful verse:La peinture à l’huileEst bien difficile,Mais c’est beaucoup plus beauQue la peinture à l’eau 24However, this is not an example of the muse inWSC but of his memory. It comes from a popularsong which most French children know by heart.What about Churchill’s accent? Without anydoubt he made little attempt to emulate the polishedFrench accent of colleagues such as Colville,Eden or Spears. On the contrary, he often went outof his way to use the English pronunciation offoreign names and cities, for example Shams Elliziefor Champs Élysées! In conversation with Jack Seelyhe once said: “Jack, when you cross Europe youland at Marsai, spend a night in Lee-on and anotherin Par-ee, and, crossing by Callay, eventually reachLondres. I land at Mar-sales, spend a night in Lions,and another in Paris, and come home to London.” 25He made several broadcasts and speeches inFrench, notably his radio broadcast on 21 October1940, and his speech in Ottawa on 30 December1941, where he briefly addressed his FrenchCanadian audience. Jean Oberlé, who worked forthe French section of the BBC from July 1940 to theend of the war, wrote a book in 1945 about his fiveyears in London. In his Jean Oberlé vous parle is anamusing description of the preparation of the radiobroadcast on 21 October 1940. (I paraphrase):The English version of the broadcast was sentto the French section of the BBC to be translated.The head of the section, Jacques Duchesne, took thetranslation to Churchill at 10 Downing Street. Afterlunch he was offered a cigar and a whisky and thenlistened to Churchill reciting the broadcast inFrench. He returned in the evening for a secondpractice session. Bombs were falling close by.Duchesne remarked that there did not appear to bemuch security at 10 Downing Street. Churchill burstout laughing: “Si une bombe tombe sur la maison, nousmourrons comme deux braves gens!” (“If a bomb fallson this building, we will die nobly together”). 26Duchesne did not find this very reassuring.Churchill’s broadcast in French on 21 October1940 began: “Français! C’est moi, Churchill, qui vousparle. Pendant plus de trente ans, dans la paix commedans la guerre, j’ai marché avec vous, et je marche encoreavec vous aujourd’hui.” 27One can hear Churchill speaking these wordsin a BBC audio CD called Churchill Remembered,published in 2006. His French accent is remarkablygood—much better than the French accent of mostof his compatriots. 28The English version of this memorable broadcastis: “Good night then: sleep to gather strengthfor the morning. For the morning will come.Brightly will it shine on the brave and true, kindlyupon all who suffer for the cause, glorious upon thetombs of heroes. Thus will shine the dawn. Vive laFrance!” By their firesides in France, those whowere brave enough to listen to the BBC could notfail to be heartened by these words:Allons, bonne nuit; dormez bien, rassemblez vos forcespour l’aube, car l’aube viendra. Elle se lèvera, brillantepour les braves, douce pour les fidèles qui auront souffert,glorieuse sur les tombeaux des héros. Vive la France !Most of the audio recordings of Churchill’swell-known speeches and broadcasts include thesewords of hope and encouragement. The accent isvery Churchillian—clear, expressive and completelyunaffected. In Britain’s finest hour he not onlyinspired his listeners at home; he also raised thespirits of all French men and women in their HeureTragique, their darkest hour.This was not the last time he asked his listenersto dormez bien (sleep well). Many years later heended his broadcast from Ottawa on 30 June 1954,during his last visit to Canada:Au revoir mes amis Canadiens. C’est toujours unplaisir pour moi de faire un séjour dans votre pays, quej’ose considérer presque comme le mien. Au revoir etdormez bien. C’est un avenir splendide qui vous attenddemain. Bonsoir. Goodnight. 29Footnotes overleaf >>FINEST HoUR 138 / 33

CHURCHILL’S FRENCH...1. Soames, Mary, ClementineChurchill (London: Cassell, 1979), 11.2. Ibid., 22.3. Bédarida, François, Churchill(Paris: Fayard, 1999), 49.4. Churchill, Randolph S., Winston S.Churchill, Companion Volume I, Part 1(London: Heinemann, 1967), 295.5. Ibid., 298.6. Ibid., 299.7. Ibid., 297.8. Arnavon, Jacques, W. Churchill(Paris: Les Éditions Universelles, 1944), 25.9. Ibid., 26.10. Montague Browne, Anthony, LongSunset (London: Cassell, 1995), 198.11. Ibid., 322. In 1913 as First Lordof the Admiralty, Churchill became anElder Brother of Trinity House, whichlooks after aids to navigation.12. Bédarida, op. cit., 450n.13. Kersaudy, François, Churchill & deGaulle (London: Fontana, 1990), 378,quoting Charles de Gaulle, Le Salut, 49.14. Duff Cooper, Alfred, Old MenForget (London: Hart-Davis, 1953), 341.15. Ismay, The Lord, Memoirs(London: Heinemann, 1960), 127.16. The author has asked many literateFrenchmen the meaning of thephrase La masse de manœuvre. Noneknew, since it is a strictly military term.17. Ismay, op. cit., 127.18. Spears, Edward, Prelude toDunkirk (New York: Wyn, 1954), 308.19. Avon, The Earl of, The Reckoning(London: Cassell, 1965), 116.20. Spears, Edward, The Fall ofFrance (London: Heinemann, 1954), 148.21. Colville, John, Footprints in Time(London: Collins, 1976), 114-15.22. Kersaudy, François, Churchill etMonaco (Monaco: Rocher, 2002), 91.23. Gilbert, Martin, Winston S.Churchill, vol. VII Road to Victory(London: Heinemann, 1986), 321.24. Painting in oils/Is quite difficult/Butit is much more rewarding/Than painting in watercolours.25. Brooks, Collin, “Churchill theConversationalist” in Eade, Charles.,ed., Churchill by his Contemporaries(London: Hutchinson, 1953), 363.26. Oberlé, Jean, Jean Oberlé vousparle: souvenirs de cinq années à Londres(Paris: La Jeune Parque, 1945), 75.27. “Frenchmen! This is me,Churchill, speaking to you. For morethan thirty years, in peace and in war, Ihave marched with you, and I ammarching still along the same road.”28. Churchill Remembered, BBCAudio 2006. Churchill’s words inFrench can be heard on CD2 at the endof track 9, entitled Broadcasts toOccupied Europe.29. “Goodbye, my Canadianfriends. I always enjoy visiting yourcountry, which I have come to look onalmost as my own. Goodnight and sleepwell. There is a wonderful future awaitingyou in the morning. Goodnight.”Dilks, David, The Great Dominion(Toronto: Allen, 2005), 426-27. ✌“SEEING CLAW TO CLAW” • WILL MORRISEY“All might have been well had de Gaulle been an ordinary General or even an ordinary man. He is not. He isan extraordinary man. He is an eagle with bad habits. Winston, who is a house-trained eagle, does not see clawto claw with him.” —Harold NicolsonAristotle describes the magnanimous or great-souled man, but he does not saywhat would happen if two of them came into the same room. And what if twosuch men came together during the greatest and most noteworthy of wars, a warin which the most dangerous tyrannies of all time contended against oneanother, and also against the greatest republics? Would we not need aThucydides as well as an Aristotle to help us understand this event? We do have something in away as valuable: the writings of Winston S. Churchill and Charles de Gaulle, who worked forand against one another. From their writings we know they quarreled, not only over Englishpolicies in French colonies and over the conduct of the war itself, but more importantly over thepolitical character of the immediate postwar settlement, both in France, the conquered republic,and in Germany, the conquering then conquered tyranny. We also know that they cooperated,often in measured opposition to their mighty wartime allies—the United States of FranklinRoosevelt and the Soviet Union of Josef Stalin. By 1946 America and Russia, the regime of democraticrepublicanism and the regime of undemocratic despotism, each held the destinies of halfthe world in its hands. Neither Churchill nor de Gaulle wanted that, but in their unflinching wayeach saw it happening and conceived of geopolitical strategies, first to meet Germany’s threat,then to meet the consequent rise of America and Russia. In all that they wrote on these mattersboth exhibited the quality André Malraux would see in de Gaulle: “He was shrewd and even,sometimes, clairvoyant. But his intelligence had more to do with the level of his thought, whatChateaubriand called the intelligence of greatness of soul.”This thoughtful paper was delivered at the “Churchill and France” panel sponsored by The Churchill Centre at theAmerican Political Science Association meeting, August 2007. Too long for our pages, it is available to readersby email attachment from the editor, malakand@langworth.name ✌FINEST HoUR 138 / 34

CHURCHILL PROCEEDINGSBritain’s “impregnable fortress” surrenderedto the Japanese on 15 February 1942.Churchill called it “the worst disaster andlargest capitulation in British history”; but inJuly 1942, five months after the fact, WSCsaid: “I have never made any predictions,except things like saying Singapore wouldhold out. What a fool and a knave I shouldhave been to say it would fall.” Our 2007Vancouver conference considered: just how“impregnable” was the “fortress”? Could ithave been saved? What did WinstonChurchill know, and when did he know it?DID SINGAPOREHAVE TO FALL?1. Hope is Not a StrategyRICHARD M. TORREThey grouped together about their chiefAnd each looked at his mateAshamed to think that Australian menShould meet such a bitter fate.And black was the wrath in each hot heartAnd savage oaths they sworeAs they thought of how they had all been ditchedBy “Impregnable” Singapore.—Dame Mary Gilmore, Australian PoetWhen Christopher Hebb snookered, I meaninvited, me here this morning, it was todebate Bill Ives, the Centre’s most recentpast president. Bill, Chris and I agreed toa “spirited, no holds barred” format, thebloodthirsty Hebb wanting body parts on the floor.I was temporarily relieved when Bill Ives wascompelled to withdraw. Being skewered by a litigatorfrom Chicago is not high on my personal wishlist. Relieved, that is, until I read ProfessorRaymond Callahan’s CV. I was convinced that myonly defense would be a sudden case of pneumonia.Hebb got wind of my plot and bribed my wifeto force-feed me vitamins. Frankly, it was moreeffective than anything Britain did in South EastAsia between the two world wars. My plot wasfoiled and I am here.But I’ve come to see that I have a second lineof defense for my position that Singapore had tofall. It can be summarized in five words: Hope isnot a strategy.In the sixty-five years since the fall ofSingapore, many excellent works have emerged,several by my opponent. Typewriters were clangingbefore 1942 was out, espousing theories, reportingfacts and concocting fairy tales as to why it tookonly seventy days for these little yellow men withbuck teeth, poor vision and limited understandingof the modern world (the contemporary cartoonistimage) to humble mighty Britain and its regionalsatellites, India and Australia.Perhaps the best of these was written in 1971by Gen. S. Woodburn Kirby, official British militaryhistorian, in his posthumously published Chain ofDisaster. Kirby posited that there was a linking ofresponsibilities from 1921 until the collapse of >>Mr. Torre is chairman of Dartmouth Associates, a merchantand investment bank. He assisted in establishing the USSMissouri National Monument, the New Orleans D-DayNational Museum, and the World War II Memorial.FINEST HoUR 138 / 35

CHURCHILL PROCEEDINGSSINGAPORE...Singapore in 1942. It was the political, economic,military and leadership failures, all compounded,which doomed the island fortress in the openingweeks of 1942.In this and dozens—no hundreds—of works,there is a central theme: the hope that the RoyalNavy would steam to the rescue. That is—as longas the Japanese didn’t have the temerity to strike atan inopportune moment, like when Britain’s finiteresources were deployed elsewhere, such as theMediterranean and Atlantic.Indeed, Professor Callahan will affirm thisview. In his outstanding book, The Worst Disaster:The Fall of Singapore, Ray stated: “The basic fact wasthat Britain after 1918 was no longer able and,perhaps, no longer willing, to defend her worldposition built up in the Victorian era. Churchillcould not alter this. What he did was to see clearlythat Britain could fight one war, or lose two.”So, as you can see there is really no debate atall. The simple answer is “Yes,” Singapore had tofall. Just as its sponsor state, Britain, disintegratedas a world power after three hundred years, itschattel Singapore was equally doomed. From PaxBritannia’s apex in 1900 to a hollowed out shell by1918 and a fiction by 1942, the jig was up, and allthe world could see—especially the Asiatic world.The disintegration of empires gets very sloppy.Ambiguity abounds. There’s no lack of culpableindividuals and incidents that can be blamed.Singapore was but a single tile in a mosaic,strategically, logistically and tactically indefensiblein an age when isolated, fixed fortifications wereobsoleted by technology and mobility.A dozen summarizing points:1. Singapore was not and could not be an“impregnable fortress” by any definition. Thiswasn’t the 1800s and this wasn’t Khartoum.2. If Singapore were so critical to the BritishEmpire, then having the “B” Team of Commanderin-ChiefFar East Robert Brooke-Popham (relievedduring the Battle for Malaya) and General Arthur E.Percival (British commander at Singapore) in chargewas incomprehensible. Neither was ChineseGordon and both were completely overmatched byJapan’s General Yamashita.3. For a litany of reasons, many economic, thedefenders were ill-equipped. Even the air defensestrategy, which succeeded the naval defense, wasstarved and never approached the presumedrequirement of 336 modern aircraft (there being onhand but 180 obsolete Buffalos and Wildebeests).Never underestimate an opponent, for they willmost certainly not do what you expect.4. Once and for all, the 15-inch guns were notpointing the wrong way. Four of the five had MarkANTAGONISTS: Lt General Arthur E. Percival CB DSO OBEMC (1887-1966), left. Imprisoned by the Japanese after hissurrender, he was honored to stand next to another formerPOW, General Wainwright, during the Japanese surrender onUSS Missouri in Tokyo Bay on 2 September 1945. GeneralTomoyuki Yamashita (1885-1946), right, was hanged for warcrimes involving a massacre in Manila, Philipines, althoughthe legitimacy of his guilt was questioned. He died affirminghis respect for former enemies.II naval turret mountings and 360-degree traverse ifthe obstructing cables and gun-stops were removed,as they were. Two of the five 15-inch rifles (twoothers obstructed by hills), along with all six of the9.2-inch guns, fired north during the battle. All the6-inch guns on Tekong Island also fired into Johore.The greater limitation was the lack of high explosive,anti-personnel ammunition, most being armorpiercing for ship assault. The latter was ineffectiveagainst massed formations, intended for theJapanese fleet that never came. There’s that problemagain: “the enemy does what it can, not what youexpect it to do.”5. If you want to lead a coalition, it’s a goodthing to have conformity of strategic goals. In themonths and weeks prior to the attack on 8December 1941, there were draining disputes withAustralia, in particular, over the Far East/NearNorth dichotomy.6. John Curtin, the pacifist of the Thirties whosucceeded Robert Menzies as Australian PrimeMinister, became the appeaser of 1940, attemptingto negotiate with his friend, Ambassador TatsuoKawai, for a separate peace with Japan. The prizewas the iron ore deposits in Yampi Sound. As thesediscussions began to fail, Kawai told Curtin straightout on 29 November 1941—ten days prior to theattack—that matters had “gone too far.”Curtin had become increasingly hawkish frommid-1941. Equipped with this additional knowl-FINEST HoUR 138 / 36

