winter 2005-06 • number 129 journal of the ... - Winston Churchill

WINTER 2005-06 • NUMBER 129JOURNAL OF THE CHURCHILLCENTRE & SOCIETIES

Number 129 • Winter 2005-06ISSN 0882-3715www.winstonchurchill.org____________________________Barbara F. Langworth, Executive Editor(blangworth@adelphia.net)Richard M. Langworth CBE, Editor(malakand@adelphia.net)Post Office Box 740Moultonborough, NH 03254 USATel. (603) 253-8900December-March Tel. (242) 335-0615___________________________Deputy Editor:Robert A. Courts(robertcourts@yahoo.co.uk)12 Lyndhurst Close, Harestock,Winchester, Hants. SO22 6NA, UKTel. (01962) 880-216Senior Editors:Paul H. CourtenayJames W. MullerRon Cynewulf RobbinsNews Editor:John FrostContributorsAlfred James, Australia;Terry Reardon, Canada;Inder Dan Ratnu, India;Paul Addison, Winston S. Churchill,Sir Martin Gilbert CBE,Allen Packwood, United Kingdom;David Freeman, Ted HutchinsonMichael McMenamin, ChristopherSterling, Manfred Weidhorn,Curt Zoller, United States___________________________k Address changes: Help us keep your copiescoming! Please update your membership officewhen you move. All offices for The ChurchillCentre, ICS (UK), ICS (Portugal) and ICS(Canada) are listed on the inside front cover.__________________________________Finest Hour is made possible in part throughthe generous support of members of TheChurchill Centre, and with the assistance of theNumber Ten Club, and an endowment createdby the Churchill Centre Associates (listed onpage 2).___________________________________Published quarterly by The Churchill Centre,which offers various levels of support in variouscurrencies. Membership applications maybe obtained from the appropriate offices onpage 2, or may be downloaded from our website.Permission to mail at non-profit rates inUSA granted by the United States PostalService, Concord, NH, permit no. 1524.Copyright 2005. All rights reserved.Produced by Dragonwyck Publishing Inc.D E S PAT C H B O XER, ABOUT THOSE AIRCRAFTThe cover of Finest Hour 127 is a monstrosity.The aircraft at extreme right is presumablya Hurricane—86% of our aircraft wereinitially Hurricanes—but it is given theSpitfire’s elliptical wings! The other two aircrafthave a portly profile, four guns insteadof eight, and appear to be powered by sixcylinderengines instead of twelves. Thecockpit of the aircraft at lower left is givenfour panels on the exposed side, and resemblesneither a Spitfire nor a Hurricane, havingno visible radiator at all. Ugh! There areliterally thousands of photos of those aircraft.Might not the artist have seen one ofthem? Admittedly most of those who flewthem are dead. But not all! I continue toenjoy Finest Hour.SIR ANTHONY MONTAGUE BROWNE KCMG CBEDFC, HIGH HALDEN, KENTEditor’s response: My dear Anthony,Sorry about the cover. You flew ‘em, youshould know! Artists take liberties. I mustsay how hard it is to get good color artworkfor our covers. It is the one part of FH thatlives “from mouth to hand.” I am nevermore than two numbers away from runningout! Lady Soames and Minnie Churchillhave saved me numerous times with goodthings from their own collections; or WSC’spaintings. I am glad you continue to enjoyFH. With all good wishes to Shelagh. Yoursever, RML.ANOTHER SASSOONOn reading “Sassoon Revisited” inFH 126 I am reminded of another WWIpoem by him, after he became disillusioned,“The General” (1917)“Good-morning; good-morning!” the General said.When we met him last week on our way up the line.Now the soldiers he smiled at are most of them dead,And cursing his staff for incompetent swine.“He’s a cheery old card,” grunted Harry to JackAs they slogged up to Arras with rifle and pack.But he did for them both with his plan of attackROBERT BROWN, NORTH VANCOUVER, B.C.ON WAR CRIMESIn “Why was Churchill so forgivingof the Germans?” (FH 115:28-31, also onour website) Lloyd Robertson writes that inthe House in 1946, Churchill advisedagainst judging “vast categories ofGermans” as “potentially guilty,” and aboveall against condemning the “ordinary people”of Germany. When ordinary people aresubjected to cruelty, he allegedly said, “thereare great numbers...who will succumb...”I searched for this quotation thoroughly,including Hansard. WSC made twospeeches mentioning resistance to Nazis in1946 and neither included this quotation,nor were these sentiments expressed. This isan example of the many cases in which, forpolitical reasons, false impressions ofwartime Germany are being created.KENNETH DUNJOHNEditor’s response: I can advise whereMr. Robertson found that quotation. Do thespeeches you checked include the one of 12November 1946? Three references, all identical,contain the words Robertson quoted:Churchill, The Sinews of Peace (1948, p.233);Gilbert, Winston S. Churchill, vol. VIII(1988, p. 284); Rhodes James, ed., WinstonS. Churchill: His Complete Speeches 1897-1963, (1974, p. 7402). Assuming thisspeech is one of those you checked, it isremarkable (but hardly the exceptional) thatHansard failed to record all of his words.Whether he said these exact words in theCommons, or added them to his book,does not alter his attitude toward thedefeated Germans—which was clear inscores of examples and incidents.ALL HAIL QUEEN MARGRETHEI am resigning. As an artist I am trulyappalled with your negligence of Churchill’slegacy as an Artist. You should portray himas an artist first and and as a diplomat second.His art is the self-exploration of hissoul which guided his policy-making.(Hitler was an artist as well.) Recognize hisdiplomacy as an "art form," for art requiresmuch more critical-thinking skill than basicand advanced war strategy. All Hail HerMajesty Queen Margrethe II of Denmark;Artist First, Monarch Second!DR. KAHLIL O. CRAWFORD, TORONTOMORE DE GAULLEMay I suggest an issue of FH concentratingon the Churchill-de Gaulle relationship?Keep up the good work.GILBERT MICHAUD, QUEBECEditor’s response: The standard work on thesubject is François Kersaudy’s Churchill andde Gaulle (London: Collins, 1981; NewYork: Athenaeum, 1982), a balanced andpowerful examination. We will be on thelookout for anything new and unique thatmight come to us; reader recommendationsare welcome. —Ed. ,FINEST HOUR 129 / 4

P R E S I D E N T ’ S L E T T E R@ THE CENTREANOTHER YEAR, ANOTHER TERM:Looking back on the past thirty-sixmonths, it is impossible not to see anupward trend, not only in worldwideinterest in Sir Winston, but in all theorganizations which serve his memory.Three plus years at the ChurchillCentre's helm, and having recently beensenten---, er elected, to another two-year term as President,provides a convenient opportunity to share with you some perspectiveon Churchill, The Churchill Centre and its development.Three years ago I expressed my concern that interest and enthusiasmin and for Churchill, his thought and ideas had plateaued; and that, unlessChurchill Studies received some new and substantial impetus, a decline wasinevitable. While there may indeed be a decline sometime in the future, Ihave seen no evidence of it. To be sure, the Library of Congress Exhibit herein the United States, the new Churchill Museum in London, and the steadyflow of new books on Churchill and Churchill-related themes have contributedhugely to providing this necessary impetus. But in a real sense thevarious institutions and organizations, including ours, devoted to Churchillscholarship and the perpetuation of his legacy, have done their share as well.And from where I sit, I see them continuing to expand their programs andcommitment “to keep the memory green and the record accurate.”Another perspective I offer you is the magnificent contribution madeby the Churchill family to whatever success the Centre may claim.I have written and spoken on many, many occasions of the role LadySoames has played in the Centre’s development—as Patron, as confidant, ashighly active conference participant, as adviser, as constructive critic and perhaps,most importantly, as a warmly cherished friend.And we should clearly recognize that Winston Churchill and CeliaSandys have made substantial and truly meaningful contributions to theCentre as well. Time and again we have asked Winston to address variousCentre functions, to render quiet but vital assistance in fund raising efforts,and to lend a helping hand in touchy personal relationships. He has been astrong and persuasive advocate for the Centre. At our request, Celia has graciouslyand elegantly represented the Churchill family at numerous Centreevents; and has promoted the Centre in many of her books and during herfrequent public appearances. She, too, has helped us satisfactorily to resolvecertain rather dicey matters. Both have rarely turned down any request, andthen only reluctantly and for extraordinary reasons. We are deeply grateful tothem both.No doubt with the passage of a few additional years other perspectiveswill emerge. But until they do, my focusand that of our Board of Governors will besquarely and exclusively on the exciting andevent-filled months ahead.BOARD OFFICER ANDGOVERNOR ELECTIONSYour Board of Governors metin Quebec for a day preceding therecent conference, elected new officersand made several new assignments.Elected as a Governor is Gary Garrisonof Marietta, Georgia, a retired corporatecommunications consultant andChurchill Centre Associate, whobecomes Local Affairs Coordinator,replacing Judy Kambestad. Reelectedas a Governor, Judy now applies hertalent to another important project,membership development. Re-electedwere Chairman of Acadmic AdvisersJames Muller and Trustees ChairmanRichard Langworth. The Boardreelected three officers: President BillIves, Vice President Charles Platt, andTreasurer Christopher Hebb. SuzanneSigman, a former teacher and owner ofa young people’s bookshop, wasreelected as a Governor and is nowSecretary, and remains our EducationalPrograms Coordinator.Secretary Douglas Russell,after twelve faithful years, is leaving usowing to the demands of his work as aJudge of the Iowa District Court. JimLane is also leaving the Board,although he remains active in efforts toexpand our programs and presence inthe Pacific Northwest. We are mostgrateful to Doug and Jim for their selflessdevotion of time and energy, andare sure they will continue to beinvolved and in view at futureChurchill Centre events.Newly elected to the Board ofTrustees is Marcus Frost of Mexia,Texas, a Churchill Centre Associatewho joined us after hearing about theCentre at Bletchley Park in 2001.Marcus, who owns a large rock crushingcompany in Mexia, has been anenthusiastic supporter of many projectsin that short time, and with hiswife Molly is a familiar figure at ourevents. We welcome his wise counsel.We are blessed with a surfeitof talent and enthusiasm of which anyorganization would be proud. We owethem, and you our members, everything.—RML ,FINEST HOUR 129 / 5

DATELINESFORTY YEARS ONLONDON, JANUARY 31ST— On the fortiethanniversary of Sir Winston Churchill’s funeral,a wreath was laid on the Thames, where hiscoffin was carried to the awaiting train toBladon. The ceremony was made all the morepoignant by the fact that the ring of poppieswas placed from the deck of the original funeralship, Havengore, by Sir Winston’s greatgranddaughterSophie Perkins, 16, and led theservice from Tower Bridge.“It’s a great honour to be able to laythis wreath,” said Miss Perkins, who isstudying at Marlborough College inWiltshire. “I am very proud to havethis wonderful man as a great-grandfather.”Havengore carried Sir Winston’sbody on part of his last journey on 30January 1965. Churchill, who died onJanuary 24th, was laid to rest in theOxfordshire village of Bladon followinga service at St. Paul’s Cathedral.While Churchill’s coffin lay in state atWestminster Hall, more than 320,000members of the public queued forhours to pay their respects.The Lord Mayor of London,Michael Savory, helped Sophie lay thewreath, and remembered the originalscene: “I stood in the crowds in 1965as the funeral procession passed by.Everything was silenced, even the horses’hooves were specially muffled. Theonly sound was the occasional squealingof the wheels of the gun carriagethat bore Sir Winston’s body.”The ceremony marked thelaunch of a new role for Havengore.From September she is promoting thetriumph of liberty by taking Churchill’sarchive in facsimile form to easternEurope. The ship is regrettably for sale,since the owner, Owen Palmer, mustreturn soon to Australia. For informationtelephone (01634) 813057 oremail mail@havengore.com.PRESERVING FUNERAL TRANSPORT:The launch Havengore, above, carriedChurchill’s coffin to Waterloo Station,where it was placed aboard the historiccoach that had once borne the coffin ofEdith Cavell (above right). The coach,too, is restored, and preserved atPacific Palms Resort in California, withappropriate signage (right). Completing atriumvirate, the steam locomotive “SirWinton Churchill,” which drew the coachto Bladon, is also preserved.THE FUNERAL COACHINDUSTRY HILLS, CALIF., AUGUST 31ST— It isappropriate on this anniversary to notethat the coach which took over thecoffin from the Havengore in 1965 hasalso been carefully preserved. During around of golf at Pacific Palms Resortwith the marketing manager for theresort, I noticed the an old railwayQuotation of the Season“In the Middle East you have arid countries.In East Africa you have drippingcountries. There is the greatest difficultyto get anything to grow on the one place,and the greatest difficulty to prevent things smotheringand choking you by their hurried growth inthe other. In the African Colonies you have adocile, tractable population, who only require to bewell and wisely treated to develop great economiccapacity and utility; whereas the regions of theMiddle East are unduly stocked with peppery,pugnacious, proud politicians and theologians, whohappen to be at the same time extremely wellarmed, and extremely hard up.”coach on the property. I found thisto be very interesting and told herwhat a great piece of history it was.As the accompanying signstates, this is the car in which SirWinston Churchill was moved to hisfinal resting place in 1965. Longbefore, this same coach was used totransport Edith Cavell to her restingFINEST HOUR 129 / 6

place during World War I. Cavell wasa British nurse who had been executedby the Germans as a spy.When World War II began andscrap metal was needed, the old coachwas slated for demolition; butChurchill, who had known andadmired Edith Cavell, intervened tospare it. Later he expressed the wish totravel in it to his own grave. On 30January 1965 this coach bearing hiscoffin was towed out of WaterlooStation to its destination at BladonChurchyard, near Blenheim. SirWinston had received his wish. Thecoach rests in what I have been told isa replica of St. Andrews Station.—M. G. DIONNEWARLORDSLONDON, AUGUST 5TH— Another seriesabout WW2? What more is there totell? Not quite an “epic untold story,”but Channel 4 cast newish light onwell-known events through the primsof two men in charge. “Warlords”explores the relationship betweenHitler and Stalin, from their marriageof convenience with the Nazi-Sovietpact to the invasion of Russia. Thestory is not so much about deliberatemind games as the good old-fashionedcock-up theory of history. Hitler didn’tfool Stalin into a false sense of security;Stalin fooled himself, convinced that arational fellow like Hitler wouldn’tinvade while he was still at war withBritain. But Stalin was a detail man,Hitler an irrational dreamer. The programmedraws the characters nicely,using henchmen such as Goebbels andKhruschev...Khruschev? —RADIO TIMESWILL WSC EVER BE RIGHT?SAN FRANCISCO, 11 SEPTEMBER 1929— “TheArab and the Jew must and will learnto live together. The Arabs have nothingagainst the Jews. The Jews havedeveloped the country, grown orchardsand grain fields out of the desert, builtschools and great buildings, constructedirrigation projects and water powerhouses, and have made Palestine amuch better place in which to livethan it was before they came a fewyears ago....The Arabs are much betteroff now than before the Jews came,and it will be a short time only beforethey realize it.”—WSC PRESS CONFERENCE, BOHEMIANCLUB. 1929. FROM ROBERT H. PILPEL,CHURCHILL IN AMERICA 1895-1961 (1976)LOCAL CHAPTER REPORTACTION THIS DAY AWARDQUEBEC, OCTOBER 2ND— Congratulationsto New England Churchillians, whohave won the Action This Day Awardfor the second year in a row. They hadtwo local fund raising activities, themost new members, and tied withGeorgia, North Carolina and ourallied friends in Vancouver for schooland community programs. Joe Hern,their leader, gave Churchill presentationsto large audiences in the BostonCommunity. Georgia, North Carolinaand The Churchill Society ofVancouver Island also had communityprograms. New England tied withDesert Churchillians and Vancouverfor the most member events. Desertcame in second, and was the onlyAffiliate which raised funds for theChurchill Centre, in addition to itsother activities.In the past year Churchill Centrelocal organizations and allies held thirty-sixmember events for a total of1451 attendees and brought in seventynew members. California Desert,California South, Georgia and NorthCarolina gained full affiliate status.Gary Garrison of Georgia, taughtclasses on Churchill at a senior centerand Joe Hern of New England gave“magic lantern” presentations on WSCto community organizations. The Rt.Hon. Sir Winston S. ChurchillSocieties of Vancouver, Edmonton andCalgary held essay contests or debates.The Other Club of Toronto, with theChurchill Society for the Advancementof Parliamentary Democracy completedtheir three-year fund raising programto revivify the Toronto statue ofChurchill (FH 128), adding large displayboards in the city park. Most ofthe groups are currently distributingCelia Sandys’ Churchill to local andschool libraries.The total scores for all the localgroups far surpassed last year’s scores,which reflects their increased activities.Gary Garrison has been elected to theBoard of Governors and is now LocalAffairs Coordinator. Judy Kambestadhas moved to MembershipDevelopment Coordinator. TheChurchill Centre and its allies thankJudy for a job well done.LOCAL NEWS:NOTICE TO READERSWe report all the news of events pastand coming that we are sent to bylocal affiliates or the local affairs coordinator.However, local and nationalnews is gradually being shifted out ofFinest Hour, which has a three-monthlead time, and into the ChartwellBulletin, which takes much less time toproduce and is a better vehicle fortimely information. Recent Bulletinshave been full of this news. TheBulletin appeared three times in 2005and we hope it will soon appearbetween each issue of FH. For the verylatest news of past and coming events,always consult our website, www.winstonchurchill.org,or contact yournearest affiliate from the list publishedin each issue of FH and the Bulletin.CHURCHILLIANS IN OZ, 1991VICTORIA, AUSTRALIA, SEPTEMBER 10TH—Member Neil Kenworthy writes: “Inyour a list of previous ChurchillConferences I was surprised to see thatone was held in our capital city,Canberra, in 1991, and that it wasaddressed by the then-U.S. Ambassadorto Australia and Nauru, MelvinSembler. I’m puzzled that I can’t recallever hearing of this event. Were youpresent, and who organized it?”In 1991 we had about fiftymembers in Australia—widely scattered,of course, but mostly aroundAustralian Capital Territory, Victoriaand New South Wales. So, when >>FINEST HOUR 129 / 7

D AT E L I N E SSecretary Sampson VisitsVilla Mirador, CasablancaCASABLANCA, MOROCCO, JULY 20TH— In Anfa,one of the most picturesque and oldestareas of Casablanca, Villa Mirador wasconstructed in 1935 by Paul Andre JulesCauvin, a fabric agent born in Paris and residingin New York. After the Allied landings in Moroccoin November 1942, the villa was used byAmerican forces.During the Casablanca Conference on14-24 January 1943, the villa housed PrimeMinister Winston Churchill. It was here inChurchill’s famous traveling map room that he,Roosevelt and their combined chiefs of staff,laid plans for the campaigns to be launched against Germany, Italy, andJapan, and declared that the war would be carried on until the unconditionalsurrender of the Axis powers.During the Conference the President and Prime Minister also met withSultan Sidi Mohammed Ben Youssef and Crown Prince Moulay Hassan(now Sultan Mohammed V) and conferred with General de Gaulle, leader ofthe Free French Forces, and General Henri Giraud, French HighCommissioner in North Africa.On 2 May 1947, Villa Mirador was derequisitioned by the U.S. Army,and purchased by the U.S. government; American Consul General CharlesW. Lewis, Jr. took possession. The purchase actually included “Bellevue II”which encompasses the villa, and “El Minzah,” an adjoining plot of landnorth of the villa, which now contains recreational facilities used by theConsulate General staff.The map room has been preservedon the ground floor and todaycontains photographs of Churchill,Roosevelt, de Gaulle, Crown PrinceHassan, and others who participatedin meetings there during the conference.A plaque on the door notes theoccasion.—THE HON. DAVID A. SAMPSONDEPUTY SECRETARY OF COMMERCEWASHINGTON, D.C.Above right: Executive Director Dan Myers presents a Churchill Centre oil on canvaspainting, “Churchill After Karsh,” by Martin Driscoll (FH 114) to Deputy SecretarySampson at the Department of Commerce. Mr. Sampson said, “The Churchill portraitwill serve as a daily inspiration for the challenges of our time.”CHURCHILLIANS IN OZ...we planned to visit Australia for ourFifth Churchill Tour, we named it asthe “official” Churchill conference, andheld an “alternate” event for stay-athomesin Williamsburg, Virginia.The tour was managed byBarbara Langworth and took up twoweeks in October. We covered some35,000 km, counting the flights fromand to Los Angeles, which we think isthe record mileage for our twelveChurchill Centre tours. Sixteen NorthAmericans circled half the country,from Sydney to Adelaide, up to AliceTown on the famous “Ghan” train, onto Durban and Kakadu National Park,across the Gulf of Carpentaria toCairns. In wine country at HunterValley, we enjoyed hogsheads of PolRoger champagne and WyndhamEstates cabernet, thanks to the kindlyintercession of our good friendChristian Pol-Roger in France. Wethen flew on to Canberra andMelbourne, winding up in Sydney.The Winston ChurchillMemorial Trust of Australia beautifullyorganized several meetings, as did PeterJenkins in Victoria, our then-Australian representative, who is still amember. Peter’s painting of WinstonChurchill adorns the cover of FinestHour 73, which reported the events.The actual conference comprisedthree events: dinner with AustralianChurchill Fellows at the MemorialTrust in Sydney; the Embassy visit anda dinner at the Commonwealth Club,Canberra; and a party with ChurchillFellows at the Hotel Swanstead inMelbourne. At the U.S. Embassy,which in keeping with Canberra practicerepresents each nation’s architecture(its style is Colonial Virginian) wewere welcomed by Melvin Sembler,now the American Ambassador toItaly. (He has the distinction of havingbeen appointed to each of his posts bya different President Bush.) In 1991,he told us that the Embassy cornerstonehad been laid on—ready forit?—7 December 1941! The then-Ambassador wired home on the 8th:“What do we do now?” The Presidentor Secretary of State Hull replied:“Keep building the damn thing, lestthe Aussies think we’re on the run!”We had a grand time, travelingon the wonderful “Ghan,” ridingcamels, watching crocs in the AlligatorRiver being dive-bombed by plumedbirds in steamy Kakadu, drinking gallonsof Fosters, eating widgety grubs(not me) on a tourist station, snorkelingthe Barrier Reef and dining royally.This proved the high point for atime of “ICS Australia,” and membershiphas bumped along ever since. Theproblem has always been the “twoD’s”: Distances and the Dardanelles.(Yes, in Australia, they still rememberthe terrible losses of the ANZACs in1915, and Churchill comes in for hisFINEST HOUR 129 / 8

share of the blame.) Right now, AlfredJames represents us in Australia, wherewe have many longtime members.Messrs. Kenworthy and James are intouch, along with our friends at theChurchill Memorial Trust of Australia.We hope for future activities soon in agreat and friendly land. —RMLHOW MANY WORDS?BOSTON, SEPTEMBER 10TH— Through thewonders of computer science (via IanLangworth, Northeastern University),we can advise that the present corpusof works by and about Winston S.Churchill exceeds 50 million words(325 megabytes) including 13 million(80 megabytes) by WSC himself.In terms of word count,Churchill’s top eight works are:The Complete Speeches, 5,200,000The Second World War, 1,600,000*The Collected Essays, 860,000The World Crisis, 824,000*Marlborough, 779,000*English-Speaking Peoples, 510,000*Lord Randolph Churchill, 278,000The River War, 200,000*does not count appendicesThis discovery immediately ledSir Martin Gilbert to ask Ian for wordcounts for the official biography. Thetotal for the eight biographic volumes(including the first two by RandolphChurchill) is 3,111,090 words. Thesixteen Companion or DocumentVolumes published to date add another5,382,066, for a grand total of8,391,156.For lovers of statistics, but riskingpossible brain-death: six copies ofall of the above can fit on one 25¢compact disk. One copy would fill amere 1/100,000th of the NortheasternUniversity College of ComputerScience system, which holds 11terrabytes (11,000 gigabytes).What would Sir Winston makeof this? We know what his biographerthinks. Once accused of having told“only one-tenth of the story ofWinston Churchill,” Sir Martinreplied: “Really—that much?” ,L O C A L C O N T A C T STCC Official Affiliates in Bold FaceLocal Affairs Coordinator:Gary Garrison (ccsgary@bellsouth.net)2364 Beechwood Drive, Marietta GA 30062tel. (770) 509-5430, fax (770) 565-5925Deputy CoordinatorPaul Courtenay (ndege@tiscali.co.uk)Park Lane Lodge, QuarleyAndover, Hampshire SP11 8QB UKtel. (01264) 889627Sir Winston S. Churchill Society 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) 622-0566California: Churchillians of the DesertDavid Ramsay (rambo85@aol.com)74857 S. Cove Drive, Indian Wells CA 92210tel. (760) 837-1095Churchillians of Northern CaliforniaRichard Mastio (rcmastio@earthlink.net)2996 Franciscan Way, Carmel CA 93923-9216Res tel. 831-625-6164Churchillians of Southern CaliforniaLeon J. Waszak (leonwaszak@aol.com)235 South Ave. #66, Los Angeles CA 90042tel. (323) 257-9279; bus. tel. (818) 240-1000 x5844Churchill Friends of Greater ChicagoPhil & Susan Larson (parker-fox@msn.com)22 Scottdale Road, LaGrange IL 60526tel. (708) 352-6825Detroit: Gary Bonine (bo9@charter.net)3609 Lake George Road, Dryden MI 48428tel. (810) 796-3180England North: ICS/UK Northern ChapterDerek Greenwell, “Farriers Cottage”Station Road, GoldsboroughKnaresborough, North Yorkshire HG5 8NTtel. (01432) 863225Florida North:Richard Streiff (streiffr@bellsouth.net)81 N.W. 44th Street, Gainesville FL 32607tel. (352) 378-8985Georgia: Gary Garrison (ccsgary@bellsouth.net)2364 Beechwood Drive, Marietta GA 30062tel. (770) 509-5430; fax (770) 565-5925Nebraska: Churchill Round Table of Neb.John 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 02170res. tel. (617) 773-1907; bus. tel. (617) 248-1919Churchill Society of New OrleansEdward F. Martin2328 Coliseum St., New Orleans LA 70130tel. (504) 582-8152North Carolina ChurchilliansA. Wendell Musser MD (amusser@nc.rr.com)1214 Champions Pointe DriveDurham NC 27712; tel. (919) 593-0804Ohio: Northern Ohio ChurchilliansMichael McMenamin (mtm@walterhav.com)1301 East 9th St. #3500, Cleveland OH 44114tel. (216) 781-1212Washington Society for ChurchillChristopher H. Sterling, Pres. (chriss@gwu.edu)4507 Airlie Way, Annandale VA 22003tel. (202) 994-0363Churchill Centre South TexasJames T. Slattery (slattery@fed-med.com)2803 Red River CreekSan Antonio, TX 78259-3542Mobile: (210) 601-2143, Fax: (210) 497-0904North Texas: Emery Reves ChurchilliansJohn Restrepo (cunengland@aol.com)4520 Lorraine Avenue, Dallas TX 75205tel. (214) 522-7201Toronto: Other Club of OntarioNorm & Jean MacLeod (jeana@idirect.com)16 Glenlaura Ct., Ashburn ON L0B 1AOtel. (905) 655-4051THE RT HONSIR WINSTON S. CHURCHILLSOCIETY, CANADACalgary: Rick Billington, Pres. (rnbill@telus.net )2379 Longridge Drive, Calgary AB T3E 5N7tel. (403) 249-5016Edmonton: Dr. Edward Hutson, Pres.(jehutson@shaw.ca)98 Rehwinkel Road, Edmonton AB T6R 1Z8tel. (780) 430-7178British Columbia: Christopher Hebb, Pres.(cavell_capital@telus.net)1806-1111 W. Georgia Street, Vancouver BCV6E 4M3; tel. (604) 209-6400Vancouver Is.: Victor Burstall, Pres.(burst@shaw.ca) P. O. Box 2114, Sidney, BCV8L 3S6 tel. (250) 727-7345,FINEST HOUR 129 / 9

U K N E W SLONDON, SEPTEMBER 12TH—Ninety-seven years afterWinston and ClementineChurchill held their weddingreception in 52 Portland Place,the Churchill Society of the UK commemoratedthe union with a dinneron the same spot—now the offices ofDavis Coffer Lyons Leisure.This significant London addresswas where Winston Churchill andClementine Hozier were re-introducedat a dinner party inMarch 1908. Four yearspreviously they had metfor the first time. Then,Winston had just staredtransfixed at the beautifulClemmie,; flustered,she had signalled a beauto rescue her from thisuncomfortably disconcertingyoung Memberof Parliament.In 1908 Winstondidn’t miss his chance,and engaged Clementinein conversation. Greatlytaken with each other,they began keeping company.Winston proposed(Clementine thought hewould never get aroundto it) at the Temple ofDiana at Blenheim inthe summer, and theywere married inSeptember. On the 12th,Clementine Hozier left52 Portland Place (homeof her great-aunt bymarriage) for the churchand and the couplereturned there for the wedding reception.On the 97th anniversary of thewedding, ICS(UK) member DavidCoffer, owner of the premises, munificentlyhosted an “Edwardian Dinner” inInternational Churchill Societyof the United KingdomWedding of the Year 1908NEWLY ENGAGED: Winston S. Churchill, MP with hisfiancée, Miss Clementine Hozier, shortly after theirengagement in August 1908.order to boost the profile of ICS UK’seducational project, with a view toattracting major donations.Family members attendingincluded Lady Soames, the Hon.Nicholas & Serena Soames, Randolph S.Churchill, Duncan Sandys and TheDuke of Marlborough. Prominent politicalfigures included Michael Howard(Leader of the Opposition) and LordBaker of Dorking (as Kenneth Baker, aformer Home Secretary). Also present ashonorary member Robert Hardy, theactor who has so flawlessly playedChurchill on so many occasions; andhistorian and ICS member AndrewRoberts.NicholasSoames MPintroducedConservativeParty leaderMichaelHoward, who used thewords of Roy Jenkins to paytribute to “the greatesthuman being ever to occupy10 Downing Street.” In anevening so flush with Toryaristocracy, the Radio Timescouldn’t resist noting, it wasa little teasing of AndrewRoberts, “to point out in hisspeech—albeit obliquely—that the at the time of hiswedding Churchill was aLiberal.”ANNUALGENERAL MEETINGRecent Annual GeneralMeetings have been held at avariety of Churchill sites, viz.,the Cabinet War Rooms,Harrow, Blenheim, Chartwell,Bletchley Park and theChurchill Archives Centre atChurchill College,Cambridge. The 2006 AGMwill, for the first time, takeplace at The Royal MilitaryAcademy Sandhurst onSaturday 29th April.It was at the RoyalMilitary College (as Sandhurst was calleduntil 1939) that young Winston wastrained as a Gentleman Cadet in 1893-94, prior to his commissioning in 4thQueen's Own Hussars. Details will becirculated later to UK members. ,FINEST HOUR 129 / 10