edge, he became embarrassingly more vocal withhis criticisms of London’s policies, demanding thatthey immediately assume the defensive positions inSouthern Thailand known as the Matador Plan. Hewas unsuccessful, as was Percival, whose ditheringscuttled this opportunity;7. Lest one think Curtin a traitor, one must puthis actions within the context of the time. Britain’sFar East policy from 1939 was one of appeasement,a play for time. An odious example was Britain’sbeing quite willing to starve the Chinese followingJapan’s demand to close the Burma Road, reopeningit under U.S. pressure in late 1941.8. Though one prominent turncoat, Capt.Heenan, was executed, Singapore’s failures werenot the result of fifth column activity. There was significantJapanese spy infiltration into Thailand andMalaya from 1937. These spies were fully versed onthe woeful state of British preparedness.9. The sinking of Repulse and Prince of Waleswas a psychological blow. But these assets werenever deployed in any serious military context andhad zero effect upon the tactical outcome.10. The three national forces, the British,Australians and Indians, especially the Indians andthe Australian replacements, were conspicuouslyuntrained. The last reinforcements, in January 1942,virtually marched off their transports and into captivityat Changi.11. The civilian administration under SheltonThomas was obstructionist and actually forbademilitary preparations on the basis of not wishing toalarm the population.12. There are well-substantiated allegationsthat some of the Indian troops ran under fire, andthat others joined the Japanese Army. Lest thissuggest some character or racial defect, let therecord show that as they jumped into the waters ofKeppel Harbour, they landed atop the Aussies whobeat them to the docks. And why not? Aussie Gen.Gordon Bennett fled Singapore without permission.Poor leadership in the field is a virus that will sapthe will of any army to fight.So, as you can see, the confluence of a deterioratingfictional empire, limited resources, extraordinaryincompetence and unpreparedness doomedSingapore.The British attempted to lure the U.S. Fleet tothe base as a hoped-for deterrent to Japaneseaggression. General George Marshall vetoed theplan. It was one more rung in the ladder of hope:We hope we won’t be preoccupied at the instant ofa Japanese attack; and, if we are, we hope the U.S.will curtail the Japanese dog.Unfortunately for Britain, this last bit ofwishful thinking found the U.S. preoccupied withits isolationism, unprepared for war and full of itsown prejudices as to Japanese capabilities. And so,65,000 Japanese field troops managed to overcome138,000 ultimate captives and casualties.Churchill saved Western Democracy as weknow it, but he could not save the echo of theBritish Raj, and he could not save Singapore.Nobody could.✌2. “Responsible butUnrepentant”RAYMOND P. CALLAHANAt the Admiralty during the “twilightwar,” discussing his sponsorship of aprototype armored trench digger knownas “Cultivator Number One,” Churchillremarked that he was “responsible butunrepentant.” It is not a bad description of the positionhe took—albeit less forthrightly—about his rolein what he called the “worst disaster” in Britain’smilitary history: the fall of Singapore. We are heretoday to assess how much of the blame for thatdebacle he should shoulder before history.The starting point in this assessment is the fundamentalflaw in the “Singapore strategy” devisedshortly after World War I: the assumption that, oncethe Singapore base was built, the Royal Navy wouldalways be free to deploy eastwards to confrontJapan. “Main fleet to Singapore” was the slogandescribing this strategy. Carefully never answeredwas a question posed at an early date: Whathappens if a European threat made such a deploymentimpossible?Perhaps, as Geoffrey Best has suggested, thesense after 1918 that this particular problem ofimperial defense was essentially insoluble led to atacit agreement—in London to be sure, but also andless understandably in Canberra as well—not toconfront the issue. Churchill was in office first asColonial Secretary and then as Chancellor of theExchequer when the Singapore strategy took shape,and so bears some responsibility for it, but surelynot more than the other policymakers involved—politicians, admirals and civil servants alike.The situation Churchill confronted from May1940 to February 1942 poses, of course, a very differentquestion. Churchill was Prime Minister andMinister of Defense; his responsibility for a militarycatastrophe is inescapable. But how much at that >>Dr. Callahan is Professor Emeritus of History, University ofDelaware, Newark, Delaware. His books include Churchill:Retreat from Empire; Burma, 1942-45; The Worst Disaster: TheFall of Singapore; and most recently Churchill and His Generals.FINEST HoUR 138 / 37

CHURCHILL PROCEEDINGSSINGAPORE...point could he really have changed? The answer is,I would suggest, very little. Britain was fighting forits life, and Churchill was not about to risk the lossof the war against Germany by trying to be adequatelyprepared in the Far East for a war againstJapan that might, with luck, never come.It was crystal clear in May 1940 that neitherthe main fleet nor any substantial part of it couldnow go to Singapore. Churchill signed off inAugust 1940 on a new plan that gave the RAF thelead role in defending the Malay Peninsula andSingapore. But Churchill’s real strategy for the FarEast was to depend upon the United States to deterJapan. At the back of his mind lurked the thought,freely albeit privately admitted at the time, that aJapanese attack which brought the United Statesinto the war at Britain’s side would be well worththe resulting (in his mind, temporary) forfeits in theFar East.Now we come to what, I would suggest, is thekey issue: Given Churchill’s strategic framework,could he have done more for the defenders ofMalaya and Singapore than he did? Here lies theheart of the case we must answer.I put it to you that there were three areaswhere he could have done more—but that even ifhe had done more, it would have made no perceptibleimpact on the final result.The first of these areas is the Byzantine andself-defeating chain of command in the Far East. Itcertainly could have been restructured—but thatalteration would have made little difference unlessbetter personnel, civil and military, were postedthere. No organization ever has enough first-classtalent, and 1940-41 was not the moment to parksome of it in an inactive theater. In any case, manypeople besides the Prime Minister bear responsibilityfor the structure and staffing of command in theFar East.Second, there is the air power strategy put inplace in August 1940. There was never agreementon how many aircraft were in fact needed to carryout the strategy. Furthermore, the RAF in the FarEast never came within striking distance of even theminimum figure (336 first-line aircraft). The 188actually available in December 1941 were an assortmentof aircraft that were either inappropriate,obsolete, or flat-out museum pieces.Meanwhile, 699 modern aircraft had beenshipped to the Soviet Union between June andDecember 1941. Would some of them, if diverted tothe Far East, have made a difference? Probably not.The RAF fighter squadrons in the United Kingdomwere formidable because they were part of an integratedair defense system. There was not the time,resources or personnel to establish such a system inthe Far East. Similarly, modern anti-shipping strikeaircraft were only just becoming available to theRAF, and few could be spared for the Far East. And,of course, continued Russian resistance was vital toBritain’s survival in a way Singapore was not.Third, there was the matter of the Singapore“fortress.” Churchill spoke often of it and believedSingapore was a true fortress, capable of all-arounddefense. This misapprehension of the nature of thegreat naval base informed much of his thinking onthe Far East.Of course, Singapore was not and could neverhave been a true fortress. (For one thing, its waterwas supplied from the mainland.) Churchill herewas clearly wrong—but should not the Chief of theImperial General Staff or Churchill’s own militarystaff officers have corrected him? We know they didnot, and the reason seems to have been that some—rather incredibly—shared his mistaken belief thatSingapore was a true fortress.In any case, all were as focused as he was onthe European war. The sad truth is that no one inLondon wanted to be bothered by a hypotheticalFar Eastern war when they were barely holdingtheir own in the all-too-real war on their doorstep.Even if they had been paying more attention, therewas little or nothing that they could have done.The argument I have been advancing is thatwhile, of course, Churchill—along with manyothers over a twenty-year period—bears responsibilityfor the 1941-42 disaster in the Far East, his“guilt” is mitigated by the iron constraints in whichhe found himself. Perhaps he deserves at this pointto speak in his own defense: “The major dispositionswere right...if I had known all about it then asI know now, there were no substantial resourcesthat could have been diverted....”✌FINEST HoUR 138 / 38

DEBACLE: British, Indian and Australian troops march off tocaptivity before the triumphant enemy, February 1942.3. Mr. Torre RepliesNo, Winston Churchill’s actions from hisascendancy to Chancellor of the Exchequerin 1924 through the fall of Singapore in 1942were not the sole cause of the disaster. But Ibelieve they gave new meaning to thephrase “Asiatic Theatre of Operations.”With his grip on England’s purse prior to theGreat Depression, he repeatedly vetoed or curtailedexpenditures for Singapore’s defense and the navalbase. As a private citizen in March 1939, he toldChamberlain that “losses and punishment” in theFar East were to be suffered in preference to weakeningthe Royal Navy in the Mediterranean.When Bourke-Popham was sent to the Far EastCommand, Churchill didn’t even meet with him;nor did the General Staff. I recall the canard aboutsuccess having a thousand fathers and failure beingan orphan; in this case it seems it was an expectedfailure.And on and on the litany goes, up to andincluding actions in January 1942 with respect toreinforcements being diverted to Burma before theAustralians demanded they stop.Against these actions is a rhetoric of ambiguity,some say duplicity, with respect to the PacificDominions, trading security assurances for troopsto be deployed in North Africa and the Middle East.I believe that attempts to square the theatricalrhetoric with consistent actions over 18 years are somuch eyewash. Churchill was the most focused,clear-eyed strategist of his time. He was not a PrimeMinister of the world, but of Britain, who recognizedhis primary duty as its survival. All else wasdisposable and/or negotiable. How else did a hollowed-outEmpire not only gain a seat at the table,but often sit at the head?He knew the United States was one of twocritical keys to victory. Another was bleeding theGermans white on the steppes of Russia. He mayhave misjudged the timing of U.S. entry into thewar, but not the ultimate reality of its doing so. Andthat wasn’t as evident in 1939 as it is now, nor wasdepending upon the U.S. as sure a thing.Sir Robert Vanisttart, Under Secretary forForeign Relations, stated: “1) The USA will alwaysdisappoint; 2) Beware of American suggestions thatwe should cooperate against Japan in the Far East.The Americans will let us down or stab us in theback; 3) We ought be more preoccupied in keepingJapan friendly than endeavouring to better our existingrelations with the U.S. which are as good as thatunreliable Country will or can allow them to be.”Whilst the Dominions might have felt elementsof anger and betrayal at Singapore, such feelingswere naïve, or at the least misdirected. Theywere certainly alerted by Lavarek and others fromthe Thirties with respect to Royal Navy limitations.Churchill used his assets brilliantly, including hisSvengaliesque hold over Roosevelt.Singapore was the melancholy victim of circumstance.Steely genius knew how to measure theodds. The war was an all-out battle for survival, nota Vegas craps table. The war’s outcome, as historyhas vindicated, never depended upon control of theStraights of Malacca.Hold the coalition together: that wasChurchill’s prime directive. Placate the Aussies,send Force Z…It was lost? “Oh, my.”To this day there are subscribers to Churchill’s“shock” at learning that Singapore was not animpregnable fortress, and gibberish persists aboutVictorian definitions of the term. Were Churchill ayokel this might be plausible, but surely not fromthe shrewdest mind of the war and someone whoknew more about the language than most. Not animpregnable fortress? “Oh, my.”Some saw through the rhetoric and ambiguityas those who referred to SEAC (Southeast AsiaCommand) as “Save England’s Asiatic Colonies.”I don’t suggest Churchill was callous—just wiseenough to know this was total war, and that theMarquis of Queensbury rules didn’t apply. Even ifthere was a magic bullet—and there was not—Britain did not have the logistical capability and/orsealift capacity to implement it.If Churchill failed at Singapore, beyond completelyunderestimating the Japanese, it was in thehope that he could emerge from the war with anintact British Empire. He was wrong.Earlier I expressed my view that Churchillsaved the western world. I not only don’t deplorehis tactics, I applaud them. This intrepid, focusedand visionary leader faced the insoluble challengeand found a course to victory.✌FINEST HoUR 138 / 39