POEMS CHURCHILL LOVED“The Last Leap”By Adam Lindsay Gordon1959: “...a time of sombre reflection. OnApril 19, at dinner alone with Jock Colville,Churchill recited two stanzas which Colvillewrote down ‘because.’ he later recalled, ‘Ithought he was applying the words to himself.’‘Winston was in a dreamy, contemplativemood,’ Colville later wrote. ‘I had neverheard him quote those poems before—whichinterested me as I know all his usual poeticquotations very well.’” —Sir Martin GilbertAll is over! fleet career,Dash of greyhound slipping thongs,Flight of falcon, bound of deer,Mad hoof-thunder in our rear,Cold air rushing up our lungs,Din of many tongues.Once again, one struggle good,One vain effort;—he must dwellNear the shifted post, that stoodWhere the splinters of the wood,Lying in the torn tracks, tellHow he struck and fell.Crest where cold drops beaded cling,Small ear drooping, nostril full,Glazing to a scarlet ring,Flanks and haunches quivering,Sinews stiffening, void and null,Dumb eyes sorrowful.Satin coat that seems to shineDuller now, black braided tressThat a softer hand than mineFar away was wont to twine,That in meadows far from thisSofter lips might kiss.All is over! this is death,And I stand to watch thee die,Brave old horse! with bated breathHardly drawn through tight-clenched teeth,Lip indented deep, but eyeOnly dull and dry.Musing on the husk and chaffGathered where life’s tares are sown,Thus I speak, and force a laugh,That is half a sneer and halfAn involuntary groan,In a stifled tone—‘Rest, old friend! thy day, though rifeWith its toil, hath ended soon;We have had our share of strife,Tumblers in the masque of life,In the pantomime of noonClown and pantaloon.‘With a flash that ends thy pain,Respite and oblivion blestCome to greet thee. I in vainFall: I rise to fall again:Thou hast fallen to thy rest—And thy fall is best!’ ,AROUND & ABOUTChurchill Centre member Jack Mens ofFrederick, Maryland, informs us that Cozy CapTavern, now Cozy’s Restaurant, a tourist stop, beergarden and dance hall near Thurmont, Maryland, was twicevisited by Winston Churchill. Wilbur Freeze, then proprietor of the tavern,said the Prime Minister twice played the jukebox there on his visitsto the late President Roosevelt’s “Shangri-la” (now Camp David) in theCatoctin Mountains. Mr. Freeze said that each time, Churchill came in ona Sunday afternoon, stood around for about fifteen minutes after dinner,and dropped nickels into the nickelodeon. Meanwhile, the President andHarry Hopkins waited patiently in the automobile outside. There was apopular rumor in and around Thurmont that an aide at least once tactfullytold WSC that Roosevelt was waiting, although “the Prime Ministernever kept him over long.”Mr. Mens’ own town of Frederick, immortalized in Whitter’sfamous poem “Barbara Frietchie,” also has its Churchill story. Here asthe Presidential party passed through, FDR recited the poem’s bestknownlines. Then from beside him came Churchill’s deep, expresivevoice, reciting the entire poem, verses which stirred every heart:“Up from the meadows rich with corn / Clear in the coolSeptember morn / The clustered spires of Frederick stand / Greenwalledby the hills of Maryland....Up the street came the rebel tread /Stonewall Jackson riding ahead / Under his slouched hat left and right /He glanced; the old flag met his sight / ‘Halt!’—the dust-brown ranksstood fast / ‘Fire!’—out blazed the rifle blast....‘Shoot if you must this oldgray head’ / ‘But spare your country’s flag,’ she said...”We can find one reference to a Churchill visit to Shangri-la. If hevisited Cozy Cap Tavern on two Sundays, one was 16 May 1943, duringthe “Trident” conference (the party left Washington on Saturday andreturned Monday). We would be grateful to know if and when Churchillmade another visit. The full text of “Barbara Freitchie” is in FH 72.k k kBeginning 1950, reports of unidentified flying objects (UFOs) proliferatedin Britain. Even Lord Louis Mountbatten stated his belief thatthe Earth was being visited by aliens. Churchill demanded to know thetruth about flying saucers, historians Andy Roberts and David Clarkerevealed while researching a book on UFOs and the Cold War. “Whatdoes all this stuff about flying saucers amount to?” Churchill minuted hisadvisers in 1952. “What can it mean? What is the truth?”Churchill was shown a report by Sir Henry Tizard, one of hismost trusted scientific advisers during World War II and a key figurebehind the development of radar. Tizard saw no threat from UFOs. Allsightings, he reported, were explainable by natural events such as theweather or meteors, or were normal aircraft. But Britain followed theAmerican lead in underplaying the sightings, and a few months later anorder went out expressly banning all RAF personnel from discussingUFO reports with anyone not in the military.Roberts and Clarke believe that the UFO sightings were theproduct of “mass hysteria,” an urban myth strong enough to penetratethe highest echelons. ,FINEST HOUR 129 / 11

R I D D L E S , M Y S T E R I E S , E N I G M A SChurchill’s UniformsQ: I am writing an article about Winston Churchill andrequire confirmation of the uniforms in which heappears during WW2 and after. He appears to have adopteduniforms to circumstances. The best I found is: First Lord ofAdmiralty when he was on a warship; RAF Air Commodore inFrance in 1944; Colonel of 4th Queen’s Own Hussars inBerlin in 1945 and France in 1947. Am I right?—Jean-Louis Swiners, Editor in ChiefL’Encyclopédie du Leadership et de la StratégieSenior editor Paul Courtenay, ourhouse expert on militaria, responds...His nautical dress was that ofA: the Royal Yacht Squadron, ofwhich he was a member; there was nospecial uniform for the First Lord ofthe Admiralty.His Royal Air Force uniform wasthat of Honorary Air Commodore of615 (County of Surrey) FighterSquadron, Royal Auxiliary Air Force;he was given this honorary appointmentin 1939.He wore two different Army uniforms.One was that of Colonel, 4thQueen’s Own Hussars; this was hisoriginal regiment in which he wascommissioned from 1895 till 1899(being appointed Colonel of theRegiment in 1941). The other Armyuniform was that of HonoraryColonel, 4th/5th (Cinque Ports)Battalion, The Royal Sussex Regiment.He received this honorary appointmentin 1941, soon after becomingLord Warden of the Cinque Ports.You can tell the differencebetween the two Army uniforms bytheir cap-badges and collar badges.The 4th Hussars’ cap-badges are goldcolouredand show a circular designsurrounding the number IV, with acrown above. He wore this uniform inEgypt and Italy, also in Paris in 1947when he was presented with theMédaille Militaire.The cap-badge of 4th/5th RoyalSussex was larger: a silver cross with aplume behind; collar badges were similar,but in black metal. This uniformwas worn prominently at Yalta, theRhine Crossing, Berlin, Potsdam, andbriefly in Italy.If the Army cap-badge is not visible,look at the collar badges. Those of4th Hussars are shiny; those of 4th/5thFINEST HOUR 129 / 12Send your questionsto the editorRoyal Sussex aredull.Many peoplethink that his nauticaluniform was that ofan Elder Brother ofTrinity House, but I have seen no photosof him wearing this in World WarII. For examples of this uniform, whichhe wore at Antwerp in 1914, seeGilbert, Winston S. Churchill, vol. 3,The Challenge of War 1914-1916, plates10 and 11.He always wore his Royal YachtSquadron dress when on board ship.He certainly wore 4th Hussars uniformwhen he was in the area where the regi-CHURCHILL IN UNIFORM. Above, L-R: Royal Yacht Squadron (with Beaverbrook, 1940); RoyalAuxiliary Air Force (Teheran, 1943), 4th Queen’s Own Hussars (Cairo, 1943). Below, L-R: 4th/5th(Cinque Ports Battalion, The Royal Sussex Regiment (Berlin, 1945); Elder Brother of TrinityHouse (Antwerp, 1914); Wearing the Trinity House cap (yacht Christina, 1959).

ment was located (Middle East). Thereappears to be no good reason why hepreferred the 4th/5th Royal Sussexuniform, especially in 1945, since thisbattalion was not in the places he visitedat that time. Perhaps he wore theRAF uniform when travelling by air,and certainly when visiting RAF units;also when he thought the populationmight appreciate the work of the RAF,e.g., Athens or Paris. He also wore it inTeheran (for no very good reason thatI can see). As a whole, although somethought must have gone into hischoice of uniform. I don’t think it wasalways precise. —PHCUpon meeting with Adenauer inQ: 1953, Winston Churchill drewthree circles on the back of a menu, symbolizingthe United States, Europe andGreat Britain. I am wondering if thisdrawing still exists, and/or whether thereis a picture of it available?—Gunda Windmüller, DenmarkThere certainly is some KonradA: Adenauer correspondence, butthis does not appear to be the menu inquestion, though you are most welcometo visit with us and check. I supposeit will all depend on whether themenu was kept by Churchill orAdenauer. However, the idea of thethree overlapping circles representingthe British Empire, America andEurope, with Britain at the Centre ofall three, is an older Churchilliandevice. The earliest reference I haveseen comes from an article written byChurchill in 1930 entitled “TheUnited States of Europe.” I enclose abrief passage from an essay I have writtenwhich touches on this:“...the key to understanding thisarticle is an understanding of whereChurchill saw Britain. This is what hesays: ‘But we have our own dream andour own task. We are with Europe, butnot of it. We are linked, but not comprised.We are interested and associatedbut not absorbed.’“To Churchill Britain at that timewas not just a European power. Shewas a global power. Her Empire gaveher a presence in every continent. Sheshould be prepared to act as a guarantorof Europe and to encourage andperhaps participate in schemes thatbrought Europeans closer together, butshe also had the interests of herdominions to consider. And then therewas the question of the United States.Churchill felt, perhaps because of hisbackground more than most, that theshared language and culture gaveBritain a unique position as the bridgebetween the old and new worlds. Toquote the conclusion of his article:‘Great Britain may claim, with equaljustification, to play three roles simultaneously,that of an European nation,that of the focus of the British Empire,and that of a partner in the Englishspeaking world. These are not threealternative parts, but a triple part...’”—ALLEN PACKWOOD, DIRECTOR,CHURCHILL ARCHIVES CENTRECan you please attribute a remarkQ: in which Churchill builds on thewords of a French memoirist he admired,in regard to American soldiers arrivingin France during World War I. Churchillallegedly said, “The impression madeupon the hard-pressed French by thisseemingly inexhaustible flood of gleamingyouth in its first maturity of health andvigour was prodigious....”—Salena Hastings,Pearson Prentice Hall, BostonThis is from Churchill’s WorldA: War I memoirs, The WorldCrisis, vol. III, part 2 (London/NewYork: Thornton Butterworth/Scribners1927, Chapter XIX (“The Surprise ofthe Chemin des Dames”), page 454 ofthe English edition, which reads:“Pierrefeu has described in a movingpassage the next event. Now suddenlythe roads between Provins andthe front towards Meaux and towardsCoulommiers began to be filled withendless streams of Americans. Theimpression made upon the hardpressedFrench by this seemingly inexhaustibleflood of gleaming youth inits first maturity of health and vigourwas prodigious. None were undertwenty, and few were over thirty. Ascrammed in their lorries they clatteredalong the roads, singing the songs of anew world at the tops of their voices,burning to reach the bloody field, theFrench Headquarters were thrilledwith the impulse of new life. ‘All felt,’he says, ‘that they were present at themagical operation of the transfusion ofblood. Life arrived in floods to reanimatethe mangled body of a Francebled white by the innumerable woundsof four years.’ Indeed the reflectionconformed with singular exactness tothe fact. Half trained, half organized,with only their courage, their numbersand their magnificent youth behindtheir weapons, they were to buy theirexperience at a bitter price. But thisthey were quite ready to do.”Jean de Pierrefeu was an officer onPétain’s staff whose books on WW1attracted Churchill’s interest when hewas writing his own memoirs. Moreabout Pierrefeau and the U.S. effort inFrance is at this website: www.randomhouse.com/features/americancentury/goodtimes.html. —RML ,CONFERENCECALENDARContact the Centre on all events:(888) WSC-1874, info@winstonchurchill.org2006Chicago, 27 September-1 October:23rd Intl. Churchill Conference2007Vancouver, B.C., September 12-15th:24th Intl. Churchill ConferenceFuture Conferences2008: New England2009: Great Britain2010: San Francisco2011: Ottawa2012: Europe2013: AledoFINEST HOUR 129 / 13

Wartime Questions toPostwar Answers:Riddles of WarBY CHRISTOPHER C. HARMONTHE WINSTONIAN IDEAL: Churchill did not believe that war could be used freely as rawpower might permit. Justice concerned him...he did not confuse justice with winning.While he had a true sense for when the war would end, he went on to say that force wouldbe required to preserve peace after the victory. Because he held such power in Britain,and in the Grand Alliance, his insight was a great asset for the coalition at war and thepeace to come. Had he been badly wrong, it would have had equal but negative impact.The 60th anniversaries of World War II’s finalyear have been flowing past us. We commemoratedthe liberation of Paris, the Battleof the Bulge, the crossing of the Rhine, theliberation of Berlin, and Victory in Europe Day on May8th. As these milestones passed, we have been engrossedin Iraq. Combat operations carried the country and thecapital more quickly than expected, yet the aftermath’sagonies seemed endless. Triumph and tragedy in Iraqsparked criticism of the alliance effort, but also muchsober thinking about war termination.Winston Churchill knew an immense amountabout that arcane subject, war termination. The study ofhis policies and strategies of 1943-45 shows that he andhis coalition government continuously planned for war’send, and planned well. Moreover, published and unpublishedrecords—hardly ever mined on this narrow matter—provethat Churchill had a remarkable sense forwhen the war in Europe would end. That was important,given his concurrent positions of Minister ofDefence and Prime Minister.Professor Harmon is a Churchill Centre academic adviserwho for four years offered a course based on Churchill’s memoirs,The Second World War, at the Marines’ Command & StaffCollege, Quantico, Virginia. The author thanks CharlesRobert Harmon, Professor Emeritus of History at SeattleUniversity, for reviewing his draft manuscript.Churchill’s ViewsSixty-five years of age and experienced at war,Winston Churchill already possessed views on war terminationby 1939. There can be peace, but no peace toocomfortable; one must keep dry powder close at hand;war recurs in human affairs.But that military part of the human story is atragedy, as he wrote to his wife Clementine in 1909,while in Germany observing maneuvers: “Much as warattracts me and fascinates my mind with its tremendoussituations - I feel more deeply every year...what vile andwicked folly and barbarism it all is.” For Churchill,statesmen in peacetime have much to do with amelioratinghatreds and nipping conflicts in the bud.Once engaged in war, however, Churchill oftensounded like Clausewitz, calling for the maximum use offorce. He could be ruthless. He used, advocated, or atleast considered fearsome weapons: gas, area bombing,the atomic bomb. When he believed a war was just, hisstrategy was to break the enemy will and produce completeand decisive victory.Yet Churchill did not believe that war could beused freely as a state policy tool, as raw power might permit.Justice concerned him deeply, and he did not confusejustice with winning. His views on peacemakingwere not predictable, but complex. He was esteemed bythe Irish Republican Army’s Michael Collins, who saidthat without Churchill as a Minister after World War IFINEST HOUR 128 / 14