CHURCHILL PROCEEDINGS4. Dr. Callahan RespondsRichard Torre and I agree on many points.The disaster of February 1942 had rootsstretching back to the aftermath of WorldWar I, when Britain faced a new world inwhich its resources were sharply constrained whileits commitments, already global, had grown. Theresultant insoluble strategic dilemma was evadedby a strategy that contained a very considerableelement of wishful thinking. That strategy becameincreasingly unreal after the mid-1930s and was aPotemkin village by 1940.This situation was Churchill’s inheritance. Hefocused on the war against Germany, whereBritain’s existence was at stake, and hoped thatJapan would be deterred by the Americans.Richard and I disagree about the genuinenessof Churchill’s surprise at the loss of Force Z (Princeof Wales and Repulse) and, a few weeks later, whenhe learned that the “Singapore fortress” did notexist. I do not believe that Churchill’s reactions inthese cases were feigned.Winston Churchill was many things, but hewas not a great actor. In common with others, heoverrated Admiral Tom Phillips and underrated theJapanese. In common with most of Whitehall, hesimply wasn’t paying much attention to the truestate of affairs in Malaya and Singapore because ofthe enormous, grinding pressure of the Europeanwar, something he later admitted. Even for WinstonChurchill, the day had only twenty-four hours. Healso knew how history works. Excoriating the greatVictorian historian, Thomas Babington Macaulay,for his misleading treatment of the First Duke ofMarlborough, Churchill wrote that history wouldpin the label “liar” to Macaulay’s “genteel coattails.”Churchill knew well the same thing couldhappen to him. His account of his reactions seemsto me perfectly credible.Singapore was a Greek tragedy: many victims,few heroes; simply people caught in a situationcreated by Britain’s past that they were powerlessto alter. When that situation brought catastrophe,there was a perhaps quite understandable urge toidentify scapegoats—Brooke Popham, Percival, theAustralians, and later Churchill. But Churchill (andWhitehall in general) were not the first – and certainlynot the last – to face an insoluble problemand turn away from it to the comfort of fancifulbeliefs.And that is the real lesson of Singapore. AsChurchill put it in another context: “Facts are betterthan dreams.”✌5. Reflections on theAustralian RealityDAVID JABLONSKYChurchill was consistent in his approach toBritish national interests. As to Australiahe was less consistent. One historian commented:“Of the Far East he knewnothing. Australia was a very distant country,which produced some great fighting men, and someblack swans for the pond at Chartwell, but it cannotbe said that it otherwise excited his imagination orhis interest.”Much of the misunderstandings and falseexpectations over what Britain and Churchill coulddo to defend Australia were owed to the fact thatinitially in the war there was no clear sense ofAustralian national interests as distinct from thoseof Britain. This led to misplaced assumptions andunfulfilled expectations as the interests of the twocountries began to diverge under the weight of war.For Australia, the primary threat to its mostvital national interests was Japan. Involvement inthe European war could only further those nationalinterests if the Imperial connection, which had leftAustralia ill prepared for war, could ensureAustralian security once war began.But given Britain’s disconnect in its globalresponsibilities, owing to the German existentialthreat, an inexorable prioritization of British interestsbegan. The Middle East, Soviet Union, IndianOcean and Burma-India theatre began to draw offresources even as the British perception of the possibilityof a full-scale Japanese invasion of Australiadiminished.The inevitable reaction occurred. AustralianPrime Minister John Curtin’s December 1941 declarationof his country’s new focus on the UnitedStates can be seen in the light of a recognition,however belated, of a small power’s national interests,and its trading the protection of one greatpower for another.Which brings me to my final point—that theefforts of the Empire, and particularly theDominions, were an essential part of Great Britain’sachieving her most vital goal: national survival.The famous 1940 David Low cartoon, depictinga soldier standing alone on the beach with oneCol. Jablonsky, USA (ret.) was professor of National SecurityAffairs in the Department of National Security and Strategyat the U.S. Army War College, Carlisle, Pennsylvania, and isthe author of two books on Churchill and grand strategy.FINEST HoUR 138 / 40

arm raised defiantly to the sky and a captionreading, “Very Well, Alone,” really represents thesoldiers of the Empire. As an example, it was notuntil the buildup to the Battle of Alamein in NorthAfrica that the British Isles component of the EighthArmy outnumbered its troops from India, Australia,New Zealand, South Africa, Palestine, East andWest Africa and the national contingents fromPoland, France and Greece. And recall that by 1945,the Indian Army numbered 2,500,000 men—thelargest volunteer Army in history.Recall also that Canada, in addition to agricultural,industrial and financial aid, provided over amillion volunteers from a population base of only11 million, and that 42,000 Canadians were killed.Or that New Zealand, with a population base of1,700,000, sent 140,000 overseas, with over 11,000killed. Last but certainly not least, Australia, withover one million serving in the armed forces, out ofa 7,000,000 population base, ended with 30,000dead in that conflict.Then think about these words:“Japan is at the other end of the world. Shecannot menace our vital security in any way. Shehas no reason whatever to come into collision withus. She has every reason to avoid such a collision.The only sufficient cause which could draw us intoa war with Japan would be if she invaded Australia.Does anybody imagine she is going to do so?....It isan absolute absurdity. Even if America stood inactiveJapan would be ruined. She would neverattempt it.”—WSC to Stanley Baldwin, 15 December 1924“As long as the British Navy is undefeated,and as long as we hold Singapore, no invasion ofAustralia or New Zealand by Japan ispossible....Can one suppose that Japan, enjoyingherself in the mastery of the Yellow Sea, wouldsend afloat a conquering and colonising expeditionto Australia? It is ludicrous. More than one hundredthousand men would be needed to make anyimpression upon Australian manhood….The greatdanger to the world at the present time still lies, notin the far east, not in the quarrels of the yellowpeoples, but in the heart of Christendom andEurope.”—WSC to Neville Chamberlain, 27 March 1939“I regret this cost to our commitments elsewhere,but it was in our vital interests to do so asthe Russians will shortly be engaged in mortalcombat with our main enemy.”—WSC, November 1942, on the transfer of airassets to the Soviet Union, quoted by Australianhistorian David Day, The Great Betrayal, 315.“We refuse to accept the dictum that the Pacificstruggle must be treated as a subordinate segmentof the general conflict….The Australian governmenttherefore regards the Pacific struggle as primarilyone in which the United States and Australia musthave the fullest say in the direction of the democracies’fighting plan. Without any inhibitions of anykind, I make it quite clear that Australia looks toAmerica free of any pangs as to our traditional linkswith the United Kingdom.”—Prime Minister John Curtin, 27 December 1942.Signed statement in Australian newspapers“We are doing our utmost in the mother countryto meet living perils and onslaughts. We have sunk allParty differences and have universal compulsoryservice….I hope therefore you will be considerate inthe judgment which you pass upon those to whomAustralian lives and fortunes are so dear.”—WSC to John Curtin, 14 January 1943Curtin to WSC: “We make no apologies for oureffort, or even for what you argue we are not doing.The various parts of the Empire, as you know, aredifferently situated, possess various resources andhave their own peculiar problems.”WSC to Curtin: “To try to be safe everywhereis to be strong nowhere.”Curtin to WSC: “Just as you foresaw events inEurope, so we felt that we saw the trend of the Pacificsituation more clearly than was realized in London.”“I confess that in my mind the whole Japanesemenace lay in a sinister twilight, compared with ourother needs. My feeling was that if Japan attackedus the United States would come in. If the UnitedStates did not come in we had no means of defendingthe Dutch East Indies, or indeed our ownEmpire in the East. If, on the other hand, Japaneseaggression drew in America I would be content tohave it. On this I rested. Our priorities during 1941stood: first, the defence of the Island, including thethreat of invasion and the U-boat war, secondly, thestruggle in the Middle East and Mediterranean,thirdly, after June, supplies to Soviet Russia, and,last of all, resistance to a Japanese assault.”—WSC, The Grand Alliance, 1950“The Australians’ claim that they had understoodand foreseen the dangers in the Far East andfrom Japan better than I had done in London canonly be judged in relation to the war as a whole. Itwas their duty to study their own position with concentratedattention. We had to try to think for all.”—WSC, The Hinge of Fate, 1951 ✌FINEST HoUR 138 / 41

HISTORY DETECTIVESFeeding theCrocodile: WasLeopold Guilty?RICHARD M. LANGWORTHFollowing correspondence with Daniel Wybo of London, Ontario,Finest Hour wishes to set out what we know of King Leopold III of theBelgians, and Churchill's remarks about the Belgian surrender on 28 May1940. Mr. Wybo's interest is through the memory of his father, who foughtin the Battle to defend the canal at Ghent-Terneuzen in the area of Terdonk.Taken prisoner by the Germans, the elder Wybo escaped and later becamepart of the Belgian underground. “My father was always bitter about howour King was treated,” Mr. Wybo writes, “and over the great lies propagatedabout his actions.” Reprinted material by kind permission ofWinston S. Churchill and Curtis Brown Ltd., Andrew Roberts and DavidReynolds. Our thanks to Lt. Col. Louis Van Leemput, Warren Kimball, DanielWybo, Paul Courtenay and James Lancaster for assistance in research.1. The ControversyLeopold III (1901-83) wasKing of the Belgians from 1934through 1951. Born in Brussels,the son of Albert I, he marriedPrincess Astrid of Sweden in 1926.The Queen died in a car accidentin 1935, and in 1941 Leopoldmarried morganatically a commoner,Lillian Baels—which wascriticized by many Belgians, particularlyafter the events of 1940.Belgium, which had adopteda “policy of independence”(armed neutrality) in 1936, wasinvaded by Hitler on 10 May 1940.Belgium appealed for help, andAnglo-French forces took updefensive positions along the DyleRiver, while the Belgians held theAlbert Canal line to the northeast.German glider troops capturedthe key fortress at Eben-Emael,forcing the Belgians to fall back tothe Dyle before the French couldset up their positions. The resultingbattle found the French still inpossession of the field, but withan irreplaceable loss of 105 tanks.A broader crisis was developingmeanwhile at Sedan, whereon 14 May German Panzers brokethe French line, crossing the RiverMeuse. Allied forces in Belgiumwere ordered to withdraw, andwithin a week , the French Armyof the North, the entire BritishExpeditionary Force, and theBelgian Army were encircled. Onthe 25th the Belgian governmentfled to France, but the BelgianArmy kept fighting until the 28th,providing extra time and protectionto the withdrawing Allies.Leopold remained to face theGermans. Refusing to administerhis country in accord with theirdemands, he was imprisoned inhis palace at Laeken until 1944.Leopold’s surrender was vilifiedby French Prime MinisterPaul Reynaud, and, more importantly,his own exiled governmentin unoccupied France. Churchill’sold colleague Lloyd George, noparagon of virtue in 1940, wroteon 2 June: “You can rummage invain through the black annals ofthe most reprobate Kings of theearth to find a blacker and moresqualid sample of perfidy andpoltroonery than that perpetuatedby the King of the Belgians.” 1In November 1940, Leopoldcontributed to his future unpopularityby visiting Hitler inBerchtesgaden, asking for the liberationof Belgian prisoners of warand improvement of food provisions.Hitler ultimately releasedFlemish-speaking prisoners andallowed a Flemish parliament tobe set up, but he would notrelease French-speaking Belgians,and food supplies remained low.Leopold continued to feudwith his government-in-exile,which in late October arrived inLondon. In January 1944 he wrotea “political testament” to be publishedif he were not in Belgiumwhen it was liberated. Herein hedeclared that all internationalagreements of his exiled government(including an important onegranting the Allies access touranium in the Belgian Congo)were invalid because they did nothave the Royal signature. He livedin exile in Austria after the war,refusing to withdraw his criti-FINEST HOUR 138 / 42

where their government-in-exileremained for the duration of thewar. 4 Churchill’s relatively equablehandling of the subject in June1940 was too much for theexcitable Reynaud, who complainedbitterly that Leopold hadlet down the Franco-British armies.Churchill thus added in his book:1940: German troops invade Belgium, which put up a stiff resistance.cisms of the wartime government.After a 1950 “people’s consultation”over his return, in which 72percent of Flemish-speakers votedin favor and 58 percent of Frenchspeakersagainst, Leopoldreturned briefly to the throne. Butcontinued controversy, includingthree days of riots and two deathsin Liège, caused him to abdicatein favor of his son, Baudouin, thefollowing year. He has remained acontroversial figure to this day.Churchill’s comments in theCommons about King Leopold’ssurrender, though not as censoriousas those of Reynaud or LloydGeorge, were certainly significant:I have no intention of suggestingto the House [WSC said in theCommons] “that we shouldattempt at this moment to passjudgment upon the action of theKing of the Belgians in his capacityas Commander-in-Chief of theBelgian Army. This army hasfought very bravely and has bothsuffered and inflicted heavy losses.The Belgian Government has dissociateditself from the action ofthe King, and, declaring itself to bethe only legal Government ofBelgium, has formally announcedits resolve to continue the war atthe side of the Allies. 3He wrote in rather milder termsin the second volume of hispostwar memoirs:Upon all this there now descendeda simplifying catastrophe. TheGermans, who had hitherto notpressed the Belgian front severely,on May 24 broke the Belgian line oneither side of Courtrai, which is butthirty miles from Ostend andDunkirk. The King of the Belgianssoon considered the situation hopeless,and prepared himself forcapitulation. 2Churchill was being inordinatelykind to the exiled Belgiangovernment, then in France, ledby Prime Minister Pierlot andForeign Minister Paul-HenriSpaak (a postwar secretarygeneralof NATO and founder ofwhat became the EU). That samegovernment which Churchill saidwas resolved to continue the warhad repeatedly asked Leopold tosign an armistice with Hitler—which conveniently might haveallowed them to return to Brussels(as Nazi puppets). Spaak lateradmitted that, by refusing hissupport, Leopold had preventedhim and his colleagues frombecoming Nazi collaborators. Butat the time, Spaak and Pierlot consideredthe war to be lost. Laterthey found their way to London,FINEST HOUR 138 / 43Concern was expressed by theFrench Government that my referenceto King Leopold’s action wasin sharp contrast to that of M.Reynaud. I thought it my duty,when speaking in the House onJune 4, after a careful examinationof the fuller facts then available,and in justice not only to ourFrench Ally but also to the BelgianGovernment now in London, tostate the truth in plain terms:“At the last moment, whenBelgium was already invaded,King Leopold called upon us tocome to his aid, and even at thelast moment we came. He and hisbrave, efficient Army, nearly half amillion strong, guarded our leftflank and thus kept open our onlyline of retreat to the sea. Suddenly,without prior consultation, withthe least possible notice, withoutthe advice of his Ministers andupon his own personal act, he senta plenipotentiary to the GermanCommand, surrendered his Army,and exposed our whole flank andmeans of retreat.“The brave and efficient army ofwhich I spoke had indeed conducteditself in accordance with its besttraditions. They were overcome byan enemy whom it was beyondtheir power to resist for long. Thatthey were defeated and ordered tosurrender is no slur upon theirhonour or reputation.” 52. What Really Happened?While much has been writtenon the Leopold matter, there areseveral recent and rather revealingaccounts, the first of whichwas written by the historianAndrew Roberts abut the politicalaspects of the debate: >>