victory, magnanimity. In peace, good will.And Churchill was an advocate of collective security.He had supported the League of Nations between thewars and the United Nations afterward. Many otherregional security alliances also won his endorsement.POTSDAM, 16 JULY 1945: Winston Churchill meets the newPresident of the United States, Harry S. Truman, for the firsttime. WSC’s daughter Mary (upper right) wrote that her father “issure he can work with him...I nearly wept with joy and thankfulness,it seemed like divine providence. Perhaps it is FDR’slegacy. I can see Papa is relieved and confident.” Churchill saidof Truman: “He takes no notice of delicate ground, he justplants his foot down firmly upon it.” To demonstrate this,Churchill gave a little jump, bringing his bare feet down with asmack. Truman wrote of WSC: “He gave me a lot of hooey abouthow great my country is and how he loved Roosevelt and howhe intended to love me etc. etc....I am sure we can get along ifhe doesn’t try to give me too much soft soap.”there would not have been the Irish-English treaty creatingHome Rule for southern Ireland.Justice has a counterpart: magnanimity.Churchill admired a Roman adage: “War down thestrong; bear up the weak.” He advocated harsh waragainst Imperial Germany in 1914, but after victory heopposed popular demands to “squeeze Germany untilthe pips squeaked.” Generosity towards the weak ordefeated helps distinguish man from the animals; itmight create peace and prevent wars. The theme of hissix volumes of World War II memoirs was actuallydrawn from a motto he had proposed to the French afterWorld War I: “In war, resolution. In defeat, defiance. InChurchill’s “End State” for WW2What does Churchill see, peering through thesmoke of war towards the future? We may discern ninepillars of his postwar architecture: (1) The character ofthis war is a fight against unmitigated evil; it justifiesand even demands total war by the Allies. (2) Theremust be complete surrender of the Axis powers. (3) Thedefeated will be punished and disarmed, while the victorsremain armed. (4) The victorious powers seek nonew territories. (5) Postwar relations between states willbe guided by a spirit of equality and non-aggression. (6)Occupied Europe will be reborn in democratic forms,including constitutional monarchies, parliaments, congresses,or other legitimate representative institutions.There is no room for totalitarianism. (7) Europe mustreunite; France and Germany must be friends—evenmilitary partners. (8) Britain would retain a leadingpostwar role with Commonwealth and Empire, and aspecial relationship with the Americans. (9) There wouldbe a new world body, a security system, with the idealismof the League of Nations but without its faults. Itwould not destroy state sovereignty, but it would keepthe peace between sovereign states. The three key memberswould be the UK, USSR and USA.1942As early as 1942 came public Allied statementsordaining punishment of Axis war criminals. Initial concernwas on breaches of international agreements againstaggression. Soon enough, officials added related subjects:mass murder of prisoners of war and genocide. Citizensstill ask, of the Holocaust, “Did the Allies know?”Governing circles did. Churchill’s early denunciationsof persecution of the Jews include a November1935 article in a popular magazine (The Strand); Hitlerread this in translation and literally threw a fit. DuringWorld War II, state terrorism of the Jews was periodicallyreported in world newspapers, and officials werebriefed by escapees and others. Some systematic murdersbehind the Werhmacht’s eastward advance were chronicledby Germans themselves and transmitted to the rearin Enigma cipher; Bletchley Park read certain documentsalmost as quickly as Hitler.Nine of the Allies published their collectiveopposition in January 1942. That October Churchill >>FINEST HOUR 129 / 15

followed with a letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury,calling these “systematic cruelties…amongst the mostterrible events of history.” He looked towards war’s successfulend, the “enthronement of human rights,” andthe end of “racial persecution.” One year later, inOctober 1943, foreign ministers met and published overthe signatures of Stalin, Roosevelt, and Churchill a declarationwith such a Biblical ring that historian John W.Wheeler-Bennett later judged it obviously authored byWSC. It warned those who had not yet soaked “theirhands with innocent blood” to “beware lest they join theranks of the guilty, for most assuredly the three alliedpowers will pursue them to the uttermost ends of theearth and will deliver them to their accusers in order thatjustice may be done.”When the Big Three met in Teheran a monthlater, there ensued a famous conversation about what todo with the German war criminals, retold in Churchill’sClosing the Ring. Stalin suggested executing 50,000 ofthe German officer corps. Roosevelt, enigmatically,replied that merely 49,000 would do. Churchill walkedout. His steady position in the war years was that theworst fifty to 100 individuals should face justice swiftly,and then the world should move forward. Other leaderswere less decisive: meetings at Tehran and Yalta renewedconviction about the need for punishment without settlingthe number or types of war crime trials, how andwhere to conduct them, etc. These matters would roilthrough 8 May 1945.1943When President Roosevelt pronounced thewords “unconditional surrender” in public, it causedconsternation. Adding to the confusion later wasChurchill, whose recollections about it proved mixed. SirMartin Gilbert has written that both principals came toCasablanca in Morocco with at least one briefing paperon which appeared the words “unconditional surrender.”Certainly Roosevelt is the man who publicly called itpolicy. Its great advantage was that it assuredWashington that even after Germany lost, Britain wouldstay in the war against Japan. For similar reasons it was aguarantee to Moscow, an absolutely key ally.Churchill liked the phrase. But, beginning agood argument over grand strategy, he wanted to excludeItaly and thus unwind the Axis. Churchill’s request wasto require “unconditional surrender” only from Germanyand Japan. FDR disagreed, and in London so did theBritish War Cabinet. Italy was included. Italian negotiations,while messy, yielded a complete surrender, growingconfidence in the new Italian government, and a specialstatus of “co-belligerent” that recognized the role ofItalians in driving out the Germans. Italy was also givento expect early entry into the post-war ”WorldOrganization,” although Soviet opposition would delaythat reward for a decade.The worry over Germany was of another kind.The Allies recognized the argument that a public policyof “unconditional surrender” might make Berlin fightharder. Prime Minister Churchill’s mild reply was thatthere was no evidence for it. More pithily, he wrote toHarry Hopkins in 1945 that it was “false” to say thedemand for ‘Unconditional Surrender’ prolonged thewar: “Negotiation with Hitler was impossible. He was amaniac with supreme power to play his hand out to theend, which he did….”War termination issues of 1943 also includesomething usually ignored in our historybooks: the May 22nd conference inWashington D.C., at the British Embassy.Vice President Henry Wallace, Secretary of War HenryStimson, and Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairmanTom Connally were all present. Churchill elaboratedhis postwar goals. He wanted a “Supreme WorldCouncil,” guided by three principal powers—the UK,the US, and the USSR—which he invariably called“Russia.” For the moment, he did not push French candidacy.He did mention China, explicitly recognizing theUS insistence upon China’s status in the post war.Churchill’s papers show that he did not believe thatChina would be of comparable great power stature afterthe war. His staff agreed. So in the embassy he mentionedthe country as a favor to the US, probably. WhenVice President Wallace replied that all the other states ofthe world might oppose a Council being run by onlyfour states, Churchill agreed and answered that thereshould be a rotation on the supreme council, bringing inother powers (for set terms). How familiar all thissounds after 1945.Churchill foresaw that Europe should form itsown “United States” (see page 42. —Ed.) He admiredBohemian Count Coudenhove-Kalergi’s ideas on aUnited States of Europe and would, after the war, speakvigorously on the subject; and entitle a book of speechesEurope Unite. It is sad that the Maastricht era of theearly 1990s paid little heed to Churchill’s direct contributionsto the early movement to unify the continent.He went on in this May 1943 conference to saythat force would be required to preserve the peace afterwar. He suggested something stunning for a Tory: “aninternational police force,” made up by contingents frommember states. This was no slip of the tongue; he wouldFINEST HOUR 129 / 16

estate the idea forcefully in March 1946 in the “Sinewsof Peace” speech at Fulton, Missouri.As the luncheon closed, the PM spoke of thecentral pier in Britain’s postwar security architecture: therelationship with the United States. In Churchill’s wordsthat day, “Proposals for a world security organization didnot exclude special friendships devoid of sinister purposeagainst others,” including a “fraternal association” of theAmericans and the British. There might even be commoncitizenship, or a common passport. The militarymight continue the wartime bilateral “Combined Staff”arrangement. Having displayed such surprises, he thensaid, of course, “he was expressing only personal views.”His American interlocutors were pleased,including Undersecretary of State Sumner Welles, a formerappeaser whose contempt for Churchill had beenundisguised as late as 1940. Welles now let slip that itwas important to get all this written down before thewar ended: “After the war relaxation would set in, and atendency towards isolationism.” Roosevelt himself wouldmake a similar remark, surely frightening Churchillabout the defense of Europe against Soviet encroachments.This may be why, in October 1944 in Moscow,Churchill cut the “percentages agreement” so suggestiveof the spheres of influence he knew Roosevelt opposed.And yet this disagreement about a longtermWestern troop presence in Europe helped shape an alliedconviction: both Roosevelt and Churchill agreed that thesystem of world security must be agreed upon beforewar’s end. Ten weeks after D-Day in France, confereesgathered in northern Washington, D.C., at DumbartonOaks, to lay down parameters of what would becomethe United Nations. Its charter would be crafted in SanFrancisco by delegates from over four dozen countries.All that occurred before victory over Japan.1943-44What of the fate of Germany? The War Cabinethad a “Post Hostilities Planning Committee” meetingmany months before D-Day. International wartimeconferences addressed the problem. Much was done atthe level of the European Advisory Committee, createdin 1943, staffed by foreign ministers, and meeting inLancaster House, London. Through the next year, theseofficials worked out the details of how Germany wouldbe occupied. Three zones were planned; one would laterbe shifted for strategic reasons; a fourth zone would beadded for France, increasingly influential, and the beneficiaryof WSC’s lobbying. The results were largely practical.More intriguing is what was not done withGermany. Many statesmen of the early 1940s wished todivide or demilitarize Germany to avoid a third worldwar in the 20th century. Churchill often favored detachingPrussia. Other Allied leaders and foreign affairs specialistshad different ideas. And almost all leaderschanged their minds.The stiffest plan for impairing Germany in thelong term was typed out, double-spaced, on one and ahalf small sheets of paper. Prepared by American HenryMorgenthau, Secretary of the Treasury, it actually wasinitialed by FDR and Churchill on 15 September 1944.It read in part: “This programme for eliminating thewar-making industries on the Ruhr and in the Saar islooking forward to converting Germany into a countryprimarily agricultural and pastoral in its character.”Churchill quickly reconsidered, and withdrew his support.The document died.1944Winning was causing its own problems. Chiefamong these, for Churchill personally, was the fate ofPoland. That country had seen little but tragedy since1939. By mid-1944, Auschwitz alone was swallowing12,000 lives a day, and Churchill knew about it. Poland’sfate was no mere postwar question; it was a vivid weeklyproblem during 1944 and 1945.The Prime Minister and government worked,agonized, and nearly despaired. Poland’s case vividlyshowed how statesmen live in tension between theirvisions and what is actually possible. On paper, the ideaof an independent and democratic Poland was agreedupon—even by Stalin. But off the paper’s edge, andaround the table, and all over the room, Polish affairswere a shambles.There were two exile parties, each hoping toform the Polish government. There were two nascentconventional armies, growing up under Western andRed Army wings. There were conflicting guarantees bythe Poles’ friends. Many charge Roosevelt with doubledealing,but Churchill also disappointed the Poles byagreeing early to an amazing Soviet request—to physicallyshift the state westward, to notable Soviet advantageand German disadvantage.Churchill acceded for three reasons. He couldnot afford to lose Soviet help, in that early-war period.Second, he knew that rejecting Moscow’s gambit, incombination with ongoing Axis success in the East,could let Russia make a separate peace, as in 1917.Third, Stalin had a political ace to play. After the GreatWar, and the subsequent Soviet-Polish war, Lord Curzonhad recommended settlement of the Polish-Soviet borderalong an ethnic and cultural line. This Curzon Line laywell west of the actual border between the two countriesbefore 1939. All Stalin had to do, in World War II, >>FINEST HOUR 129 / 17

POLAND, 1921-1945: By agreement of the Allies the postwarborders of Poland shifted west, taking parts of Pomerania andBrandenburg and giving up parts of Grodno, Volhynia andVilnius (the last later became part of Lithuania), west of theCurzon Line (between the white and grey areas).was revive the idea. How could British diplomats callunreasonable what they had recommended?Hard-line Poles in London, their countrymens’eyes upon them, refused to accept new boundaries, andso drove Churchill to distraction. Their meetings becameoverheated. But Churchill and Stalin were as stubborn asthese Poles, and held more power, in the end Poland wasshifted westward. The Soviets’ war termination planningof 1944 hurt Poland in two other ways. Both destroyedpotential leaders of a postwar political renaissance. InAugust 1944, the Red Army was within reach ofWarsaw, and broadcast a message to the residents to riseup. Only too ready to do so, they were shot to pieces byGerman forces—15,000 in the underground army died,as did tens of thousands of other Poles. The secondtragedy concerned only 16 people—but they wereLondon-based leaders of a future Polish democracy.Moscow invited them eastward to confer with otherPolish exiles the Communists were readying for thetakeover. They went, were kidnapped, and neverreturned. Churchill’s moral indignation at this is impossibleto overstate. (See “Apologize for What?,” FH125:7.) By Spring 1945 he had only declining hopes forcentral and Eastern Europe in the postwar world.1945The last year of the war opened with disappointments,including Germany’s new “vengeance”weapons. The Yalta conference proved yet another.Although the Soviets did pledge to declare war againstJapan almost as soon as Germany surrendered, much elsewent poorly at Yalta. President Roosevelt’s physical weaknesswas as apparent as Marshal Stalin’s confidence andthe Red Army gains signified on staff maps.There was no resolution of questions over theamount of reparations to be demanded by the USSR.The Soviets declined to promise to vacate northern Iran,and this would lead to the first post-1945 crisis—resolved largely by the strength of President Truman.The two sides at Yalta exchanged promises on POWreleases, and on this the Soviets generally delivered, butlater the NKVD executed ten thousand souls returnedby the West from German prison camps. In militarystrategy, Churchill made a last pitch for his famous, divisiveproposal to land in the northern Adriatic Sea, anddrive north, bringing Western troops from the Adriaticup to Vienna. His concept was again rejected, andVienna would spend ten years in Soviet hands until anAustrian State Treaty of peace was signed.Churchill hurried away from the Crimea andrefreshed himself in Greece. There he addressed athrilled crowd, the largest he’d ever seen, 40,000 peoplein a square in Athens. Greece was a country he had donemuch for, and his “deal” for its freedom in Moscow inOctober 1944 (part of the percentages agreement) mayhave deterred Stalin from giving more than minimal aidto Communist rebels in the post-1945 civil war. In lateryears Churchill always showed pleasure in his controversialdecisions about Greece, believing he’d helped savethe country’s future.Spring 1945 brought questions over the line ofmarch. The most vital came as a surprise, which StephenAmbrose described in Eisenhower and Berlin, 1945. Ikeannounced that instead of driving on at Berlin, hewould turn most armies southward, towards Leipzig andDresden. The British were stunned. This opened up anew strategic question. What was more important: tocrush remaining German armies, or to take their capital?General Eisenhower took the former view. He said theSoviets were better poised to take Berlin, the Germanforces had migrated southward, and reports came ofNazi plans for a last stand in an Alpine “redoubt.”The British answer was on the political value ofWestern soldiers’ boots in Berlin. But while Churchillprotested openly, Eisenhower was unmoved, andWashington left the decision largely to the general in thefield. In the end, four of the places closest to Hitler’sheart fell about the same time. The Soviets took theGerman capital. The American Seventh Army swept upMunich and Berchtesgaden in Bavaria, while the USFINEST HOUR 129 / 18

Third Army took Linz in Austria. Unconditional surrenderof the Germans came May 7th.Churchill received the news from a loyal aid,Captain Pym, who had charge of the all-important maproom. Teasing, the Prime Minister said to Pym: “For fiveyears you’ve brought me bad news, sometimes worsethan others. Now you’ve redeemed yourself.”Victory created new problems. Two of themwere closely connected: the Soviet ally was unmanageable,and the Americans’ postwar occupation duty wouldbe short—Roosevelt had said “two years.” When theSoviets had been poised to take over the capitals ofCentral and Eastern Europe, Churchill had cabled FDR:“March as far east into Germany as possible.” WhenRoosevelt had died in April 1945, his successor HarryTruman received a similar Churchillian telegram: “Shakehands [with the Russians] as far east as possible.”Summer did find US forces well to the east oflines prepared at earlier conferences for post-war occupation,but after VE Day, Eisenhower proposed to drawthem back. Churchill begged the US to see them as abargaining bit, while prodding the Soviets on concernssuch as Poland. Again Churchill lost the debate. Thelong narrow zone in Germany was vacated by the GIs,an event Churchill identified at the time as “one of themost melancholy in history.” The Western allies continuedto hold to intra-war agreements, while their Easterncomrade continued to violate many of them.Peace was formalized in five treaties, made inParis, and signed in February 1947. These covered thelesser powers: Italy, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, andFinland. Years of interest in a formal peace treaty forGermany withered away amidst the problems of thefour-power occupation and cold war rivalries, and thelast American effort died in 1951.Three ConclusionsThere can never be certainty about how long awar will run. What is certain is that planning for wartermination bears directly upon the making of policyand its supporting strategies, and is therefore vitalthroughout the course of the war. In the UK, planningfor the “end state”—as it is now called—was up andrunning, by fits and starts, in 1942, and 1943. But thatis not to pretend that the silver cup held everythingChurchill had hoped for. He had reason to title the lastof his six WW2 volumes, Triumph and Tragedy.Secondly, it must be admitted that some questionsare better postponed than fully answered before victory.FDR was known for postponing the divisive ormerely unpleasant, and sometimes Churchill took thisroute too. In 1944 he avoided a few postwar issues risingin the Commons, lest it undercut the total war effort. Aslate as January 1945 the Prime Minister slapped at hishard-working Foreign Minister, Anthony Eden, for presumingtoo much about the moods in Europe andGermany after victory: “It is a mistake to try to write outon little pieces of paper what the vast emotions of an outragedand quivering world will be either immediately afterthe struggle is over or when the inevitable cold fit followsthe hot….there is therefore wisdom in reserving one’sdecisions as long as possible and until all the facts andforces that will be potent at the moment are revealed.”If Churchill occasionally found wisdom inreserving decisions, more often than not he decided. Theneed for a wide and permanent “system of general security”after war was recognized formally as early as 1941,by the Atlantic Charter. No later than mid-1943,Churchill was in official talks on the shape of the future“World Organization.” Which postwar riddles can besolved during the fighting, and which cannot? Muchdepends upon prudence, timing, and opportunity.Third, this contest revealed Churchill as a manwith a true sense for when war would end in Europe. Ifwe look, and on this narrow matter very few historianshave—we find his predictions about the pace of the warand its end-date to be very good. In the Commons on31 October 1944, after initial cautious words aboutwhen war would end, he ventured a projection: “Let usassume, however, that the German war ends in March,April, or May…” Over and over, he proved better atestimating the end-date than high officials and militarycommanders, allied or British—including DwightEisenhower, George Marshall, John Dill, AlexanderCadogan, Alan Brooke and other British service chiefs.Deservedly famous for prewar predictions,Churchill also deserves plaudits for his estimates andplans related to war’s end. Because he held such power inBritain, and in the Grand Alliance, his insight was agreat asset for the coalition at war and the peace tocome. Had he been badly wrong, it would have hadequal but negative impact. Unfortunately, the old warhorse was not as focused on his own prospects, or thoseof his Conservative Party. The Tories were thrown out inelections during the Potsdam Conference. This was anear-total surprise to Churchill. But he declined all obviousopportunities to criticize the British electorate. Hismagnanimity, so visible in victory, could also be seenafter his party’s defeat in the balloting. Churchill acceptedthe advice he himself had offered the House ofCommons in a speech of 1944: “At the bottom of all thetributes paid to democracy, is the little man, walkinginto the little booth, with a little pencil, making a littlecross on a little bit of paper…” ,FINEST HOUR 129 / 19

E N G L I S H - S P E A K I N G P E O P L E SWartime Questions Today:The Doctrine ofPreemptionBY GEORGE F. WILLWHAT CHURCHILL KNEW: That America may be casualty averse has been a constantrecurring anxiety, as Winston Churchill could have told us—and in fact did tell us when hecame to North America immediately after Pearl Harbor. Churchill gave a speech in whichhe said, “We have not journeyed all this way across the centuries, across the oceans,across the mountains, across the prairies, because we are made of sugar candy.”No, we are not. We are much tougher than our enemies understand.What I will say tonight about the war of terrordraws heavily on my earlier life as a professorand student of political philosophy. Along life in journalism and aroundWashington, D.C., has taught me not just that ideashave consequences, but that only ideas have large andlasting consequences. We are in a war of terror beingwaged by people who take ideas with lethal seriousness,and we had better take our own ideas seriously as well.I think the beginning of understanding the waris to understand what happened on 9/11. What happenedwas that we as a people were summoned backfrom a holiday from history that we had understandablytaken at the end of the Cold War. History is served upto the American people with uncanny arithmetic precision.Almost exactly sixty years passed from the October1929 collapse of the stock market to the November1989 crumbling of the Berlin Wall—sixty years ofdepression, hot war, and cold war, at the end of whichthe American people said: “Enough, we are not interestedin war anymore.”The trouble is, as Trotsky once said, “You maynot be interested in war, but war is interested in you.”And this was a war with a new kind of enemy—suicidal,and hence impossible to deter, melding modern sciencewith a kind of religious primitivism. Furthermore, ourenemy today has no return address in the way that previousadversaries, be it Nazi Germany or Stalin’s Russia,had return addresses. When attacks emanated fromGermany or Russia, we could respond militarily or wecould put in place a structure of deterrence and containment.Not true with this new lot.Preemption: Necessary but ProblematicIn 1946, Congress held what are today remembered,by the few who remember such things, as the“Screwdriver Hearings.” They summoned J. RobertOppenheimer, head of the Manhattan Project, and askedhim if it would be possible to smuggle an atomic deviceinto New York City and detonate it. Oppenheimerreplied that of course it would be possible. Congress“English-Speaking Peoples” is an opinion series on current questions before what some call the“Anglosphere”—the great democracies Churchill loved—not suggesting what Winston Churchill wouldmake of modern issues, but cast in the light of the his experience. Contrasting views are welcome and willbe published. Mr. Will is a Churchill Centre member and a nationally syndicated journalist. This article isexcerpted from his speech at Hillsdale College, Michigan on 23 May 2005. Reprinted by permission fromImprimis, the national speech digest of Hillsdale College, with thanks also to President Larry Arnn. For thefull text visit http://www.hillsdale.edu/imprimis/2005/September/ or email the editor.FINEST HOUR 129 / 20

asked how it would be possible to detect such a device.Oppenheimer answered: “With a screwdriver.” What hemeant was that every container that came into the cityof New York would have to be opened and inspected.This year, seven million seaborne shipping containerswill pass through our ports. About five percentwill be given cursory examination. How hard would itbe, then, to smuggle in a football-sized lump of highlyenriched uranium sufficient to make a ten-kilotonnuclear weapon to make Manhattan uninhabitable for ahundred years? The moral of this story is: you cannotfight terrorism at the ports of Long Beach or Newark.You have to go get it. You have to disrupt terrorism at itssources. This is a gray area. It’s a shadow war. But it isnot a war that we have any choice but to fight.This leads us directly to the doctrine of preemption,with which there are several problems. First, we donot yet have—as it has been made painfully clear—theintelligence capacity that a doctrine of preemption reallyrequires. The second problem with preemption is encapsulatedin Colin Powell’s famous “Pottery Barn principle,”which Mr. Powell explained to the President beforethe second war with Iraq began: If you break it, you ownit. Iraq is broken; we own it for the moment. And we aretherefore engaged in nation building.The phrase “nation building” sounds to manyconservatives much the way the phrase “orchid building”would sound. An orchid is a complex, wonderful, beautiful,natural thing, but it is not something that can bebuilt. We all know it took thirty years in this country torebuild the south Bronx. And now we have taken on anation to build.There are those who say that neoconservatives—and most of my friends are neoconservatives, although Iam not quite—have exported the impulse for socialengineering that conservatives have so rightly criticizedover the years at home. There is, of course, an elementin this critique of President Bush's policies that echoes inpart the contemporary liberal version of isolationism.The old isolationism of the 1920s and 1930s was a conservativeisolationism, and it held that America shouldnot go abroad into the world because America is toogood for the world. The contemporary liberal brand ofisolationism—the Michael Moore view of the world—isthat America should not be deeply involved in the worldbecause the world is too good for America. This is not aserious argument, even though seriously held.President Bush has said, in a phrase he got fromRonald Reagan, that it is cultural condescension to saythat some people are not ready for democracy. TonyBlair, in July 2003, after the fall of Baghdad, camebefore a joint session of Congress and gave a wonderful,generous, good ally speech, in which he said that it is a“myth” that our values are simply “Western values,” orsimply a product of our culture. Our principles, he said,are “universal,” embraced by all “ordinary people.” Theproblem is that this belief—that every person is at hearta Jeffersonian Democrat, that all the masses of the worldare ready for democracy—might lead you not to planvery carefully for postwar nation building. If this is true,then nation building should be a snap, because everyoneis ready for democracy.Realists know better. They know there was along, 572-year uphill march from Runnymede to thePhiladelphia Convention of 1787. Even more sobering,our Constitutional Convention was followed in less thanseventy-five years by the bloodiest Civil War the worldhad ever seen, to settle some leftover constitutional questions.We know from our history how difficult regimechange is.The Miracle of AmericaOne of the mistakes our enemies have made—and one of the reasons I wish our enemies would studyAmerican history to disabuse themselves of some of theirgrotesque errors—is their belief that we are squeamishabout defending freedom and about the violence of war.They persist in the assumption that we are casualtyaverse. People have been making that mistake sinceGeneral Howe made it in the Battle of Brooklyn Heightsin the Revolutionary War. He chased us across the EastRiver and figured that was that. It was said again afterthe Battle of Shiloh in April, 1862—up to that day thebloodiest day in American history. Many observersthought the North would sue for accommodation and,in the words of Horace Greeley, let our erring sisters goin peace. It did not turn out that way.The First World War produced the worst carnagethe world had ever seen, but not once during thewar did a picture of a dead British or dead French ordead German or dead American soldier appear in anewspaper of any of those countries. In the SecondWorld War, the first picture of an American soldier deadin the surf in the Pacific did not appear in Life magazineuntil it had been held up in the War Department (as thePentagon was then known) for nine months. The war inVietnam produced more anxiety about graphic journalism,where it was suggested that in fact it was televisionthat caused the American will to break. In fact, theAmerican will never broke—but that is another matter.This has been a constant recurring anxiety inAmerica, as Winston Churchill could have told us—andin fact did tell us when he came to North America immediatelyafter Pearl Harbor. Churchill gave a speech in >>FINEST HOUR 129 / 21

which he said, “We have not journeyed all this way acrossthe centuries, across the oceans, across the mountains,across the prairies, because we are made of sugar candy.”No, we are not. We are much tougher than our enemiesunderstand.Character and the Power of IdeasOne hundred years ago, people believed notonly that war was inevitable, but that war was good forus. Without it, they thought, we would have to look forstrenuous domestic challenges that would be the moralequivalent of war—something elevating that would pullus out of ourselves and into great collective endeavors aswar does. Tocqueville said, “war almost always enlargesthe thought of a people and elevates its heart.”Stravinsky, the great composer, said war is “necessaryfor human progress.” All of these men echoedImmanuel Kant, who said “a prolonged peace favors thepredominance of a mere commercial spirit, and with it adebasing self-interest, cowardice, and effeminacy andtends to degrade the character of the nation.”There is much to be said for the commercialspirit, but as Tocqueville warned us, if a people is onlyconcerned with material well-being, only concerned withcommercialism, they lack something—they lack theheights of nobility and character and aspiration. But firstthings first: get people into this enveloping culture ofcapitalism. Nor is this to say that we are a materialistpeople. The American people almost never vote theirpocketbook as is commonly said, and almost never votemerely on economics. We are a much more morally seriousand complicated people than that.And throughout our history it has not matteredwhether we were arguing about abolition, immigration,prohibition or desegregation. All of the great argumentsthat have roiled American politics over the years have notbeen pocketbook issues. They have been about the soulof the country and what kind of people we would be.Well, the kind of people we are is a people whorise to the challenge of the new kind of enemy we havetoday. Our enemy has ideas. They are vicious, bad, retrograde,medieval, intolerant, and suicidal ideas, but ideasnevertheless. And we oppose them with the great ideasof freedom and democracy, which America has definedbetter than anyone in the world. And we turn to thesepeople with an energy they could not have counted on.Winston Churchill in his war memoirs recalled thewords of a British foreign secretary, Edward Grey: "TheUnited States is like a gigantic boiler. Once the fire islighted under it, there is no limit to the power it cangenerate." And these enemies improvidently lit a fireunder us.We have done this before. In September 1942,General Les McGraw of the Army Corps of Engineersbought for the government about 90,000 acres ofTennessee wilderness along the Clinch River not farfrom Knoxville. There was nothing there. But soon therewere streets and shops and schools and homes and someof the finest physics labs the world had ever seen. Andthirty-five months later, on a desert in New Mexico,there was a flash brighter than a thousand suns and theatomic age began. Thirty-five months from wilderness toAlamogordo. That is what America does when aroused,because, as I say, we are not made of sugar candy.Today we are the legatees of all the giants onwhose shoulders we stand. We live in circumstances ourparents did not live in, or our grandparents. We live in atime in which there is no rival model to the Americanmodel for how to run a modern industrial commercialsociety. Socialism is gone. Fascism is gone. Al-Qaeda hasno rival model about how to run a modern society. Al-Qaeda has a howl of rage against the idea of modernity.We began in 1945 an astonishingly clear social experiment:We divided the city of Berlin, the country ofGermany, the continent of Europe, indeed the wholeworld, and we had a test. On the other side was thesocialist model that says that society is best run byedicts, issued by experts from above. The results areclear: We are here, they are not. The Soviet Union triedfor seventy years to plant Marxism with bayonets inEastern Europe. Today there are more Marxists on theHarvard faculty than there are in Eastern Europe.We must struggle today with the fact that thedoctrine of preemption is necessary, and with the seriousproblems it entails. But what we must have overall is theconfidence that our ideas are right. I grew up in Lincolncountry and I am reminded that in 1859, with warclouds lowering over the country, Abraham Lincoln gavea speech at the Wisconsin State Fair. Lincoln told thestory of an Eastern despot who summoned his wise menand gave them an assignment. Go away and think, hesaid, and come back and give me a proposition to becarved in stone to be forever in view and forever true.The wise men went away and came back some dayslater, and the proposition they gave to him was: “Andthis, too, shall pass away.”Lincoln said: Perhaps not. If we cultivate ourinner lives and our moral selves as industriously and productivelyas we cultivate the material world around us,he said, then perhaps we of all peoples can long endure.He was right. We have and we shall persevere, in nosmall measure because of the plucky brand of people,true to these ideas, such as those that have formedaround the college we here celebrate tonight. ,FINEST HOUR 129 / 22