HISTORY DETECTIVESLEOPOLD III...It is indicative of the changingnature of the King’s [George VI’s]relationship with Churchill that hedid not protest against what heknew to be an undeserved slur onKing Leopold III of the Belgians bythe Prime Minister. Leopold hadwritten to George VI on 25 Maywarning him of his country’simminent surrender, a fact provenby the King’s answering telegramto Brussels the next day urginghim not to become a prisoner. TheKing therefore knew thatChurchill was guilty of a particularlygross “terminological inexactitude”for his depiction of theBelgian capitulation three dayslater as a treacherous surprise. Onthe day of his return from theContinent, Britain’s special envoyto Leopold, Admiral Roger Keyes,was visited by an Intelligenceofficer, who demanded all the documentsfrom his mission. Keyessuccessfully concealed them andshowed them to the King to disproveChurchill’s calumnies.Thus the King knew the truth, asdid Churchill. Seven months later,sitting in an air raid shelter withRoosevelt’s adviser, HarryHopkins, he “expressed a gooddeal of sympathy with KingLeopold,” and although he refusedto allow his brother monarch to bestripped of his colonelcy in theBritish army, or have his Garterbanner removed from St George’sChapel, George VI did not, asLeopold had hoped, “insist thathis Prime Minister should uphold,rather than pervert, the truth concerningthese circumstances.”Admiral Keyes’s son has sincestated: “Had the existence ofLeopold’s warning letter toGeorge VI, or even a paraphrase ofits contents been made public...theFrench, Belgian and British PrimeMinisters’ false allegations wouldhave been completely demolished.”Whilst it might be understandablefor raisons d’état for the King tohave kept silent in the summer of1940 when Britain desperatelyneeded a scapegoat to explain theAllied defeat, the King permittedthis unwarranted slur to continueafter the war, even to the extent ofLeopold not being invited toPrincess Elizabeth’s wedding in1947. To Harry Hopkins the Kinghad confided the view that theBelgian Monarch “should have leftthe country and established hisgovernment elsewhere.” Yet thiswas precisely the course that theBritish royal family has constantlybeen given credit for havingrefused to contemplate in theirown case. 6George VI wasn’t the onlyperson Leopold had warned,according to a contemporaryaccount in Time:On May 20 the Belgian King sentword to the Allies through SirRoger Keyes that should his troopslose contact with the French andBritish, “capitulation would beinevitable”....[Roger Keyes] wrotenothing, merely asked the Britishpublic to suspend its judgmentuntil all the facts were known. Forthis he was attacked by the DailyMirror and he sued the paper forlibel. Last week, in getting anapology in court, he made the factspublic at last. On 27 May, the daybefore he surrendered, Leopoldhad asked Keyes “to inform theBritish authorities that he wouldbe obliged to surrender before adebacle took place. A similarmessage was given the French.” 73. Publishing RepercussionsFor the history of Churchill’sLeopold account in his memoirs,the most important and scholarlysourcework is David Reynolds’ InCommand of History (now availablein paperback from Basic Books viaAmazon.com and others):For Churchill’s publishers TheirFinest Hour proved no less of achallenge than The GatheringStorm. They faced the same impossibledeadlines, constant changesand autocratic demands. Reviewswere also beginning to set in amould—many being panegyricsrather than analyses. The bigexception was for the FrenchFINEST HOUR 138 / 44edition, significantly re-titledL’Heure Tragique, because in Franceand Belgium 1940 was a nationaldisaster and a running sore inpostwar politics. As before, receptiondepended on audience asmuch as intention.The British had been vilified bymany on the continent for desertingtheir allies. Churchill thereforetook pains to show they did theirutmost in a situation that wasalready hopeless—emphasizingthat the British ExpeditionaryForce was ready to counter-attackat Arras on 21-22 May 1940 butinsisting that it also had to protectits line of retreat to the sea. Hedeflected attention onto the precipitateBelgian surrender, quotinghis speech to the Commons on 4June 1940 which followed PaulReynaud, the French PrimeMinister, in placing the blamesquarely on King Leopold:“Suddenly, without prior consultation,with the least possible notice,without the advice of his Ministersand upon his own personal act, hesent a plenipotentiary to theGerman Command, surrenderedhis Army and exposed our wholeflank and means of retreat.”As he completed Their Finest Hour,Churchill found these wordscoming back to haunt him. Thestigma of surrender had markedLeopold ever since May 1940.Unlike the Dutch, Danish andNorwegian monarchs, he stayedwith his troops rather than joiningthe government-in-exile inLondon, and was taken toGermany when the Allies liberatedBelgium. His brother acted asRegent and Left-wing parties campaignedto block his return. The“Royal Question” became themost vexed issue in Belgian politicsand much of the debaterevolved around interpretations ofMay 1940. In mid-January 1949,three weeks before serializationbegan, La Libre Belgique, an ultramonarchistpaper, printed sixfront-page articles quoting andrebutting statements critical of theKing by Churchill, Reynaud andothers. Hurriedly General Pownall[WSC’s literary adviser on military

aspects] and Churchill checkedtheir final draft of “The March tothe Sea.” On the German breach ofthe Belgian line on 24 May theyhad written: “The King of theBelgians considered the situationhopeless, and already thoughtonly of capitulation.” This wasamended to “soon considered thesituation hopeless, and preparedhimself for capitulation.”Churchill had also made referenceto Reynaud’s denunciation of KingLeopold’s “treachery.“ Afterhurried research [literary assistantBill] Deakin advised him thatReynaud had never used the word“treachery”—this was an oldVichy canard. The offending sentenceswere removed, as was thephrase “this pitiful episode” fromthe speech of 4 June 1940. Theseand other last-minute revisions,resulting in six new pages ofproofs, were all incorporated inthe final text.Nevertheless, when the serialversion appeared Churchill wasattacked for his 4 June 1940comment about the King surrenderinghis army without prior consultation.Sixty-eight Belgian generalspublished a petition inFebruary 1949 calling his remarks“neither accurate nor fair.” Afterconsulting the Prince Regent[Leopold’s younger brotherCharles, Count of Flanders], whobelieved no amendments werenecessary, Churchill stuck to hisguns. “I am not attempting towrite a History of the SecondWorld War,” he told one critic,“but only [to] give the story ofevents as they appeared to me andthe British Government.”Receiving no response, the petitionerstook advantage ofChurchill’s visit to Brussels at theend of May to reissue their declaration,to which another twentytwogenerals had added theirnames. Deakin warned that thedocument was “a manifesto destinedfor internal Belgian consumption”and that its probableintent was to “lure you into controversyround the position of theKing.” Following the Belgian electionsin June 1949, a new coalitioninstituted a referendum onLeopold’s return. As far asChurchill was concerned, the fussthen died down except for onefervent British partisan ofLeopold, Olive Muir, whoharangued him in letters and atpublic meetings about why he hadnot replied to the generals. 8The Belgians, Churchillwrote, “fought with gallantry anddetermination” but “were put intothe war so late that they could noteven occupy their own preparedfront lines.” By now Leopold wasback on the throne and his secretarywrote to Churchill expressingthe King’s “profound astonishment”at an attack on “the honourof Belgium” and what amountedto a charge of “criminal negligence”by Leopold as commander-in-chief.Churchill, Pownall and[literary agent] Emery Reves allagreed that silence was again thebest course, and the Belgian materialwas omitted when the statementfinally appeared [in the]preface to the second Frenchedition. 94. Was Leopold Guilty?A canard Churchill oncerepeated is that “wherever thereare three Jews it will be found thatthere are two Prime Ministers andone leader of the Opposition.” 10This is nothing when it comes toFlemish- and French-speakingBelgians. Belgium is a “manufacturedcountry,” and disagreementshave long existed between its twopopulations. No one opinion islikely to satisfy both sides.In 1936, as Hitler, unopposed,reoccupied the Rhineland,the Belgian government adopted aposition of “armed neutrality,”refusing to join an alliance withFrance and Britain while armingBelgium for any future conflict,remembering how their countryhad been trampled in 1914. As aresult, Belgium was one of thebetter-prepared nations whenHitler marched west in 1940.Although Belgium did shareFINEST HOUR 138 / 45military information with theAllies, as a proclaimed neutral itcould not allow Allied forces topre-position themselves or marchwith Belgian forces until it wasactually invaded. Oliver Harvey,British Minister in Paris, wrote inhis diary in January 1940:Poor Leopold is in a desperatedilemma. If he commits himself toa military agreement, the Germanswill say he has violated his neutralityand so justify a Germaninvasion. If he doesn’t get agreementwith us and France wecannot afford him proper help if heis attacked—a vicious circle.Moreover, it can be represented asan Allied interest that Germanyshould not invade Belgium andtherefore Belgium should notprovoke Germany. The answer is, Isuppose, that Germany willinvade Belgium if it suits, whateverBelgium does. 11Winston Churchill took a dimview of neutrals. For him therewere only two options in the faceof Hitler: fight or surrender. Eachneutral, WSC said on 20 January1940, “hopes that if he feeds thecrocodile enough, the crocodilewill eat him last. All of them hopethat the storm will pass beforetheir turn comes to be devoured.But I fear—I fear greatly—thestorm will not pass.” 12But Leopold’s stance wasbased not on Churchill but on thegovernments that ruled France,Britain and Belgium in the 1930s,which had resolutely refused tooppose Germany’s numerousaggressions. Against that kind ofleadership, however forlorn thehope that Hitler would leaveBelgium alone, as commander ofthe Belgian forces, Leopold hadfew alternatives.When Hitler attacked in May1940, Holland went down in fourdays, but Belgium fought bravelyfor two weeks, its artillery takinga deadly toll on the invaders.Prolonged resistance contributedto the successful evacuation at >>

HISTORY DETECTIVES1950: Anti-Leopold demonstrators.LEOPOLD III...Dunkirk, where 340,000 Frenchand British soldiers were rescued.Nearly all the French soldiersrefused to join Free French forcesin Britain and returned to France.The Belgian government, then inexile in unoccupied France,forbade Belgian soldiers to leave,and even court-marshalled Belgianpilots who had flown to Britain orNorth Africa, accusing them ofhaving stolen their aircraft! 13Leopold had little joy fromsome of his allies. When GeneralGort, commander of the BritishExpeditionary Force, pulled backfrom the coast to protect access toDunkirk (leaving the Belgian rightflank unprotected) he did not tellthe Belgians, nor indeed his owngovernment, until after the fact.Meanwhile General Pownall, commanderof British forces inBelgium (the same Pownall whowould later assist Churchill inwriting his war memoirs)remarked at the time: “we don’tgive a bugger what happens tothe Belgians.” 14Clearly, the idea thatLeopold surrendered withoutprior warning is denied by thefacts. Leopold did not communicatewith his own government,which, as he saw it, had cut andrun; but he certainly warnedGeorge VI and Admiral Keyes.On 27 May he informed GeneralCrampon (French MilitaryAttaché) and Colonel Davy(British Military Mission), who inturn informed General Percival atthe War Office. Upon returning toLondon the next day, Keyessought an interview withChurchill, who would not see himand forbade him to make anypublic statements on the situation.But Churchill had additional considerations.Churchill’s position as PrimeMinister was by no means solid.On 28 May, the same day theBelgian Army surrendered, LordHalifax was arguing that theBritish cabinet should enquirethrough Mussolini the Germanterms for an armistice. The pressureon Churchill was enormous,not least from his now nearly hystericalally Reynaud; he desperatelywanted to keep France in thewar, if only as another governmentin exile.With these points in mindone may dispute Andrew Roberts’suggestion that Churchill saidwhat he did because Britainneeded a scapegoat. Often ascapegoat himself, WSC rarely pilloriedindividuals for catastrophe,and told his country the fullnature of this one. The suggestionthat George VI expected Leopoldto reign in exile, while he himselfnever intended to do so, is irrelevantbecause Britain was neveroccupied; for George VI, the decisionto leave never arose.Churchill’s effort to keepFrance in the war failed, but hekept Britain fighting, and eventuallygarnered an alliance that wonit all back, Belgium included.Churchill’s postwar writings weremarkedly milder than his speechesin 1940. He consulted withLeopold’s brother, whose relationshipwith the King had turnedsour and he assured Churchill thatno further amendments were necessary.Churchill’s memoirsproved insufficient to satisfy all ofLeopold’s supporters, butrealpolitik also was at play here:Churchill saw no benefit in stickinghis finger in the collectiveFrench eye, over a very soresubject in postwar France.FINEST HOUR 138 / 46Much of the criticism ofLeopold arose from internalBelgian politics. He was hardly theonly one who underestimatedHitler’s ruthlessness. In 1940, asOliver Harvey suggested, he wasdamned if he did, and damned ifhe didn’t. That he went to seeHitler is not criminal; he wished toreduce the suffering of his people.On the weight of the evidence it isfair to record that Leopold III wasan honorable man.ENDNOTES1. Jackson, Julian, The Fall ofFrance (Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress, 2004), paperback edition, 93-94.2. Churchill, Winston S., TheirFinest Hour (London: Cassell, 1949),83-84.3. Ibid., 73-74.4. John Cairns, letter to theeditor, The Independent, London, 10January 1996.5. Churchill, op. cit., 84.6. Roberts, Andrew, EminentChurchillians (London: Weidenfeld &Nicolson, 1994), 42; the quotes arefrom Keyes, Roger [son of AdmiralKeyes], Outrageous Fortune: TheTragedy of King Leopold of the Belgians1901-1941 (London: Secker &Warburg, 1984), 308-10, 396.7. Time, 23 January 1941. See:http://xrl.us/bfn99.8. Reynolds, David, In Commandof History: Churchill Fighting andWriting the Second World War(London: Allen, 2006), 204-05.9. Ibid., 207-08.10. Churchill, Winston S.,Closing the Ring (London: Cassell,1951), 470.11. Jackson, op. cit., 76.12. Churchill, Winston S., BloodSweat and Tears (Toronto: McClelland& Stewart Ltd., 1941), 252. Speech of20 January 1940.13. Lt. Col. Louis Van Leemput,Belgian Air Force (ret.) to DanielWybo and the author; Col. VanLeemput, who was 13 at the outbreakof war in 1940, is National Chairmanof the Royal League of Veterans ofKing Leopold III.14. Jackson, op. cit., 93. ✌