G R E AT C O N T E M P O R A R I E SChurchilland PattonBY JOHN MARSHMANChurchill’s appreciation for General George S.Patton, who died sixty years ago thisDecember, can be summarised by his remarksread by his son Randolph at the White Housein 1963, upon Sir Winston’s receiving fromPresident Kennedy honorary citizenship in the UnitedStates: “Our comradeship and our brotherhood in warwere unexampled. We stood together and because of thatfact the free world now stands.”Churchill was always ready to support andrecognise the worth of dynamic leaders, especially militaryleaders. His admiration for Patton as a brother campaignerin arms in World War II is well recognized, andclosely followed General Patton’s efforts in all the manytheatres of war in North Africa, Italy and the allied invasionand advance to Berlin. He understood Patton’s frustrationsduring the period when he was sidelined,between “the soldier slapping incident” in Italy and hiscommand of the Third US Army in France, havingexperienced for himself similar “wilderness” periods inhis own career. But for Patton, like Churchill, reversesserved as an indispensable springboard for furtherachievements. They were kindred spirits.Churchill was particularly impressed by GeneralPatton’s counter-offensive rescue of hopelessly outnumberedAmericans at Bastogne in the Ardennes in the“Battle of the Bulge”; and in Patton’s leadership of theCobra Plan and the battle for France. (“Cobra” was adeception to make the Germans, who feared Pattonmore than any other Allied general, believe that Pattonwas in England with a fictitious First Army, waiting tolaunch an invasion after the Normandy “diversion.”)On 1 April 1945, Churchill in London cabledPresident Truman that the liberation of Prague byPatton’s Third Army “might make the whole differenceto the postwar situation in Czechoslovakia,” andwould influence the politics of the nearby Balkan countries.He also directly appealed to Eisenhower: “I amMr. Marshman is a member of ICS (UK). We are grateful to TheChurchill Archives Centre Cambridge for permission to quote theChurchill-Patton correspondence from the file CHUR 02/142/031.“PRAY ACCEPT my deep sympathyon the loss of our gallantcomrade General Patton, thatgreat captain of war.”—WSC to General Eisenhower,21 December 1945hoping that your plan does not inhibit you to advanceto Prague,” supporting Patton’s distrust of the Soviets.On 12 December 1945, after Patton’s unexpectedaccident which led to his death, Churchill sent theGeneral a telegram: “I earnestly hope that you are makinga good recovery. Your accident has caused pain toyour British friends and comrades who have admiredyour brilliant services in the common cause.”Mrs. Patton replied on the 19th: “Your telegramto my husband was one of the first that came and I neednot tell you how pleased he was to receive it. I believethat the sympathy and concern of his associates is helpingjust as much towards his recovery than any other factor.Thank you for yours with all my heart.”Paralysed from the neck down, George Pattondied of an embolism on 21 December 1945. Churchillcabled Eisenhower the next day: “Pray accept my deepsympathy in the loss of our gallant comrade GeneralPatton, that great captain of war.” American Ambassadorto Britain Gilbert Winant replied five days later:“Dear Winston, I have just received the followingmessage from General Eisenhower for delivery toyou: ‘My heartfelt thanks for your expression of sympathyover the loss of General Patton. The death of thisgreat leader and gallant comrade has been a severe blowto the U.S. Army.’”To date the only senior statesman ever to honourGeneral Patton’s grave in Luxembourg is Churchill,who laid a wreath on itduring a visit in 1946.Cometh thehour, cometh the men?We give thanks forGeneral George Pattonand Winston Churchillfor their shared inspirationalqualities, and forthe Anglo-Americanrelationship that is somuch needed in today’stroubled world. ,FINEST HOUR 129 / 23

The Statesman John KennedyAdmired MostBY FRED GLUECKSTEINOn leave from Harvard University to workon his honors thesis, John FitzgeraldKennedy spent most of 1939 in London.When Hitler invaded Poland in Septemberand England and France declared war,Kennedy, his parents Joseph and Rose, brother Joe, andsister Kathleen, were seated in the gallery at Parliament,where they intently listened to Prime Minister NevilleChamberlain, and others including Winston Churchill,explain the British government’s decision to go to war.“Churchill’s speech,” Kennedy historian RobertDallek wrote, “giving evidence of the powerful oratorythat would later inspire the nation in the darkest hoursof the war, left an indelible impression on Jack.” 2Even as a youngster, John F. Kennedy had beena Churchillian. Kay Halle, a Kennedy and Churchillfamily friend, recalled visiting Jack in hospital when hewas a teenager. She found him in bed reading Churchill’smemoirs of World War I, The World Crisis.Kennedy’s interest in Churchill was rekindled in1937 when, at the age of twenty, he and a friend traveledthroughout Europe. Fascinated by the dynamics ofEuropean politics and the threat of war, he returned toEngland in 1938 to work with his father, Joseph P.Kennedy, who had been appointed Ambassador to GreatBritain by President Franklin Roosevelt in December1937. Traveling around the European continent,Kennedy met with high-level U.S. officials, who did soas a courtesy to his father. His travels led him to becomea student of European politics.With war on the horizon, Ambassador Kennedy,who had a reputation for pacifist leanings, was convincedthat England would be defeated by Germany.This outraged Churchill, as witnessed by HaroldNicolson on 14 June 1939 while dining with Churchill,Mr. Glueckstein is a Maryland writer. His “Winston Churchilland Colonist II” appeared in FH 125, Winter 2004-05. We thankChurchill Centre Trustee Christopher Matthews, author of Kennedyand Nixon: The Rivalry that Shaped Postwar America, for kindlyreviewing this manuscript and allowing quotations from his book.The drawing on this spread is by Curtis Hooper, commissionedby Sarah Churchill for her series of intaglio prints, “A VisualPhilosophy of Sir Winston Churchill,” 1970s. (See FH 117, 120.)“IN DARK DAYS AND DARKER NIGHTS,when Britain stood alone, and most mensave Englishmen despaired of England’slife, he mobilized the English language andsent it into battle. The incandescent qualityof his words illuminated the courage of hiscountrymen.” 1—President Kennedy proclaiming Churchillan honorary citizen of the United States, 1963Kenneth Clark, JulianHuxley and his wife, andWalter and HelenLippmann. Nicolsonlater wrote:“Winston is horrifiedby Lippmannsaying that theAmericanAmbassador, JoeKennedy, hadinformed himthat warwasinevitableandthat weshould belicked.Winston isstirred by thisdefeatism intoa magnificentoration. He sitshunched there,waving hiswhisky-and-soda tomark his periods, stubbinghis cigar with the other hand.“It may be true, it may well be true,” he says, “thatthis country will at the outset of this coming and tomy mind almost inevitable war be exposed to direperil and fierce ordeals….Yet these trials and disasters,I ask you to believe me, Mr. Lippmann, will butserve to steel the resolution of the British people andto enhance our will for victory. No, the AmbassadorFINEST HOUR 129 / 24

should not have spoken so, Mr. Lippmann; heshould not have said that dreadful word.” 3An independent thinker uninfluenced by hisfather, young Jack was mesmerized by Churchill’s speechin defense of the government’s decision to go to war.The result was immediate. With the help of ArthurKrock, a family friend and New York Times columnist,Kennedy turned his Harvard senior thesis, “Appeasementat Munich,” into a best-seller titled Why England Slept in1940. It has been reported that Joseph Kennedy, moreinterested in promoting his son’s career than even in promotingappeasement, purchased thousands of copies ofthe book which helped propel its heavy sales.Of more note, however, was John Kennedy’s disclosurethat his title, Why EnglandSlept, was inspired byChurchill’s 1938 work,While England Slept(the American title ofArms and theCovenant). Later in1955, Kennedy publishedanotherbook, Profiles inCourage, whichsome considered awork along thelines of Churchill’sGreat Contemporaries.Jack Kennedydid not have a chanceto meetChurchill untiltwenty yearsafter WhyEngland Sleptwas published.Historian ArthurM. Schlesinger, Jr.described the circumstances:“He and Jacqueline hada house in Cannes in the late Fifties withWilliam Douglas-Home, the playwright, and his wife.One evening they dined with Churchill on the Onassisyacht. It was not altogether a success. Churchill, now anold man, had a little difficulty in distinguishing which ofthe group that came aboard was Jack Kennedy, andwhen this finally sorted out, the conversation was hardgoing. He had met his hero too late. But Churchillremained his greatest admiration.” 4Christopher Matthews, broadcaster, journalistand Churchill Centre Trustee, wrote in his Kennedy andNixon what happened immediately after Kennedy’sunsuccessful meeting with Churchill at Cannes.“Jacqueline Kennedy couldn’t resist teasing her husband,who had made a point of wearing a starched white dinnerjacket for the occasion. ‘I think he thought you werethe waiter.’” 5Interestingly, Jackie had met Churchill beforeher marriage to Jack. During her first trip to Europe, aseven-week excursion in July and August 1948,Jacqueline Bouvier, 19 years of age, spent some of hertime in London. Historian and biographer SarahBradford, in her book America’s Queen: The Life ofJacqueline Kennedy Onassis, wrote of the encounter: “Thehighlight was seeing her wartime hero, WinstonChurchill, at a Buckingham Palace garden party: shestood in the reception line twice for the repeated thrill ofshaking the great man’s hand.” 6On 15 July 1960, Senator John Kennedy ofMassachusetts accepted the Democratic Party’s nominationfor President of the United States at MemorialColiseum in Los Angeles. Kennedy said in part:The times are too grave, the challenge too urgent,and the stakes too high, to permit the customary passionsof political debate. We are not here to curse thedarkness, but to light the candle that can guide usthrough that darkness to a safe and sane future. AsWinston Churchill said on taking office some twentyyears ago: If we open a quarrel between the presentand past, we shall be in danger of losing the future. 7The 1960 Presidential campaign, which pittedKennedy against Republican Vice President Richard M.Nixon, captured the interest of Americans—and others.Across the Atlantic, Sir Winston Churchill, now 85 butstill a keen observer of American politics, carefully followedthe unfolding events. At that time, some fifteenyears after the end of World War II, Churchill was wellaware that the threat of Soviet expansion endangered thesecurity of America and her allies.Kennedy, some observers have remarked, ran tothe right of Nixon. Churchill would not have been surprisedto read that Kennedy invoked WSC’s words tobuttress his position on the major foreign policy issue:Soviet expansion and the threat of nuclear war. There aremany, incidentally, who believe that Churchill had anaffinity—never displayed publicly, of course—forDemocratic candidates and their views of world affairs.Always to the chagrin of Republicans, RichardLangworth, editor of Finest Hour, has suggested that “ifChurchill had the vote he would have voted for theDemocratic presidential candidate in the last twelve electionsof his lifetime.” 8>>FINEST HOUR 129 / 25

A review of Kennedy’s speeches,remarks, statements, and press conferencesduring the 1960 presidentialcampaign showed that theDemocratic contender quotedChurchill no fewer than nine times.As an example, on 26 August, justover a month after accepting hisparty’s nomination, Kennedyaddressed the convention ofVeterans of Foreign Wars in Detroit.He noted it this was a time“…where the nation is treated withless respect and more arrogance byits enemies around the world, andregarded with such doubt byfriends.” He talked about the threatsposed by the communists to thesecurity of the United States, whichincluded the proximity of “enemyrockets” off the coast some ninety miles away.“These are unpleasant facts, unpleasant to face,”Kennedy continued. “But face them we must; for asWinston Churchill told the British House of Commons,in a period of similar peril for Great Britain: ‘We shallnot escape our dangers by recoiling from them.’” 9Toward the end of the campaign on 2 October,Kennedy appeared with former President Harry S.Truman and other dignitaries at the Chase Hotel in St.Louis. Kennedy told the gathering: “…in1946…President Truman brought to Fulton one of thegreat figures of the English-speaking world, and on thathistoric day in March Winston Churchill bluntly confrontedour nation and the world, with the fact thatfrom Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, anIron Curtain had descended across the continent.”Churchill, Kennedy continued, “warned theworld that time is plenty short, that we cannot, and Iquote him, ‘take the course of allowing events to driftalong until it is too late,’ and that ‘our difficulties anddangers will not be removed by closing our eyes to themor by merely waiting to see what happens.’“He [Churchill] called for action to establishconditions of freedom throughout the world, tostrengthen our western alliances and the United Nations,and he particularly emphasized these words which havemeaning for us today. ‘From what I have seen of ourRussian friends and allies during the war, I am convincedthat there is nothing they so much admire asstrength, and there is nothing for which they have lessrespect than weakness. We cannot afford, if we can helpit, to work on narrow margins, offering temptations to aSMILES FOR THE CAMERAS: AmbassadorJoseph Kennedy and Churchill after thewar had started. Their private attitudes toone another were well known.trial of strength.’” 10On October 27th Nixon (alongtime friend and admirer ofKennedy, as Chris Matthews pointsout) issued a statement on the topicof freedom. It contained the onlyknown reference to Churchill inNixon’s official speeches or statementsduring the campaign: “Backin 1940, in the darkness of WW2,Winston Churchill spoke with bravecontempt of the day when the corrodingfinger of Hitler would bescourged from the face of this planet,and when men and women andchildren would climb again to thesunny uplands of peace.” 11Speaking about the satellitenations of Eastern Europe underSoviet domination, countries likePoland, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, and Rumania, Nixonthen invoked Churchill’s earlier words: “Twenty yearslater, in this year 1960, those of us who are free areresolved that the day shall surely come where everywherepeople shall have a free choice of freedom and the corrodingfinger of communism shall be gone from the earth.” 12By 1960, Nixon had met Churchill twice. Thefirst time was on 25 June 1954, and again in 1958, whenhe visited WSC in London. Nixon wrote of that firstencounter in 1954: “I still remember the eager anticipation,even the excitement, that I felt that day as I waitedfor his plane to come into view. I had already traveledextensively abroad. I had met many national and internationalleaders and many famous celebrities. But nonematched Churchill as a larger-than-life legend.” 13But Nixon’s carefully planned 1954 welcometook an unexpected turn, as Chris Matthews’ bookdescribes: “Vice President Nixon stood on the tarmac atNational Airport as…Churchill walked right past him tothe microphones. The young American vice presidenthad lost the chance to deliver to his hero a welcomingspeech he had sweated the entire night to prepare.” 14On the last evening of Churchill’s three-day1954 visit, Nixon joined Churchill at a dinner given atthe British Embassy. During private discussions, Nixonasked WSC about his views regarding talks with theSoviet leaders that had succeeded Stalin. Nixon wrote:“He said that the West must have a policy of strengthand must never deal with the communists on a basis ofweakness.” 15 Interestingly, this was that theme espousedby Churchill—to deal with the Soviets from strengthrather than weakness—that Kennedy would effectivelyFINEST HOUR 129 / 26