Books, Arts&Churchill Centre BookClubManaged for the Centre byChartwell Booksellers(www.churchill-books.com), whichoffers member discounts up to25%. To order contact ChartwellBooksellers, 55 East 52nd Street,New York, New York 10055, emailbscb@dti.net,Winston’s Brother Jack Finally Gets His DueTED HUTCHINSONRelying extensively on the papersxof the late Peregrine Churchill,Winston’s nephew, Celia and JohnLee offer an appealing book abouta legendary figure and his almostunknown brother. They begin withthe boys’ parents, Lord Randolphand Jennie Churchill: their backgrounds,courtship, and early yearsof marriage. The Lees track Winstonand Jack’s childhood (confirming,as other scholars have, that it wasnot quite as unhappy a time asWinston’s autobiography suggests).We see the brothers as adults, theirlove and friendship giving them thestrength to cope during tryingtimes. The book closes by consideringhow the lives of their childrenhave intertwined and shaped ourremembrances.The book tells us little that isnew about Winston. The chapterson his youth are interesting, but hisadult life, which has been studiedas closely as anyone’s in history, hasfew mysteries left to reveal, andnone are unveiled here.This book’s great service is itsaccessible and valuable portrait ofJack Churchill. While Jack was theonly sibling of Winston Churchill, Ican honestly say I did not knowmuch about him before starting thebook, although I have read quite alot on Winston. All credit to theauthors for providing much that isnew about an important figure inWinston’s life.Winston &Jack: TheChurchillBrothers, byCelia andJohn Lee(Celia Lee,2007): 408pages, £25.Contact theChurchillCentreBook Club for CC member price.The Lees build a portrait ofJack that is at once impressive andhumane. Jack was in many ways asimple man, a family man. Heloved his wife, children and brotherdearly. He was a hard worker andambitious (a successful businessmanin the City of London), but hewas also content to support ratherthan emulate Winston’s quest forpolitical prominence.Indeed, through the materialabout Jack we are able to gleanimportant insights about Winston,the man of whom there is seeminglylittle new to learn. For Jack, insome ways, seems almost to be areflection of Winston—without thesearing ambition that drove WSC tothe height of politics.They were both military men.They were both family men. Theyenjoyed great literature and the fellowshipof a few close friends. ButJack was content to avoid the limelight.One could imagine Winstonas Jack—if Winston were bornwithout that nagging little voiceentreating him to reach for greatness.It is a credit to the authors,then, that we receive a full portraitof both men, even if the portrait ofWinston is familiar.That said, the book is notwithout its flaws. There are anumber of sweeping statements notsupported by the evidence offered,including the claim at a number ofpoints (e.g., 346) that Winstonadvanced his career at the expenseof Jack. This is unsupported by thepapers and biographies of bothmen, and frankly seems disrespectfulto both.For example, the authors sayJack was not credited for helping toorganize his brother’s biography oftheir father or the World Crisisvolumes (172). There is no correspondencein the Churchill ArchivesCentre, which we consulted, onJack’s work with these books, andnone is footnoted here. Is it not possiblethat the self-effacing Jackspecifically asked that he receive noacknowledgement? That seemsmore in character than the idea thatWSC purposely ignored hisbrother’s role.Two pages later we read:“How ironic of Winston [in 1896] toberate Jack for ‘drifting languidlyand placidly’...when he himself wasabandoning his first choice [Armycareer] even before it had begun.”(174) The Churchill canon clearlyreveals that WSC looked upon theArmy as a springboard to >>FINEST HOUR 138 / 47

WINSTON & JACK...politics: “…it is not my intention tobecome a mere professional soldier.I only wish to gain some experience.Some day I shall be a statesmanas my father was before me”(Gilbert, Churchill and the Jews, 3).“Drifting languidly” washardly Winston’s way—though, onthe evidence, it was sometimesJack’s. Both men acted in accordancewith their characters, anddiminishing Winston to build upJack is unhelpful in understandingtheir historical standings or theircharacter as real people.The authors spend animmense amount of time on Jennieand Randolph, dissecting their relativemerits and failures, and meticulouslyparsing such things as theirextra-marital affairs. There is a greatdeal of material on Jennie’s affairwith the Prince of Wales, a seemingirrelevancy to the story at hand.But on correcting old mythsthe Lees are reliable. LordRandolph, they note, did not leavehis family destitute (though Jenniedenied her sons their rightful inheritancewhen she remarried). Jackwas Randolph’s son, despiteunfounded claims to the contraryby various writers. Lord Randolphlikely died of a brain tumor; theorigins of the syphilis story aretracked to family antagonisms andthe scandalous memoirs of a disaffectedliterary agent. But footnotesare sparing. Although there is a wellannotated “list of names,” in whichsome of these references are found,it is not always easy to patchtogether the sources of the conclusions.I personally do not believethat Jennie and Randolph’s behaviorneeds particularly to be“defended,” except where it affectedtheir sons. It was what it was,and these digressions distract fromthe central message of the book.Nor does it seem correct to “remindour readers that Winston’s earlycareer was advanced at the expenseof his younger brother Jack.”Leave aside Jack’s retiringnature; consider only his brother,the self-described “glow-worm,” soladen with talent that one colleaguesaid his headlights were so brightthey sometimes blinded him. Yes,young Winston had a few cornerscut for him by his mother. But herose on his own immense talent andambition, a climb both rapid andastonishing—as were his numerousbut temporary reversals.Make no mistake: this book’scentral message is a valuable one.The First Dayof the Blitz:September 7,1940, by PeterStansky. YaleUniversityPress, 200pages, $24.Member price $19.20.t tea-time, or to be precise“Axat 4:14 pm on Saturday,September 7, 1940, 348 Germanbombers...and 617 MesserschmittGerman fighters crossed the EnglishChannel into British airspace,forming a block 20 miles wide,filling 80 square miles of sky. Themost concentrated assault againstBritain since the Spanish Armada.This was the first day of the LondonBlitz....” An evocative opening to acompelling little book.How evocative? Evocative ofthe immensity of the attack.*Evocative of Britain’s greatestWinston & Jack is a work of earnestgood intentions in a world wheremany authors try to make moneyoff the Churchill name with a“quickie” biography.Moreover, this is surely thebest book ever written about Jack’slife. It should be read by anyChurchillian, like myself, who haswanted to know more about thisman who remained in the shadowsdespite the glare shone on hisbrother. The authors deserve muchcredit for bringing Jack Churchill“Keep your Bowels Open andYour Kidneys Flushed”WARREN F. KIMBALLstrategic asset—the EnglishChannel, which had kept both theArmada and Napoleon at bay.Evocative of British refusal toappear frightened or to act differentlyin the face of destruction, bestsummed up in the word “tea-time.”But let us take our tea a bit later,and look at how the book works.Peter Stansky, an accomplishedhistorian of modern Britain, deftlytakes us from British preparationsfor air attacks during the Thirties,the actual bombings, civil defense,public reactions (taken heavily frommemoirs and similar recollections aswell as early histories), and on to adiscussion of the myths, realities,and legacies of the Blitz. The story isabout how Londoners rich and poor,posh, East and West End, blue collarand intellectual, responded. Theywere, after all, the true stalwarts.Government leaders andsenior officials make only cameo,though appropriate appearances.The oft-cited visit of the King andQueen to the East End is balanced*The Blitz was not the heaviest air terror attack on British lands. In just March and Aprilof 1942, over twice the tonnage of bombs fell on the tiny island of Malta as weredropped on London during the entire Blitz; Oxford Companion to the Second World War(Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), 713. Although the Malta siege isnot mentioned by Stansky, one hopes that he will consider a follow-up comparing itwith the London Blitz. The parallels are striking.FINEST HOUR 138 / 48

y less than complimentary commentsabout the Royals by locals.Churchill’s actions and rhetoricappear at the right places. Stanskycredits his oratory with a “centralrole.” But the book is aboutLondoners, not the Royals orChurchill; and properly so. (Iwould suggest that understandingChurchill’s leadership requires anunderstanding of the London Blitz,not the other way round.)Inadequate and unimaginativecivil defense preparations createdlong-lasting resentments. Plannersexpected more deaths and failed toprovide for homelessness—a fargreater problem. “Tragic as theywould be,” writes Stansky,“bodies—though presenting allsorts of difficulties—were neverthelessa terminal problem.” (121)Horrific events like the widelypublicized South Hallsville Schoolbombing, where a school packedwith refugees whose homes hadbeen destroyed itself suffered adirect hit, added to the perceptionof government having failed. Thecock-up came when buses scheduledto evacuate the school showedup a day late (“eerily similar” to thelate arrival of Hurricane Katrinaevacuation busses, Stansky notes).This is not to say that theBeveridge Plan of postwar socialreform was a direct result of theSouth Hallsville disaster, or of therepeated instances of bureaucratictimidity and small-thinking (notoilets in bomb shelters, limits onfree blankets lest people stay toolong at a rest center, discouraginguse of the Underground as bombshelters lest fear and panic be contagious).But it was a small step fromthe need to broaden governmentresponsibilities during war toextending them in time of peace.Two days after the Blitz began, anewspaper ad for a health tonicoffered, with unintentional humor, abridge between government responsibilitiesand the “carry on” reactionsof Londoners. “No Act ofParliament compels you to lookafter yourself. It’s up to you to...[usethe tonic and] keep your bowelsopen and your kidneys wellflushed,” somehow making thatpart of the war effort.Britons were no braver thanothers, said a number of observers,but their style “is peculiar to thenational character.” One diaristnoted that most East Enders “aretaking the raids with that curiousstolidity that baffles both the enemyand the home propagandist” (141).It was more than just propagandistswho were surprised. Governmentplans had often assumed the publicwould be demoralized, particularlyJews and foreigners. Not everyonewas “heroic.” But for thoseLondoners who stayed in the city—which was the overwhelmingmajority either because they choseto or had no choice—the persistentreaction to Nazi terror bombing wasvocal anger directed at the “Jerries,”and quiet stubbornness.On the last day of the LondonBlitz some nine months later (10Smoking BannsALFRED JAMESChurchill’sCigar, byStephenMcGinty.Macmillan, 230pages, $27.95.Contact theChurchill BookClub formember price.In the quest to record every facetof Churchill’s life, inevitablysomeone would examine his associationwith cigars. Author McGintyis a journalist in Scotland—where,ironically, smoking is bannedalmost everywhere.Mr. James, of Wahroonga, N.S.W., isPresident of Churchill Centre Australia.FINEST HOUR 138 / 49May 1941), nearly 1500 Londonersdied. But that there was a last day,Stansky notes, illustrates that terrorismrarely achieves its goals. (This isa comforting thought in our owntimes, until you think about beingone of those 1500 killed.)In the end, the “ordinary”people of London won their victory.Hitler did more than blink. As EricSevareid wrote in 1946: “TheGermans lost their nerve; the Britishdid not, and so they won out” (135).I promised you tea. Perhapsthe Nazis made their most fatalmistake by interrupting Londonersat tea-time. Whatever the whimsyof that occult comment, tea epitomizedtheir reaction to the Blitz.Within minutes after the Blitzbegan, London was awash with tea.To take but one story: A firemanrecalled a woman sobbing at thesight of her burned out home andtelling another elderly lady aboutthe damage. “Never mind luv,” saidthe second woman, “let’s go in andtry and make a cup of tea” (89). ✌McGinty relies strongly on theChurchill Papers at Cambridge,whose electronic catalogue producesno fewer than 295 cigar references.Most are orders to andaccounts from well-known suppliersin London and New York, andcopies of letters to prominentpersons, notably in Cuba, thankingthem for gift boxes.The book is entertaining butunfortunately adds little to ourstore of knowledge. Presumably,there is a market for only one bookon this subject and it is a pity thatMr. McGinty did not consult morewidely. About a third of the textoutlines well-known details ofChurchill’s career, and there is other“padding.” The most interestingchapter, “Protecting the PrimeMinister,” is but an expandedversion, duly acknowledged, ofAllen Packwood’s “Cigars:Protecting the Premier,” whichappeared in Finest Hour 106. It is >>