articulate, using Churchill’s words, six years later in thePresidential campaign.On 8 November 1960, John F. Kennedy wonthe presidency by just over 100,000 votes of a record68.8 million cast. In a letter dated December 2nd, toConsuelo Balsan, formerly Duchess of Marlborough,Churchill wrote: “Kennedy certainly has tremendoustasks before him.” He added: “I had a friendly exchangeof letters with him after his election.” 16While visiting the United States for the last timein April 1961 aboard Aristotle Onassis' yacht, Christina,President Kennedy telephoned and invited Churchill toWashington to spend a couple of days. WSC’s PrivateSecretary Anthony Montague Brown took the call anddeclined the invitation, telling the President that SirWinston, now 86 and in frail health, could no longerundertake such a journey.Two years later, on 9 April 1963, PresidentKennedy proclaimed Churchill the first honorary citizenof the United States by Act of Congress. Again Churchillwas too frail to come to Washington, and watched theceremonies on television. His son Randolph and grandsonWinston appeared on his behalf at the White House.In what must also be viewed as a personal and heartfelttribute to a man he greatly admired throughout hislife—and whose words he used so purposefully in theelectoral campaign three years earlier—Kennedy said ofChurchill in his own eloquent manner:…We meet to honor a man whose honor requires nomeeting—for he is the most honored and honorableman to walk the stage of human history in the timein which we live. Whenever and wherever tyrannythreatened, he has always championed liberty. Facingfirmly toward the future, he has never forgotten thepast. Serving six monarchs of his native Great Britain,he has served all men’s freedom and dignity. In thedark days and darker nights when Britain stoodalone—and most men save Englishmen despaired ofEngland’s life—he mobilized the English languageand sent it into battle. The incandescent quality of hiswords illuminated the courage of his countrymen.Given unlimited powers by his citizens, he was evervigilant to protect their rights. Indifferent himself todanger, he wept over the sorrows of others. A child ofthe House of Commons, he became in time its father.Accustomed to the hardships of battle, he has no distastefor pleasure. Now his stately Ship of Life, havingweathered the severest storms of a troubled century, isanchored in tranquil waters, proof that courage andfaith and the zest for freedom are truly indestructible.The record of his triumphant passage will inspire freehearts for all time.Endnotes1. “President’s Remarks and Proclamation,” TheNew York Times, 10 April 1963, 27.2. Robert Dallek, An Unfinished Life: John F.Kennedy 1917-1963 (New York: Little, Brown andCompany, 2003), 58.3. Richard Hough, Winston & Clementine: theTriumphs & Tragedies of the Churchills (New York:Bantam Books, 1991), 387.4. Arthur M, Schlesinger, Jr., A Thousand Days:John F. Kennedy in the White House (Boston: HoughtonMifflin Company, 1965), 69.5. Christopher Matthews, Kennedy & Nixon,The Rivalry That Shaped Postwar America (New York:Simon & Schuster, 1996), 130.6. Sarah Bradford, America’s Queen: The Life ofJacqueline Kennedy Onassis (New York, Penguin Books,2000), 40.7. Theodore C. Sorenson, “Let The Word GoForth”: The Speeches, Statements, and Writings of John F.Kennedy (New York: Delacorte Press, 1988), 96.8. Richard M. Langworth to the author.9. Speeches, Remarks, Press Conferences, andStatements of Senator John F. Kennedy, August 1through November 7, 1960. Final Report of theCommittee on Commerce, United States Senate(Washington, D.C.: United States Government PrintingOffice), 972.10. Ibid., 446.11. Speeches, Remarks, Press Conferences, andStudy Papers of Vice President Richard M. Nixon,August 1 Through November 7, 1960.” Final Report ofthe Committee on Commerce, United States Senate(Washington, D.C.: United States Government PrintingOffice), 820.12. Ibid.13. Richard M. Nixon, Leaders. Profiles andReminiscences of Men Who Have Shaped the Modern World(New York: Warner Books, 1982), 15.14. Matthews, op. cit., 103.15. Nixon, op. cit., 12.16. Sir Martin Gilbert, Winston S, Churchill.Volume VIII. “Never Despair” 1945-1965. (Boston:Houghton Mifflin Company, 1988), 1318, n. 6. Letterof 6 December 1960: Churchill Papers 1/80.17. “President’s Remarks and Proclamation,”The New York Times, 10 April 1963, 27. The phrase, “hemobilized the English language and sent it in to battle,”was believed to have originated with broadcaster EdwardR. Murrow; but historian Paul Addison, in his book,Churchill: Unexpected Hero, ascribes its first appearanceto the English journalist Beverley Nichols. ,FINEST HOUR 129 / 27

S T U D E N T C O R R E S P O N D E N C EIam a sixth form history studentand have been given the followingessay assignment: “Examine theextent to which WinstonChurchill himself was to blamefor his political isolation in the years1929-39.” I have been researching thesubject, but I am finding it hard to findthe best information.Can you offer me some guidance? Iam not asking you to write the essay forme but would be very grateful if youcould advise me what events and pointsyou would suggest that I consider.—Anna RichardsChurchill’s positions on those questions(abdication and India) should beblamed. I am friendlier to the criticismusually made of him on abdicationthan on India; but both matters arecontroversial.I hope this answer is helpful inpointing the way to further illumination,but please don’t hesitate to getback in touch with me if you have furtherquestions after you have donemore research.PROF. JAMES W. MULLERCHAIRMANCC BOARD OF ACADEMIC ADVISERSDear Anna,This is an ambitious and a challengingproject. We are glad you aretackling it and will try to give you afew thoughts. A list of eighteen ofChurchill’s “flaws and mistakes” is onour website, page id=46. Written insomewhat jocular style, it does suggestareas (items #6-7-8) where Churchilldid his chief cause (rearmament) nogood in the 1930s. Also read“Churchill the Great? Why the VoteWill Not Be Unanimous,” by DouglasHall, also on our website, pageid=822. This covers over all ofChurchill’s career, but has much to sayabout the 1930s, where his problemswere in part self-inflicted.Professor Muller makes a keypoint: the blame for failing to rearmsooner lies more with the British governmentsof the 1930s; but you maywish to investigate areas whereChurchill—although right on the merits—lostground with his colleaguesand increased his political isolation:1) He was at least partly rightthat India’s premature independencewould result in a bloodbath betweenHindus and Muslims, which wasproven in 1947; but as ManfredWeidhorn and others have pointedout, people tend to prefer to be governedby their own rascals, howeverdeplorable they may be, rather than bya distant foreign power.2) Churchill was right that SirSamuel Hoare committed a breach ofParliamentary Privilege by attemptingto alter the views of the Lancashirecotton growers on the India Bill, buthad no chance of winning his case.Explain why in your own way.3) Churchill misjudged themood of the country by appealing formore time to consider the proposedmarriage of Edward VIII to a divorcedAmerican. You should explain whyPondering the Wilderness YearsDear Anna,Your request is an interestingone. You may wish to look especiallyat Martin Gilbert’s book, TheWilderness Years, originally written toaccompany a television documentaryby the same name; the book hasrecently been reprinted by Pimlico inthe UK and is available fromamazon.co.uk, or you may find it inused bookshops. For more in-depthresearch, you can of course consultMartin Gilbert’s official biography,Winston S. Churchill, vol. 5.While the claim that Churchill washimself responsible for his political isolationwas often made by his politicalopponents—and gains verisimilitudefrom his support for the King in theabdication crisis and his opposition toself-government for India, both ofwhich tended to separate him frompotential sympathizers—the more crucialquestion is whether the Britishgovernments of the 1930s should havebeen more receptive to Churchill’swarnings of German rearmament. Ifso, then Churchill may have contributedto the problem by takingunpopular positions on other issues—but the governments of the decadehave the larger blame. There is thenthe further question of whetherParliament would accept this, even ifhis spouse did not become Queen.(You might contrast the thinking thenwith the thinking now, since “QueenCamilla” seems today quite acceptableto many people.)4) Consider looking atChurchill’s relations with his partyleader, Stanley Baldwin, through theseveral good Baldwin biographies andtwo Churchill books recommendedbelow. Baldwin trifled with the nation’sdefense and had to answer for that.But he was a brilliant politician whoread Churchill very accurately, andalways played their relationship to hisadvantage. You might elaborate on justhow Baldwin did this.The two recommended booksare Churchill: A Study in Failure 1900-1939, by Robert Rhodes James(London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson,1970); and the official biography, vol.V: Winston S. Churchill: The Prophet ofTruth 1922-1939, by Sir MartinGilbert (London: Heinemann, 1976).Rhodes James’s book is still one of thebest examinations of Churchill’s errorsup to World War II. Gilbert’s bookprovides all the facts you will need toknow to write a good essay on thesesubjects. Both should be easily availablein libraries. —RML ,FINEST HOUR 129 / 28

Wit &WisdomLe Grand CharlesA reader asked us to confirm Churchill’s reply whenasked if he thought de Gaulle was a new Joan of Arc, and hesupposedly answered, “Yes, but my bishops won’t let me burnhim.” The quotation is often cited and may be accurate, but ourbest reference is slightly different. It is from Kay Halle’s usuallyreliable book, Irrepressible Churchill (Cleveland: WorldPublishing, 1966), page 213:WSC to Brendan Bracken: “You may have your single cross to bear but I have the double cross ofLorraine.”Bracken: “But...remember, Winston...he thinks of himself as the reincarnation of St. Joan.”WSC: “Yes, but my bishops won’t burn him!”We should point out that despite their disagreements over wartime strategy, Churchill and de Gaullenursed a healthy respect for one another, and de Gaulle was especially fond of Lady Churchill. When SirWinston died de Gaulle wrote her, “In the great drama, he was the greatest.”“Grudge no toil...Fear no foe.”“If the human race wishes to have a prolonged and indefinite period of material prosperity, they haveonly got to behave in a peaceful and helpful way towards one another, and science will do for them all thatthey wish and more than they can dream....Nothing is final. Change is unceasing and it is likely that mankindhas a lot more to learn before it comes to its journey’s end....We might even find ourselves in a few yearsmoving along a smooth causeway of peace and plenty instead of roaming around on the rim of Hell....Thuswe may by patience, courage, and in orderly progression reach the shelter of a calmer and kindlierage....Withhold no sacrifice; grudge no toil; seek no sordid gain; fear no foe. All will be well.”Kathryn Venditti (kvenditt@ashland.edu) asked for the origins of this relevant remark. Most of it isfrom Churchill’s speech at the Lord Mayor’s Banquet at the Guildhall, London, 9 November 1954; see TheUnwritten Alliance (London: Cassell, 1961) as well as in the Complete Speeches (New York: Bowker, 1974).National Geographic’s Churchill issue (August 1965) stitched in the last line (“Withhold no sacrifice...”) fromWSC’s speech in Ottawa on 14 January 1952; see Stemming the Tide (London: Cassell, 1953).Bossom, Bottom, Bosom?Vardan Astrid from Bulgaria asks us for more regarding Churchill’s remark about Sir Alfred Bossom:“Neither one thing nor the other!” According to Kay Halle (op. cit., 118), Churchill said this in 1932, as anaside to a colleague in the House of Commons when Sir Alfred Bossom was speaking. He thought “Bossom”was odd because it was neither “bottom” nor “bosom.” Alfred Bossom, a successful architect as well as aMember of Parliament, was known for the lavish parties at his house at Carlton House Gardens, London.“Never be separated from the Americans”Private Toboc, USA, asks us to confirm Churchill’s words to his non-Cabinet Ministers upon his retirement,after his final cabinet meeting on 5 April 1955. Sir Martin Gilbert in Winston S. Churchill, vol. 8 “NeverDespair 1945-1965 (Boston: Houghton Mifflin and London: Heinemann, 1988) writes:“Anthony Eden...said that his Cabinet colleagues had asked him to speak on this occasion on behalfof them all. It therefore fell to him to express their sense of abiding affection and esteem for the PrimeMinister and their pride in the privilege of having served as his colleagues. He himself had enjoyed this privilegefor sixteen years, others for varying shorter periods; but all, whatever the length of their service, had thesame strong feelings of affection for him. If in a succeeding Government they met with success, this would belargely due to the example which he had shown them: if they did less well, it would be because they hadfailed to learn from his experience and skill as a statesman. They would remember him always—for his magnanimity,for his courage at all times and for his unfailing humour, founded in his unrivalled mastery of theEnglish language. They would always be grateful for his leadership, and for his friendship, over the years thathad passed; and they would hope to enjoy in future his continuing interest and support in their endeavours.“Churchill’s final words to those Ministers not in the Cabinet made a strong impact on those whoheard them. ‘He wished to make two points,’ Lord De L’Isle and Dudley later recalled: ‘“Man is spirit,” and“Never be separated from the Americans”’.” ,FINEST HOUR 129 / 29

On Sunday, 30 January 2005,we were much reminded ofthe fortieth anniversary of thefuneral of Winston Churchill.For the best part of sixtyyears, Churchill’s towering personalityand enormous zest for life and for politicshad illuminated British public life,to that memorable funeral, a televisedaround-the-worldpageant of Britishceremonial and of the Anglo-Americanspecial relationship, when he for thelast time played the leading part. It hadindeed been joked about Churchillyears earlier that he so longed to be the central character inevery drama that when he went to a wedding he wished hewas the bridegroom and when he went to a funeral helonged to be in the coffin. In 1965, after careful planning,and in a funeral with lots of soldiers, leaders from all overthe world to pay homage, military bands, and the Stars andStripes flying alongside the Union Flag throughoutLondon, he had his final wish.On that day, there were many tears and great nostalgiafor the 1940s—Churchill’s, and (it was frequentlysaid) the British people’s, Finest Hour, when he had twicegiven the lion roar of freedom in the fight against totalitarianism,against Hitler in 1940 and against Stalin in 1946.That Churchillian roar had been one of the things thatmade people believe in the triumph of freedom, even whenthe days were dark and victory seemed so far away.When he died it was confidently expected that historianswould soon cut him down to size, and so revise hisreputation negatively, since so much of his reputation waslinked with the personality of the man himself, moreindeed than was generally appreciated; historians haverecently shown just how hard he worked at creating hisown image, as a relentlessly autobiographical spin-doctorbefore the idea had been invented. David Reynolds’ recentIn Command of History (2004) shows how far his best-sellingmemoir, The Second World War, was crafted for thatpurpose, and how far indeed the British political and militaryestablishment connived at the process, scenting thechance to put an authorised version of Britain’s World WarII before a worldwide reading public under Churchill’sname. To an extent Churchill has remained ever since auseful asset in British international policy: President GeorgeBush, a Churchill admirer who keeps a bust of Sir Winstonin the Oval Office for inspiration, had it as a loan from theBritish government.Dr. Ramsden, is Professor of Modern History at Queen MaryCollege, London, Vice Chairman of The Churchill Centre’s academicadvisers and author of Man of the Century: Winston Churchill andHis Legend Since 1945. Reprinted by courtesy of the author fromThe Tablet of 29 January 2005 which also provided the artwork.2005 was the fortieth anniversary of Churchill's funeral. He wasnot a conventional believer, but the Judaeo-Christian traditioninspired his devotion to the cause of good against evil.Churchill: A ManFINEST HOUR 129 / 30Who BelievedBY JOHN RAMSDENThe truth is, though, that Churchill has remainedin the English-Speaking World the dominant figure fromthe 20th Century, and revisionist historians have done littleto dent his image. When Time magazine did not make him“Person of the Century” there was a storm of objections.Two years later, when the magazine made RudolphGiuliani its Person of the Year for 2001, it re-endorsed allthe qualities for which Churchill had seem to stand, whichhad seemed out of date before the war on terror began.Giuliani on 9/11 derived great comfort from rememberingChurchill and 1940, quoting him freely over the next daysand weeks to reassure New Yorkers.We may ask from where Churchill himself derivedhis motivation, and just what it was that he believed in, sothat he could so effectively communicate with the people heled as war leader and cold warrior. Churchill was, as a manof his time, class and education, saturated in the Christiantradition, and his speeches were at least as full of references,quotations and allusions to the Bible, the Prayer Book andChristian hymns as they were to English literature. His verdicton the decolonisation of Africa and Asia was drawnfrom Isaiah (“Thou hast multiplied the nations and notincreased the joy”), and his support for harsh punishmentsfor offences committed against children from St. Matthew(“Whosever shall offend against one of these little ones…”).Often such quotations were mere acts of conversationalbravado, just like his fondness for quoting at length songsby Gilbert and Sullivan, or English and American poetry,but on occasion they could have deeper significance.Many noticed, for example, the emotional pullexerted by his first wartime radio broadcast as PrimeMinister, beginning with the reminder that it was TrinitySunday*, so evoking the shared community of speakers andlisteners. and implicitly identifying the British cause withChristianity against Godless Nazi evil. It is hard to imagineany politician making such an appeal today—or most ofhis audience understanding it.*From 1 Maccabees 3:58-60, in the Protestant Apocrypha. This ispart of the King James Bible Churchill knew, but not in more recenteditions of the Bible. See “Wit & Wisdom,” FH 111. —Ed.