uilt around the testing in 1941 oftwo percent of an extraordinary giftof 2400 cigars from Cuba. By thetime the testing was completed anda couple of mice had died (forreasons uncertain), it was foundthat Churchill had already testedother cigars from the collection onmembers of his Defence Committee!The author interviewed aformer secretary, the late ElizabethNel, and WSC’s last private secretary,Anthony Montague Browne.But nothing seems to have beenextracted from the memoirs ofbodyguards Walter Thompson andEdmund Murray, Life editor WalterGraebner, valet Norman McGowan,secretary Phyllis Moir, General SirIan Jacob (in Action This Day), andG.S. Harvie-Watt. Their bookscontain many details as to howChurchill acquired, carried, cut, lit,re-lit, chewed and disposed of hiscigars. I especially like Murray’sanecdote that it was his job tocollect the remains of Churchill’scigars and give them to Mr Kern(McGowan calls him “Kearns”), agardener at Chartwell, who usedthem in his pipe.Norman McGowan’s descriptionof the ritual of WSC lightinghis first cigar of the day in bed isworth repeating:First he took off the band [againstthe advice of Zino Davidoff in TheConnoisseur’s Book of the Cigar] andpierced the cigar with a longmatch, of a kind he had speciallyimported from America. Then helit the candle which he has alwaysat his bedside, and warmed theend in its flame. Next he lovinglywrapped a piece of gummedbrown paper [made by Cartier,according to Graebner] round theother end. “I designed thatmyself,” he told me. “I call it aBelly-bando. It stops the end frombecoming too wet when I chew it.”This seems to have served the samepurpose as “the blotting paper ringwhich looked like a very smalldoughnut” which Ronald E.Golding (Finest Hour 35) said wasdesigned by Churchill’s butler,Greenshields. But few stories suchas these appear in Churchill’s Cigar,nor do some thirty references,including auction prices, in FinestHour, most of which could havebeen found in the Index toNumbers 1 to 100.Bill McVey, who did the sculptureoutside the British Embassy inWashington, says that Churchillwas holding or smoking a cigar inabout 260 of the 300 photographs hehad examined (Finest Hour 36). Mr.McGinty is probably correct in hisstatement that “His cigar became apotent political prop, a handypointer and a steady source ofsolace….He was also aware of theOver Hill, Over Dale....CHRISTOPHER H. STERLINGChurchill Goesto War:Winston’sWartimeJourneys, byBrian Lavery.Conway andU.S. NavalInstitutePress, 392pages, $34.95,member price $27.95.Aretired curator at the NationalMaritime Museum atGreenwich and a naval historian,Brian Lavery has plumbed a varietyof primary source records as well aspublished accounts to relate thestory of Churchill’s long-distancewartime trips (other than to westernEurope). Many aspects of WSC’sdangerous and arduous sea and airjourneys to meet with Roosevelt,Stalin and other leaders from 1941to 1945 have been told before.Indeed, some books have focusedon the topic, notably Gerald Pawle’sThe War and Colonel Warden (1964),FINEST HOUR 138 / 50image the cigar projected, one ofrelaxed confidence, and the appealthis would have with the electorate.”In later life WSC alwayskept a partly-smoked cigar in hispocket for the benefit of photographers,as he put it: “People must seetheir ageing lion tearing up hisgazelle or they’d say he’d lost histeeth” (Finest Hour 131).Although I live in Australia,Mr. McGinty has told me one thingI didn’t know. In the town ofChurchill, 100 miles west ofMelbourne and built in the late1960s, the Rotary Club has erectedan edifice known as “The BigCigar” as a memorial to Churchill.It is over 100 feet in height. ✌long rated highly. Several bookscovered the aircraft and their crewsthat Churchill used, and CeliaSandys’ Chasing Churchill (2003)included the wartime trips amongothers before and after. But this newaccount is by far the best, providingnew details and deeper context foreach voyage or air journey.Lavery is an experiencedwriter and it shows—this is a readableaccount with few factualbobbles. One of the few is a statement(89-90) that the Boeing 314Clipper flying boat was “the first[aircraft] in the world designedmainly for crossing oceans.” Not so,though it was the best of those thatcould. The endpapers feature thewonderful photo of Churchill in theBoeing’s pilot’s seat, with the hugecigar that surely nobody else wouldbe allowed to smoke in a cockpit!Lavery skewers a long-toldtale that in flying Churchill toEngland from Bermuda in January1942 (the first transatlantic air tripby any country’s leader), the flyingboat had been within minutes ofover-flying German gun batteries atBrest, on the coast of France. With a

good map and careful sleuthing ofthe archives, the author shows that(despite Churchill’s war memoirs)the plane was far from the Frenchcoast. In any case, Churchill flew ona sister flying boat less than sixmonths later, back to Washington inone long hop from Scotland.Maps charting the wartimetravels are clear and to the point,and help the reader follow some ofthe odd routing required to avoidenemy interception. The textfocuses on the actual travel timeand the vehicles used far more thanwhat happened at the meetings.Progressive improvements inChurchill’s aircraft (ultimately a C-54 Douglas Skymaster) are evidentin the growing comfort of the longflights toward the war’s end, comparedto the difficult conditions onthe early Commando, a transportversion of the B-24.By far the most luxurious tripswere by sea—especially threeaboard the Cunard-White Star linerQueen Mary: two in 1943, the first toNew York (and then by train toWashington to meet Roosevelt) andthe second to Halifax (and by trainto Quebec for the “Quadrant”summit). The third came in 1944 foryet another Quebec summit. Theparty returned from the second tripon the battlecruiser Renown, whereChurchill’s daughter Mary wasnearly swept overboard by a hugewave. (See Vic Humphries,“Glimpses from the ‘Taxi’: HMSRenown 1943,” FH 113:24-25, Winter2002-03.)Renown also took Churchilland party to Egypt late in 1943 for aconference at Cairo and then thespecially-equipped York aircraft“Ascalon” carried him on toTeheran for the first meeting of theBig Three. This was the trip whereChurchill, already weakened by acold and the long hours of severalsuccessive conferences, ended upbriefly on a nearly deserted landingstrip in North Africa, thanks to confusionin RAF communications.Pneumonia set in and with thatWSC had to endure an enforcedstay (mainly in Marrakesh) torecover.Still more travel was tocome—including a trip to see Stalinin Moscow in October 1944, to Yaltain early 1945, and to the firstportion of the Potsdam summit inmid-1945. To help illuminate thesemany voyages and flights, Laveryhas found interesting little personalstories that help to bring alive theprocess as well as dangers ofwartime travel. All told, this book isa marvelous read of an era quitedifferent from the much-heraldedaerial processions of nationalleaders these days.✌Three Great New StandardsRICHARD M. LANGWORTHChris:downloadimage fromAmazon, Ican’t get onthe web.Gandhi and Churchill:The Epic Rivalry ThatDestroyed an Empireand Forged Our Age,by Arthur Herman.Bantam, 684 pages,$30, member price$24.Gandhi and ChurchillCutting through decades ofnarrow or shallow reporting,Arthur Herman offers a balancedand elegant account of two famouspersonages, which captures bothChurchill’s generosity of spirit andGandhi’s greatness of soul. Whilerecognizing their faults, he showswhat motivated them and madethem great—with impressiveresearch which in Churchill’s wordsleaves “no stone unturned, no cutletuncooked.” The last two chapters,and the author’s conclusion, areThis is a review of a pre-publicationcopy; the final text may be altered.Chris:downloadimage fromAmazon, Ican’t get onthe web.Churchill & Chartwell:The Untold Story ofChurchill's Houses andGardens, by StefanBuczacki. Frances &Lincoln, 324 pages, 214illustrations, $40,member price $32.Fateful Choices: TenDecisions thatChanged the World,1940-1941, by IanKershaw. Penguin,600 pages, $35,member price $28.alone worth the price of what willbe the standard work on the subject.The book is comprehensive,with well-researched chapters onthe early life of both figures, contrastingChurchill’s upbringing inglorious Victorian Britain withGandhi’s in a prosperous, lovingfamily in the Princely State ofGujarat—his father, like Churchill’s,a political figure of some repute.The author tells us how each man’sattitude was shaped by the other’scountry, recounting Churchill’searly visits to India and Gandhi’s toEngland. Next comes their briefencounter on 28 November 1906,when Gandhi pleaded with the >>FINEST HOUR 138 / 51

GANDHI AND CHURCHILL...32-year-old Churchill on behalf ofIndians in the Transvaal, who werebeing deprived of their rights asBritish subjects by the Boer majority.Churchill was impressed byGandhi’s “marshalling of the facts”and promised to do what he could.Gandhi never forgot, and thirtyyears later told a mutual friend: “Ihave got a good recollection of MrChurchill when he was in theColonial Office and somehow orother since then I have held theopinion that I can always rely on hissympathy and goodwill.”Gandhi evolved from a loyalBritish subject to the head of India’sindependence movement followingincidents like Amritsar, the 1919massacre of Indians by a Britishgeneral who fired into a crowd.Gandhi was apprised of the situationnot least by Churchill, whospoke against it in the strongestterms: “What I mean by frightfulnessis the inflicting of great slaughteror massacre upon a particularcrowd of people....Frightfulness isnot a remedy known to the Britishpharmacopoeia....”Churchill is often visualized asunalterably opposed to Indian independence,which is a simplification.He softened toward Gandhi whenthe latter declared for equal rights:“Mr Gandhi has gone very high inmy esteem since he stood up for theuntouchables.” But Churchilladamantly opposed the India Act ofthe 1930s, and broke his politicalpick over it, opposed overwhelminglyby all three British politicalparties.Churchill subsided when theIndia Bill passed in 1935, tellingGandhi to “use the powers that areoffered and make the thing asuccess...” But in World War II asPrime Minister, with his nation’s survivalat stake, he would brook nodeviation from what he saw as thecommon cause. In 1943, whenGandhi was arrested and confined toluxurious captivity, he declared hewould fast until Britain declared shewould quit India. Churchill wascertain that Gandhi added glucose tohis drinking water to sustain himself.At Casablanca, Churchill remarkedto the U.S. consul: “Now, Pendar,why don’t you give us Morocco, andwe shall give you India. We shalleven give you Gandhi, and he’sawfully cheap to keep, now that he’son a hunger strike.”Arthur Herman, who has themeasure of the two great antagonists,offers a balanced and generousverdict. Churchill, he sayshad never understood Gandhi, anymore than Gandhi had understoodhim. The reason was simple. Theconfrontation in February 1943 wasnot just between two willful men,or between imperialism andfreedom, or between what LouisFischer later called ‘the past ofEngland and the future of India.’ Itwas no longer even about two differentconceptions of empire. Theconfrontation, rather, was betweentwo different conceptions of life.One rested on secular and humanistictraditions that had been testedby history and centuries of humanconflict. The other rested on avision of spiritual purity in whichhistory and material things(including Gandhi’s own body)counted for nothing....In short,both men loved freedom andliberty, but of two fundamentallydifferent kinds. Both were capableof great ruthlessness in pursuit oftheir goals precisely because oftheir confidence in those twin butopposite visions, which had sustainedthem through defeats anddisappointments that would havedestroyed weaker human beings.Together they might have complementedeach other’s strengths andbolstered each other’s weaknesses.Instead, in February 1943, theywent head to head in a final contestof wills, with the fate of India andthe Second World War at stake.This is a truly informativebook on two great leaders, with noaxes to grind, like so many authorswho have disparaged them in thepast. It is sensitive, balanced, fair,and beautifully written. ✌FINEST HOUR 138 / 52Churchill & ChartwellCHARTWELL, 15 SEPTEMBER 1934—“Forty winks in the afternoon and then(unexpectedly) bathing at 7 in pouringrain, intensely cold with a grey halflightof approaching night, yet curiouslyenough very enjoyable in its oddness.Freda Ward, Winston, Duff, Clemmie,Randolph and a child, in fact the wholeparty, were splashing about with gleefulscreams in this sad crepuscule. Thesecret is that the bath is heated, and itis Winston’s delightful toy.He summoned Inches the butler: ‘TellAllen to have a lot more coal on. I wantthe thing full blast.’ But Inchesreturned to say that Allen was out forthe day. ‘Then tell Arthur I want it fullblast.’ But it was Arthur’s day out aswell, so the darling old schoolboy wentsurreptitiously and stoked ithimself for half an hour, coming in onthe verge of apoplexy.”—Lady Diana Cooper,The Light of Common Day.London: Rupert Hart-Davis, 1959, 155.Chartwell and its estate fill onlyhalf of this book. StefanBuczacki admits that, having set outto write about Churchill’s mostfamous home, he was soon captivatedby all the others, and realizedthat to be truly comprehensive hemust cover them all: primary residences,government quarters, loansfrom or shares with family orfriends, country houses, evenholiday cottages. The result is thefirst comprehensive book aboutwhere Churchill lived throughouthis long and eventful life, a surprisingthree dozen separate residences.(See Ampersand, page 58.)The coverage is total, beginningwith 48 Charles Street, whereWinston spent his first five years,through his bachelor flat on MountStreet, his first house on BoltonStreet, official residences (AdmiraltyHouse, Ministry of Munitions, 10and 11 Downing Street), the friends’and relatives’ homes he used, andhis “three” holiday properties(including Chequers, the PrimeMinister’s country estate, as well as

Lullenden.) Buczacki, who haspenned over fifty books on gardeningand natural history, immersedhimself in the archives, and his endnotesextend to fifteen pages.The author benefitted from“two significant pieces of goodfortune”: the unpublished papers ofChartwell architect Philip Tilden,with whom Churchill uproariouslycontended through Chartwell’sinitial reconstruction; and a trove ofhitherto closed papers in theChurchill Archives relating toWSC’s farms. Illustrations, so vitalto this story, are profuse, for theauthor obtained photographs ofmany of the residences today, supplementingnumerous contemporaryphotos, documents, maps andplans. Even the endpages supportthe work, with a select family treeat the front and a plan ofChartwell’s gardens at the back.We learn how Churchillacquired and lived in his properties,took up farming, and took uphorseracing and maintained a stud.The combined fiscal failure and personaldelight of his farming, and theprecarious finances of his horseyactivities, are covered with accuracyand humor.Such thorough researchinevitably provides correctives tomisunderstandings, such as howChurchill the Chartwell bricklayerjoined the Amalgamated Union ofBuilding Trade Workers. He did notseek membership, as legend has it,but was invited to join by JamesLane, Mayor of Battersea and aunion organizer. Churchill respondedthat he did not think himselfqualified, but asked to see theRules. Encouraged by Lane, hefilled out the application, sent in his5 shillings, and was issued a membershipcard. This produced a backlashfrom the reliably left-wingunion members. “You damned oldhypocrite!,” wrote someone whosigned himself “A British subjectsodden with Taxation.” “It woulddo you & the country good if youwere forced to earn your dailybread by laying bricks instead ofplaying at it, & making yourselflook a fool.” The Union dodged thisPR nightmare by declaring WSC’sapplication invalid on technicalities.It was rather a good thing thatChurchill did not have to earn hisbread bricklaying, as Buczacki suggests.His Chartwell wall-buildingwas greatly abetted by a matenamed Benny Barnes, who apparentlycleaned up after him. A photographwas published in 1928,showing him at work on his daughter’splayhouse (the “Marycot”),with “one corner brick perchedextremely precariously.” A professionalbricklayer responded: “Now,Sir, this is not on a par with yourState work, and I would urge you toattend to its alignment and correctplacing....”Such episodes are so amusingthat I wished for more of them. Thearchives-based material is somewhatclinical, and lacks many of thepriceless observations publishedfrom time to time by such eruditefriends as Diana Cooper (facingpage). Churchill’s interaction withlocals as a “Townsman ofWesterham” (the title of an obscurebut good 1969 booklet by PercyReid) is not included. Happily,however, Buczacki mentions thegypsy, “Mrs. Donkey Jack,” whomWSC befriended and offered a placeto live in his own wood. Longtimesecretary Grace Hamblin’s“Chartwell Memories,” delivered atour 1987 conference and republishedin FH 118, would alone haveprovided an intimate account of lifeat Chartwell and the peregrinationsof its famous master. I would haveliked to see larger format maps andfloor plans, but this is the end of mycriticism.This is a thoroughly indispensable“standard work,”as importantfor the library of any seriousChurchill student, as the memoirsof close associates like Jock Colvilleand Anthony Montague Browne.What closer associates did Churchillhave than the houses he lived in? ✌FINEST HOUR 138 / 53Fateful ChoicesSometimes, All It Takes is a Shrug“What a story! Think of all thesepeople—decent, educated, the story ofthe past laid out before them—What toavoid—what to do etc.—patriotic,loyal, clean—trying their utmost—What a ghastly muddle they made of it!Unteachable from infancy to tomb—There is the first and maincharacteristic of mankind."—WSC to Beaverbrook, 21 May 1928Ian Kershaw, whose two-volumebiography of Hitler is acclaimed,has written a fascinating book onwhat Churchill might call the “tenclimacterics” of World War II:Britain’s decision to fight on in May1940; Mussolini’s decision to attackGreece; Stalin’s decision to trustHitler; Japan’s decisions to expandsouthward and to go to war withthe United States; Roosevelt’s decisionsto help Britain and to wageundeclared war against Germany;Hitler’s decisions to attack Russia,to declare war on the USA and tocommit genocide in Europe.While many chapters coverfamiliar ground, Kershaw does soin a fresh way, pulling together keysources that reveal the reasoning (orlack of it) behind each decision—which, together, settled the outcomeof the war, and the world we knowtoday. The only fault of the book isa degree of academic overkill: thechapters average nearly 50 pageseach, and Kershaw is so intent onproducing all the evidence that heruns the risk of violating an old editorialadage: “a bore is someonewho tells everything.”The most gripping chaptersare those that explain the inexplicable:Japan’s decision to go to warwith the United States, a war boththe Emperor and Prime Ministerexpected they would probably lose;and Hitler’s decision, four daysafter Pearl Harbor, to declare waron the United States: an enemy hecould not strike at, but which couldsoon strike at him. >>

FATEFUL CHOICESKershaw offers a revisionistview of Hideki Tojo, the Army chiefturned Prime Minister often cast asa bloodthirsty aggressor. Though ahard-liner as head of the Army,once he became Prime Minister inOctober 1941, Tojo wanted anaccommodation as much as theEmperor (maybe because of theEmperor, whom he worshiped asdivine). By sending a high-leveldiplomat, Kurusu Saburo, tosupport Ambasssador NomuraKichiasburo in Washington, Tojoand his foreign minister, ShigenoriTogo, signalled a serious desire fora settlement with the Americans.(After Japan’s Tripartite Pact withGermany and Italy in September1940, Roosevelt had embargoed ironand scrap metal; with Japan’s invasionof Indochina in July 1941, FDRfroze Japanese assets in the U.S. andembargoed oil shipments—in thosedays the USA was an oil exporter.Kershaw paints Secretary ofState Cordell Hull the wayChurchill allegedly painted Dulles:“He is the only case of a bull I knowwho carries his china closet withhim..” As the clock ticked in late1941, Hull frustrated negotiations atevery turn. He rightly rejected theJapanese “Plan A,” letting Japan runamok in East Asia. He seemed toaccept, but finally rejected “Plan B,”which offered a pull-back ofJapanese forces from Indochina andan agreement to vacate China “at anagreed future date.”Nor was FDR consistent:“While Hull and the StateDepartment dampened prospects ofan accommodation, the Presidenthimself appeared still open to thepossibility of one” (367). In hisdon’t-tell-them-everything-you’rethinkingapproach, Roosevelt ranhot and cold on requested meetingswith Japan’s foreign minister orEmperor. First FDR would hint thathe wanted a “modus vivendi”; thenhe would play hardball, refusing toconsider any terms by which hewould normalize relations.Finally Hull replied with his“Ten Points,” including all previousdemands and some new ones. Inexchange for normalized relationsJapan was required “to withdrawfrom China and Indochina,renounce her extraterritorial rightsand concessions dating back to theturn of the century, following theBoxer Rebellion, to recognize noother Chinese government but thatof Chiang Kai-shek, and effectivelyto abrogate the Tripartite Pact” withGermany and Italy. (369). Thosewere terms no Japanese governmentcould accept. Hull was unclear as towhether he also wanted Japan toabandon its puppet state ofManchukuo. In fact he did not—buthe didn’t bother to make this clear.Too late FDR realized, “thismeans war”; he did not know PearlHarbor was the target, but he musthave known he’d backed Japan intoa corner. Call me a cynic and you’llbe right: but if George W. Bush andhis Secretary of State handled theIranians like Roosevelt and Hullhandled the Japanese, and endedup getting bombed for their pains,there would be a full-scale outcryand a Congressional investigation.Kershaw also reveals much aboutHitler’s decision to declare waron America four days after PearlHarbor—one of the most inexplicableacts of the war. Carefully hereviews Hitler’s thoughts on the“American Union” from his earliestspeeches in 1919. He concludes thatthe Western Hemisphere never seriouslyfigured in Hitler’s plans(despite the now-famous forgery ofa German map carving up SouthAmerica)—except as some longdistantfinal confrontation whichmight have to be undertaken by asecond generation of Nazis.Hitler thought the “Europeanarmaments industry was greaterthan the American. And he hadexperienced American soldiers inthe First World War [and believed]the Germans were far superior”(405). But longer term, he was smartFINEST HOUR 138 / 54enough to realize that Germany wason borrowed time. He knew whenhe invaded Russia that he must winquickly, compel Stalin’s surrender,then turn on Britain with his fullforces and compel an armistice.By 1943, Hitler said, themighty engine of American industrywould be engaged on behalf ofBritain and the Soviets, and anyhope of Germany for Europeanmastery would be ended. Thus theFuhrer warned his trigger-happynaval chief, Admiral Raeder, toavoid provocations in the Atlantic,even after Roosevelt had occupiedIceland and expanded the Atlanticsecurity zone far to the east.Why then did Hitler declarewar after Pearl Harbor? Logic didnot play a part here. The TripartitePact (Hitler’s stated reason)required Germany to declare waronly if Japan had been attacked. Theidea that he went to war to “fulfill acommitment” to Japan seems farfetched.(When did Hitler honorany commitments?)So infuriated were Americansover Pearl Harbor that, absent aGerman declaration, Rooseveltmight not have asked for (or mightnot have obtained) a U.S. declarationof war on Germany. Churchill’srush visit to Washington after PearlHarbor, remember, was predicatedon the urgency he saw that FDRadopt a policy of “Germany first.”In declaring war, Hitler tooklittle military advice, other than thatof the belligerent Raeder, and evenhis Navy chief admitted that inDecember 1941 not one U-boat wasanywhere near the U.S.Astonishment at Hitler’s movewas expressed by even sycophantslike Goebbels. Many experiencedsoldiers privately (very privately)confessed they saw doom inHitler’s act. “One ordinary soldier,confident that Germany wouldeventually prove victorious, neverthelessconfided to his diary on theday of Hitler’s Reichstag speech,that it meant ‘war for our lifetime.’‘Poor parents,’ he added” (383). >>

Why did Hitler do it? Theanswer, it seems, was a “shrug.”Hitler knew that sooner or laterGermany would have to confrontthe Americans. Why not now? Thatwas all it amounted to: a shrug. Itproved fatal.Despite his disdain toward theenemy he had known in Great War,Kershaw notes, Hitler by the autumn1941 had “contemplated for the firsttime the possibility of defeat,”saying “that if in the end theGerman people should not provestrong enough, then Germanydeserved to go under and bedestroyed by the stronger power.”(We may recall Hitler’s “scorchedearth” orders as the Russiansadvanced on Berlin in 1945.)Kershaw sees this as veryhighly revealing: “Beneath theveneer, Hitler seems to have recognizedthat his chances of totalvictory had by now all but evaporated...Itwas a characteristic attempt towrest back the initiative through abold move. But for the first time itwas a move doomed from the veryoutset to failure” (430).hat a story!” Japan’s lead-is of two minds“Wershipabout going to war. The UnitedStates is also of two minds—or isshe? Between Roosevelt and Hull, itis hard to tell. Emperor Hirohitoand his entire cabinet believe that ifthey go to war, they will probablylose. So...to war they go!Hitler through December 1941has practiced uncharacteristicrestraint in not provoking theAmericans, knowing correctly thathe cannot afford such a mightyenemy until the Russians aresubdued. He knows if America getsinvolved, Germany will probablylose. So...to war he goes!Fateful Choices is an amazingcommentary on the occasional (onehopes) irrationality of high-leveldecision-making: a book whichought to be read by our moderndecision-makers (present andfuture), before they do somethingstupid. Again.✌POEMS CHURCHILL LOVEDCrimea, 1945 and“The Charge of theLight Brigade”JOSHUA GREENBERGIfound the original of thisphotograph in the Museumof the Black Sea Fleet inSebastopol, Ukraine. Visitingmuseums in Russia and theUkraine is a completely differentexperience for Westerners. To takephotographs you must pay a fee. Iwas charged two Hryvnas (about55p) per photo. Some museums areso under-funded that they have toeconomize on lighting. So amuseum worker sometimes followsyou around the halls switching theMr. Greenberg is a young member ofICS (UK). Besides traveling “in search ofChurchill,” he is a volunteer at theChurchill Museum and Cabinet WarRooms, London.lights off after you.The photo at right, taken inFebruary 1945 by the Russian warphotographer A. Mashuyev, is purportedlyof Churchill visiting theBritish Crimean War Cemeteryoutside Yalta. But Finest Hour senioreditor Paul Courtenay has identifiedthe figure as Field MarshalHenry Maitland Wilson.Wilson appears saddened tosee the cemetery in such a state. Inthe background the land is ashblack and the graves are destroyed.The face of the Russian officerstanding behind Wilson hints thathe may have felt the same sorrow.The memorial stands on CathcartHill, named for the BritishLieutenant-General GeorgeCathcart, who planned the infantryFINEST HOUR 138 / 55manoeuvres during “The Charge ofthe Light Brigade” in 1854.Although the 1945 visit waslightly documented in the westernpress, it was on Churchill’s itineraryafter the Yalta Conference ended.The Cemetery was badly run down;it had been neglected under Sovietrule, and was extensively damagedunder Nazi occupation.Invaded in 1941, the Crimeasuffered badly. About 115 villageswere burned to the ground andtheir inhabitants were sent to concentration,extermination and >>

POEMS CHURCHILL LOVEDCRIMEA, 1945...forced-labour camps in Germany,Poland and Austria. By May 1944,the Red Army had regained control.A second photo from the samesource shows Field Marshal AlanBrooke and Admiral Cunningham,flanking a Soviet naval officer.Today the area has beengreatly restored and there is amemorial enclosure and obelisk tocommemorate the British dead. It issituated on one of the hills inBalaclava, “The Valley of Death,”where the Charge took place.I think it would be fair to concludethat Churchill was among theparty visiting the Cemetery out ofinterest in the Crimean War, whosehistory he had studied deeply.Churchill particularly admiredThe Invasion of the Crimea (1863), byAlexander William Kinglake. Whenasked how to write good history,Churchill once recommended,“Read Kinglake.” There are lines inKinglake which prefigure WSC’sstyle, and in an 1898 article on frontierpolicy Churchill wrote: “I shalltake refuge in Kinglake’s celebratedremark, that ‘a scrutiny so minuteas to bring a subject under a falseangle of vision is a poorer guide toa man’s judgment than the mostrapid glance that sees things in theirtrue proportions.’”Surely the Prime Ministerwanted to visit the scene so noblydescribed by Tennyson in one of hisfavourite poems. One could wellimagine him reciting the lines onthat very scene.The Charge ofthe Light Brigade25 October 1854Alfred, Lord Tennyson1.Half a league, half a league,Half a league onward,All in the valley of DeathRode the six hundred.“Forward, the Light Brigade!“Charge for the guns!” he said:Into the valley of DeathRode the six hundred.2.“Forward, the Light Brigade!”Was there a man dismay’d?Not tho’ the soldier knewSomeone had blunder’d:Theirs not to make reply,Theirs not to reason why,Theirs but to do and die:Into the valley of DeathRode the six hundred.3.Cannon to right of them,Cannon to left of them,Cannon in front of themVolley’d and thunder’d;Storm’d at with shot and shell,Boldly they rode and well,Into the jaws of Death,Into the mouth of HellRode the six hundred.FINEST HOUR 138 / 56http://poemsandprose.blog.co.uk/2005/12/4.Flash’d all their sabres bare,Flash’d as they turn’d in air,Sabring the gunners there,Charging an army, whileAll the world wonder’d:Plunged in the battery-smokeRight thro’ the line they broke;Cossack and RussianReel’d from the sabre strokeShatter’d and sunder’d.Then they rode back, but notNot the six hundred.5.Cannon to right of them,Cannon to left of them,Cannon behind themVolley’d and thunder’d;Storm’d at with shot and shell,While horse and hero fell,They that had fought so wellCame thro’ the jaws of DeathBack from the mouth of Hell,All that was left of them,Left of six hundred.6.When can their glory fade?O the wild charge they made!All the world wondered.Honor the charge they made,Honor the Light Brigade,Noble six hundred.Poems of Alfred TennysonBoston: J. E. Tilton & Co., 1870✌

CHURCHILL QUIZby James LancasterEach quiz includes four questionsin each of six categories:Churchill contemporaries(C), literary matters(L), miscellaneous (M), personaldetails (P), statesmanship (S) andwar (W), with the easier questions first.Can you reach Level 1?Level 4:1. After whom did GeorgeOrwell name his hero WinstonSmith in his 1949 novel 1984? (L)2. “Negotiating with __ wasimpossible. He was a maniac withsupreme power to play his hand outto the end, which he did; and so didwe.” To whom does WSC refer? (W)3. Which Canadian newspaperproprietor was a long-term friend ofChurchill’s? (C)4. In which of WSC’s booksdoes he write: “So I resolved to readhistory, philosophy, economics andthings like that”? (L)5. What did WSCrefer to when he said,“The air is a seductivemistress, but an affairwith her does not alwaysend in old age”? (M)6. To whom did F.E.Smith refer when he said, “I seefrom the Dundee Advertiser,I mean the paper, not thepolitician…” (P)Level 3:7. On 6 June 1944,whom did WSC order tobe sent back to Algiers “inchains if necessary”? (C)8. What journal didWSC call the New Porker? (L)9. Whom did some Tories callthe “Blenheim Rat”? (P)10. What did WSC mean whenhe said to Christopher Soames in1954: “I have no intention of going,until either things get a lot better—or I get a lot worse!”? (P)11. When did Churchill cableRoosevelt: “It is twenty-seven yearsago today that the Huns began theirlast war. We must make a good jobof it this time.”? (C)12. In 1943, to whom did WSCsay: “When history is written andall the facts are known, your featswill gleam and glow, and will be asource of song and story long afterwe who are gathered here havepassed away”? (W)Level 2:13. When and why didChurchill resign from theConservative Shadow Cabinet? (S)14. On 1 May 1940, lookingout on a rainy Horse Guards Paradewhere a sudden squall haddescended, Churchill said, “If Iwere the first of May, I should be —of myself.” Fill in the blank. (P)15. In 1963, who quotedEdward R. Murrow, that Churchill“mobilized the English languageand sent it into battle”? (L)16. What was WSC referring towhen he wrote: “Let me have the bestsolutions worked out. Don’t arguethe matter. The difficulties willargue for themselves”? (W)17. During whichtripartite conferencebetween the USA,France and Britainwas WSC seenreading C.S.Forrester’s Death tothe French? (S)18. Whomdid WSC describecirca 1950 ashaving “fallenbelow the level ofevents”? (C)Level 1:19. When did WSCfirst use the phrase“special relationship”? (S)20. Whom was WSC referringto in October 1940 when he said theywere “At war but skulking”? (W)21. With whom did WSC oftenstay at La Pausa, (which he referredto as “Pausaland”) on the FrenchRiviera? (M)FINEST HOUR 138 / 5722. In 1911, which club invitedChurchill and F.E. Smith to join, andthen blackballed them? “It was likeasking a man to dinner and kickinghim down the steps before heentered your house.” (M)23. Following Churchill’svictory at Oldham on 1 October1900, who begged him to speak atManchester and other marginal constituencies?(S)24. When did WSC say: “Irefuse to be shut up in a soupkitchen with Mrs Sidney Webb”? (M)Answers(19) Fulton, Missouri, on 5 March1946—the “Iron Curtain” speech.(20) The Irish. (21) Emery andWendy Reves. Emery was WSC’slongtime literary agent. (22) TheLiterary Club, founded by SamuelJohnson and Joshua Reynolds in1763. (23) Prime Minister ArthurBalfour. Churchill had asked himto speak on Churchill’s behalf inOldham, but Balfour haddeclined. Churchill then helpedBalfour by speaking in manyother constituencies: “Quite a fewvictories followed in my wake.”(24) When he turned down thepresidency of the LocalGovernment Board in 1908.(13) 26 January 1930, over India.(14) “ashamed.” (15) PresidentJohn Kennedy, granting Churchillhonorary citizenship of the UnitedStates. (16) The floating piers usedfor the Mulberry harbours. (17)Bermuda, December 1953. (18)The Duke of Windsor.(7) Charles de Gaulle. (8) The NewYorker. (9) Winston Churchill, forcrossing the floor to the Liberalsin May 1904. (10) That he had nointention of resigning as PrimeMinister. (11) 4 August 1941.(12)The men of the Eighth Army.(1) Winston Churchill. (2) Hitler.(3) Max Aitken, later LordBeaverbrook. (4) The chapter“Education in Bangalore,” in MyEarly Life. (5) Flying. (6) Churchill,MP for Dundee from 1908 to 1922.

AMPERSAND&Churchill’sThis is anupdate on"Ampersand"in FinestHour 103,Summer 1999, kindly provided by Mr.Buczacki, author of the excellent newbook Churchill & Chartwell, reviewedon page 52. —Ed.This list is as complete and accurateas I can make it. More completedetails, including the holidayhomes where they stayed withfriends, and also London hotelsused as short-term accommodation,are in my book. Overseas holidayresidences are excluded. There areoverlaps in several dates whenmore than one house was owned,leased or lived in at the same time.Dates are essentially those of ownership,not necessarily when theChurchills actually moved in or left.Please note that most Londonhouses are in practice held on longtermleases rather than strictlyowned as freeholds, and usuallybelong to institutions or Trusts.Primary Residences of WSC:owned, leased or provided officially48 Charles Street (January1874—1879). Leased by LordRandolph Churchill.The Little Lodge, Dublin(January 1877—April 1880). Officialresidence of Lord RandolphChurchill.29 St. James’s Place (April1880—late 1882). Leased by LordRandolph Churchill.2 Connaught Place (late1882—1892). Leased by LordRandolph Churchill. The familymoved into Duchess Fanny’s at 50Grosvenor Square (see below),where Lord Randolph died in 1895.105 Mount Street (1900—late1905). Leased by WSC; his firstbachelor flat.12 Bolton Street (December1905—March 1909). Leased byResidencesby Stefan BuczackiWSC, the first house of his own andbecame his first married home.33 Eccleston Square (Spring1909—May 1918). Not lived inbetween May 1915 and late 1916,since it was leased to Lord Greyfrom 1913. First house purchased byWSC after his marriage.Admiralty House (April1913—May 1915). Official residence,available to WSC from 1911 but notlived in until 1913.Ministry of Munitions house,probably in Whitehall Place (May1918—late 1918 or early 1919).Accommodation officially providedto the Minister of Munitions.1 Dean Trench Street (early1919—early 1920). Rented from theHon. Victoria Adeane.2 Hyde Park Street (latesummer 1919—May 1920). Purchasedby WSC but never lived in.2 Sussex Square (November1919—January 1925). Owned byWSC. Lived in from February 1920to 1924, then leased, and finally soldin February 1925. Demolished followingirreparable bomb damagesustained in March 1941.11 Downing Street (January1924—April 1929). Official residence.11 Morpeth Mansions (lateNovember/early December 1931—late 1939). Leased by WSC.Admiralty House (September1939—July 1940). Official residence.10 Downing Street & NumberTen Annexe (early summer 1940—July 1945). Official residences.28 Hyde Park Gate (September1945—1965). Combined with 27Hyde Park Gate from August 1946.Owned by WSC but subdividedand let while the family lived at 10Downing Street.10 Downing Street (December1951—April 1955). Official residence.Family or Friends’ Loans or Shares50 Grosvenor Square (1892—1895). Owned by Duchess Fanny.Now demolished.35a Great Cumberland Place(1895—1900). Owned by LadyRandolph Churchill.10 Carlton House Terrace(January—February 1908). Ownedand loaned by Lord and LadyRidley.22 Carlton House Terrace(March—May 1909). Owned andloaned by Freddie Guest.21 Arlington Street (May—lateJuly 1915; CSC until October).Owned and loaned by Ivor Guest.72 Brook Street (July 1915—November 1915). Owned by LadyRandolph Churchill.41 Cromwell Road(October/November 1915—Autumn1916). Owned by and shared withJack and Goonie Churchill.16 Lower Berkeley Street(September—November 1918). NowFitzhardinge Street. Owned andloaned by Lady Horner.3 Tenterden Street (Autumn1918) Owned and loaned by LadyCornelia Spencer-Churchill. Nowdemolished.Templeton, Roehampton (LateOctober 1919—February 1920).Owned and loaned by FreddieGuest.62 Onslow Gardens (Winter1929 and probably Winter 1930).Owned and loaned by VenetiaMontagu.67 Westminster Gardens (July1945—September 1945). Leased andloaned by Diana and DuncanSandys.Country HousesLullenden, East Grinstead,West Sussex (February 1917—November 1919). Owned by WSC.Chartwell, Westerham, Kent(November 1922 to 1965). Lived infrom around April 1924. Owned byWSC; officially owned by theNational Trust after WW2.Chequers (early summer1940—July 1945; December 1951—April 1955). Official residence. ✌FINEST HOUR 138 / 58

Churchill Centre Regional and Local ContactsAFFILIATES ARE IN BOLD FACERt. Hon. Sir Winston Spencer ChurchillSociety of Calgary, AlbertaMr. Justice J.D. Bruce McDonald500 - 323 - 6 Ave. S.E., Calgary AB T2G 4V1Rt. Hon. Sir Winston Spencer ChurchillSociety of Edmonton, AlbertaDr. Edward Hutson, Pres. (jehutson@shaw.ca)98 Rehwinkel Road, Edmonton AB T6R 1Z8tel. (780) 430-7178Rt. Hon. Sir Winston Spencer ChurchillSociety of AlaskaJudith & Jim Muller (afjwm@uaa.alaska.edu)2410 Galewood St., Anchorage AK 99508tel. (907) 786-4740; fax (907) 786-4647Churchill Centre ArizonaLarry Pike (lvpike@Chartwellgrp.com)4927 E. Crestview Dr.,Paradise Valley AZ 85253bus. tel. (602) 445-7719; cell (602) 622-0566Rt. Hon. Sir Winton Spencer ChurchillSociety of British ColumbiaChristopher Hebb, Pres.(cavell_capital@telus.net)1806-1111 W. Georgia St., Vancouver, BCV6E 4M3 tel. (604) 209-6400California: Churchillians of the DesertDavid Ramsay (rambo85@aol.com)74857 S. Cove Drive, Indian Wells CA 92210tel. (760) 837-1095Churchillians by the BayRichard Mastio (rcmastio@earthlink.net)2996 Franciscan Way, Carmel CA 93923tel. (831) 625-6164Churchillians of Southern CaliforniaLeon J. Waszak (leonwaszak@aol.com)235 South Ave. #66, Los Angeles CA 90042bus. tel. (818) 240-1000 x5844Churchill Friends of Greater ChicagoPhil & Susan Larson (parker-fox@msn.com)22 Scottdale Road, LaGrange IL 60526tel. (708) 352-6825Colorado: Rocky Mountain ChurchilliansLew House, President(lhouse2cti@earthlink.net)2034 Eisenhower Drive, Louisville CO 80027tel. (303) 661-9856; fax (303) 661-0589England: ICS (UK) Woodford/Epping BranchTony Woodhead, Old Orchard,32 Albion Hill, Loughton, Essex 1G10 4RDtel. (0208) 508-4562England: ICS (UK) Northern BranchDerek Greenwell, “Farriers Cottage”Station Road, GoldsboroughKnaresborough, North Yorkshire HG5 8NTtel. (01432) 863225Churchill Centre North FloridaRichard Streiff (streiffr@bellsouth.net)81 N.W. 44th Street, Gainesville FL 32607tel. (352) 378-8985Winston Churchill Society of GeorgiaWilliam L. Fisher (fish1947@bellsouth.net)5299 Brooke Farm Rd., Dunwoody GA 30338tel. (770) 399-9774 • www.georgiachurchill.orgWinston Churchill Society of MichiganMichael P. Malley (michael@malleylaw.com)3135 South State St., Ste. 203,Ann Arbor MI 48108tel. (734) 996-1083; fax (734) 327-2973Churchill Round Table of NebraskaJohn Meeks (jmeeks@wrldhstry.com)7720 Howard Street #3, Omaha NE 68114tel. (402) 968-2773New England ChurchilliansJoseph L. Hern (jhern@fhmboston.com)340 Beale Street, Quincy MA 02170tel. (617) 773-1907; bus. tel. (617) 248-1919Churchill Society of New OrleansEdward F. Martin (tmartin@joneswalker.com)2328 Coliseum St., New Orleans LA 70130tel. (504) 582-8152Churchill Society of Greater New York CityGregg Berman (gberman@fulbright.com)c/o Fulbright & Jaworski, 666 Fifth AvenueNew York NY 10103 • tel. (212) 318-3388North Carolina ChurchilliansA. Wendell Musser MD(amusser@nc.rr.com)1214 Champions Pointe DriveDurham NC 27712; tel. (919) 477-1325Churchill Centre Northern OhioMichael McMenamin (mtm@walterhav.com)1301 East 9th St. #3500, Cleveland OH 44114tel. (216) 781-1212Churchill Society of PhiladelphiaBernard Wojciechowski(bwojciechowski@borough.ambler.pa.us)1966 Lafayette Rd., Lansdale PA 19446tel. (323) 661-9856South Carolina: Bernard Baruch ChapterKenneth Childs (kchilds@childs-halligan.net)P.O. Box 11367, Columbia SC 29111-1367tel. (803) 254-4035Tennessee: Vanderbilt UniversityYoung Churchill Club; Prof. John English(john.h.english@vanderbilt.edu)Box 1616, Station B, Vanderbilt University,Nashville TN 37235North Texas: Emery Reves ChurchilliansJeff Weesner (jweesner@centurytel.net)2101 Knoll Ridge Court, Corinth TX 76210tel. (940) 321-0757; cell (940) 300-6237Churchill Centre South TexasJames T. Slattery (slattery@fed-med.com)2803 Red River CreekSan Antonio TX 78259-3542cell (210) 601-2143; fax (210) 497-0904Sir Winston Churchill Society ofVancouver IslandBarry Gough, Pres. (bgough@wlu.ca)3000 Dean Ave., P.O. Box 5037,Victoria, BC V8R 6N3; tel. (250) 592-0800Washington (DC) Society for ChurchillDr. John H. Mather, Pres.(Johnmather@aol.com)PO Box 73, Vienna VA 22182-0073tel. (240) 353-6782Washington (State): Churchill Centre Seattlewww.churchillseattle.blogspot.comSimon Mould (simon@cckirkland.org)1920 243rd Pl., SW, Bothell, WA 98021tel. (425) 286-7364Chapter Mentor:Richard Mastio (rcmastio@earthlink.net)2996 Franciscan Way, Carmel CA 93923tel. (831) 625-6164Outside North America:Paul Courtenay (ndege@tiscali.co.uk)Park Lane Lodge, Quarley, Andover, Hants.SP11 8QB UK; tel. (01264) 889-627✌

BACK COVER:THIS IS A CONTINUATION OF THE FULL WRAPAROUND COVER.SEE PAGE 1