Arguably, Churchill relied more on such Judaeo-Christian writings than on secular literature, for althoughhis History of the English-Speaking Peoples made virtually noreference to Shakespeare or the major poets—though heoccasionally quoted them as a literary flourish. This wasdespite the title of the books, and although he discussed atlength the King James Bible and Cranmer’s Prayer Book,he made favourable references to The Pilgrim’s Progress, andnoted with satisfaction that all these Christian texts hadbeen carried across the Atlantic by the Pilgrim Fathers andso translated into North America the same language andbeliefs, “an enduring link, literary and religious, betweenthe English-speaking peoples of the world.”Churchill had then a great respect for the Christiantradition as a factor of continuing contemporary relevance,and he invariably deprecated attemptsto downgrade that tradition,for example in thecontentious 1920sCommons debates abouta modernised Anglicanprayer book. He hadbeen brought up in the1880s firmly within theAnglican tradition thathad then barely changedfor two centuries. In hispost-1945 short story, TheDream, when he seems tomeet the ghost of his father while dozingTHE TABLETover a painting, he instantly responds to LordRandolph Churchill’s question about his religion by sayinghe is “Episcopalian.”His direct involvement with the Church wasthough at best semi-detached. He did not find its easy tofind time for the selection of Anglican bishops when hewas Prime Minister (though he bristled if this was noticedby his staff), and once said that he was not a pillar of theChurchill but more like a buttress—he supported it fromthe outside. There was in 1951 a press photograph ofChurchill, the other party-leaders and their wives attendinga Church service to launch the general election campaign—those were the days! He was caught on camera lookingextremely bored, though that may be only because he wasfor once in his life having to listen to somebody else talking,without even the right of interruption.Churchill was not a Christian believer in any conventionalsense. Archbishop Fisher of Canterbury thoughtthat WSC “had a very real religion, but it was a religion ofthe Englishman. He had a real belief in Providence, but itwas God as the God with a special care for the values of theBritish people.” Fisher recalled that for Churchill, the domeof St. Paul’s Cathedral surrounded by the fires of 1941 neverthelesshad an acute appeal that was both emotional andnational. Churchill had given orders that St. Paul’s must besaved from the bombers at all cost, even if it meant sacrificingother nearby buildings, and when damage was actuallydone to the Cathedral by incendiaries, care was taken thatthe news was not reported by the press. Just as his speechesin 1940 appealed to the common language and literature,so the round dome of St. Paul’s, not unlike the bowler-hatand high forehead of Churchill himself, stood for the traditionin which he asked the British people to put their faith.What Churchill seems never to have had was abelief in a personal God. He joked as he aged that he wasready to meet his maker, and speculated as to whether theAlmighty was looking forward to their interview with equalpleasure; but he did not in fact believe in an after-life,except perhaps as perpetual sleep in surroundings of peaceful,black velvet. Extensive government planning forhis funeral had the bleak operational code-name“Operation Hope-Not.”What Churchill did believe in was himself,fate, and his personal vocation to leadership.He wrote that when he became PrimeMinister in 1940, he felt that he was “walkingwith destiny,” and that all his past lifehad been a preparation for that hourand that task. He was indeed burdenedwith an almost megalomaniacalself-belief, even as a young man,and this largely explains his earlyunpopularity among army contemporariesand ministerial colleagueswho found him far too bumptious forhis own good.It was self-belief that kept him going through allthe buffets of his first forty years in public life, when everyladder was followed by a lengthy snake, a switchback ridethat would have led any lesser man to throw in his hand,choose another career, or retire. He was after all almost 65when war came in 1939, the age at which most men wouldhave chosen a quiet life.But not Winston, who was raring to go and convincedthat he was the only man for the job. As indeed hewas, for it remains extremely hard for the informed historianto imagine any scenario without Churchill as PrimeMinister in which Britain would have fought on in 1940and finished among the winners in the Second World War.And without Britain fighting on, it is hard to imagine thescenario in which totalitarianism would have been defeatedat all—at least without a very lengthy period of the utmosthorror all across Europe.Believing in himself as he did, he found within thecapacity to make the British people believe in themselvestoo, a crucial historical act that even today can be cited tocynics as proof that individuals can and do make a difference.“We are all worms,” he had remarked to VioletBonham-Carter with theological correctness thirty-fouryears earlier, “but I do believe that I am a glow-worm.” ,FINEST HOUR 129 / 31

In Searchof Jennie’sBirthplaceBY DAVID DRUCKMANHere is a piece of interesting trivia of curiosityto Churchillians like me: Where wasLady Randolph Churchill, née JennieJerome, born and raised?Most of us know that Winston Churchill’smother was born in Brooklyn, New York. Butwhere? What did her home look like?The availabe data, gleaned from articles,books, and the Internet, produces three contendingBrooklyn addresses: 8 and 197 Amity Street and426 Henry Street. During a visit to the east coastmy wife Lynn and I visited all three locations, tookpictures, and came away somewhat satisfied as tothe true birthplace.Let us begin with three facts on which allthe references completely agree:1. Jennie Jerome was born on 9 January1854, when her father Leonard was 36 and hermother Clara 29. Jennie was 20 when she gavebirth to a premature Winston on 30 November1874, confirmed in a letter she wrote her motheron 9 January1888: “Do you know that it is mybirthday today? 34!!! I think for the future that Iwill not proclaim my age.”*Curiously, in a letter Jennie wrote toRandolph in 1883, she states that she was threeyears younger than 21 at Winston’s birth. In view ofmassive evidence to the contrary, it is safe to considerthis simply the style of disguising one’s actualage, which some people still employ today.2. Jennie was born in Brooklyn, which was*See Lady Randolph Churchill (New York: Scribner, 1969) by AnitaLeslie, granddaughter of Jennie Jerome’s younger sister Leonie.Jennie’s birthday is also confirmed in Randolph Churchill’s WinstonS. Churchill, vol. 1 and in Finest Hour 98, Spring, 1998.not at that time part of New York City. Brooklyn,Staten Island (Richmond) and part of Queens werenot incorporated into the city until 1898. (BeingBrooklyn born and raised, I can testify that tolocals, Manhattan is “New York” or “the city,” whileBrooklyn is just “Brooklyn”—and forget about“Manhattan” or “Kings County.”) The name stemsfrom the southern portion of the village ofBreukelen—one of the six original Dutch villagesthat now comprise the borough.3. All three addresses are in that part ofBrooklyn called Cobble Hill, South Brooklyn, ororiginally Ponkiesbergh by the Dutch. Cobble Hillis bordered by Atlantic Avenue on the north andDegraw Street to the south. South Brooklyn is composedof the of Brooklyn Heights, Carroll Gardens,Cobble Hill, Gowanus, Red Hook, and Park Slope.All three supposed birth house locations arewithin a third of a mile from the eastern waters ofUpper New York Bay. The closest address was about300 yards from the bay. This is where the SouthFerry docked, carrying top-hatted commuting businessgentlemen and travelers from Wall Street andManhattan, including Leonard Jerome and hisbrother from work, and Clara Jerome and her fourgirls from shopping.Both existing houses—197 Amity Street and426 Henry Street—are narrow, three-story, brickbrownstones, attached buildings typical of thehomes in Cobble Hill, which is now a middle-classneighborhood of working people. Their construc-David and Lynn Druckman live in Chicago and Tucson when they arenot traveling the world, often in search of arcane Churchilliana. SeeDavid’s “South African Escape,” FH 47, “Coming to Grips with Gallipoli,”FH 90, and “Hotel Mamounia, Morocco,” FH 108.FINEST HOUR 129 / 32

1 2 5 - 1 0 0 - 7 5 - 5 0 Y E A R S A G O125 YEARS AGO:Winter 1880-81 • Age 6“Rather like a volcano...”Winston was back in Londonafter he and his family hadspent November and thefirst part of December atBlenheim Place where hismother, Lady Randolph, had notenjoyed a happy stay. Jennie to hermother: “It will be great fun going toParis together....I quite forget what it islike to be with people who love me....I loathe living here. It is no use disguisingit, the Duchess hates me simplyfor what I am—perhaps a littleprettier & more attractive than herdaughters. Everything I do or say orwear is found fault with. We are alwaysstudiously polite to each other, but it israther like a volcano, ready to burstout at any moment.”The volcanoes that were, respectively,Ireland and Lord Randolph, didin fact burst out that winter. The “boycott”––namedafter its first victim, theunfortunate Captain Boycott –– wasintroduced by the Irish Land Leaguewhereby those who evicted tenantsfrom their land were shunned by thecommunity. As Churchill described itin his biography of his father, CaptainBoycott’s “servants left him. The localshopkeepers refused to serve him. Theblacksmith and the laundress declinedhis orders. His crops remained ungatheredon the ground....Nothing wasmore unexpected than the precisionwith which an impulsive and undisciplinedpeasantry gave effect to this newplan. Whole counties conspired togetherto make it complete. Every class inthe population acquiesced. Public opinionsupported the Land League and nomoral force sustained the governmentof the Queen.”The reaction of the Liberal governmentwas surprisingly extreme––suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act,something Churchill described in hisfather’s biography as “desperate,unwarranted and ill-chosen.” With one“Everything I do or say or wear is found fault with.” —Lady RandolphChurchill, 1880. “We have fought together through testing times: we havelearnt to appreciate each other’s good qualities and to be kindly indulgent toqualities less good, if indeed they exist.” —Stanley Baldwin, 1931exception, the Conservative Party hadno problem with once more suspendingcivil liberties in Ireland. Thatexception was Churchill’s father, LordRandolph, and he ignored entreatiesfrom his Fourth Party comrades andDisraeli alike in attacking the Liberalgovernment on this issue. Winstonwrote: “[T]he repressive measures,involving as they did immense abridgmentsof liberty and wholesale suspensionof the most elementary civilrights, offended deeper instincts inLord Randolph’s nature. If as a partyman he disliked the Government, hehated Coercion for its own sake; andthis double tide of antagonism carriedhim to lengths which, for a time, disturbedand even destroyed the harmonyof the Fourth Party.”100 YEARS AGOWinter 1905-06 • Age 31“I have been much put off.”On 3 January 1906, Churchilltraveled to Manchester to beginhis first election campaign as a memberof the Liberal Party. WhileManchester was solidly Conservative,it was also the center of Free Trade fervor,the home of Cobden and Bright;and Free Trade was to be the issue onwhich the election campaign was to befought.by Michael McMenaminWhile the campaign was foughton the issue of free trade, women’s suffragewas frequently raised atChurchill’s speeches by women whoused disruptive tactics to make theirpoint. This happened at a meeting atthe Heywood Street School on 4January 1906 where Churchill wasinterrupted by suffragettes. He offeredto give one such young woman fiveminutes at the end of his speech wherehe would answer any questions onwomen’s suffrage. Declining the offer,she continued to speak and was ejected.But Churchill entertained questionsas he had promised and said: “Ivoted in favour of the enfranchisementof women in the session before last.Although I think this a question ofgreat difficulty, I was steadily movingforward to the position of a wholeheartedsupporter of their case. But Ihave been much put off by what hashappened in the last few months. Ihave seen five or six great meetingsthrown into disorder by people gettingup and shouting till they were turnedout. I will not go one inch beyond my[earlier] declaration....I should in thatway be giving way to the violent interruptionswhich have happened at mymeetings. With regard to what myfuture action may be, having regard tothe pressure put upon me, I utterlydecline to state.”With a turnout of 80% of eligiblevoters, Churchill was elected with 56%FINEST HOUR 129 / 34

of the vote in Manchester whereConservatives lost all eight seats theyhad held. Nationwide, Liberals won377 seats, Conservatives only 157.75 YEARS AGO:Winter 1930-31 • Age 56“A great liner is sinkingin a calm sea...”In a letter to his son on 8 January1931, Churchill predicted the fall ofthe Labour Government and Baldwin’sreturn as Prime Minister—but said hehad no desire to join the Cabinet and“be saddled with all the burden ofwhole-hog Protection, plus unlimiteddoses of Irwinism for India. I shall bemuch more able to help the countryfrom outside. I feel a great dealstronger since the Indian situationdeveloped, although most people willtell you the opposite. It is a great comfortwhen one minds the questions onecares about far more than office orparty or friendships.”On 26 January 1931, Churchillspoke in the Commons against hisown party’s India policy for the firsttime, a day after Lord Irwin had freedGandhi from prison which, MartinGilbert writes, “provoked an immediateand widespread protest both fromBritish officials in India and fromConservatives in Britain.”Churchill reminded the Housethat Congress party leaders with whomthe British government was negotiatingwere neither democratic nor representativeof the Indian masses towhom Britain owed a “duty andtrust....No one can pretend that thisdraft of a constitution is based uponany democratic conception, or that theIndian Executive and Assembly will inany way represent the masses of India.These masses will be delivered to themercies of a well-organised, narrowlyelected, political and religious oligarchyand caucus. Those 300 milllionpeople who are our duty and trust areoften forgotten in these political discussions.Churchill concluded with ametaphor drawn from the Titanic disaster:“The great liner is sinking in acalm sea. One bulkhead after anothergives way; one compartment afteranother is bilged; the list increases; sheis sinking; but the captain and the officersand the crew are all in the saloondancing to the jazz band. But wait tillthe passengers find out what is theirposition!....then I think there will be asharp awakening, then, I am sure, thata reaction of the most vehement characterwill sweep this country and itsunmeasured strength will once morebe used. That, Sir, is an ending whichI trust and pray we may avoid, but it isan ending to which step by step andday by day, we are being remorselesslyand fatuously conducted.”The next day, Churchill resignedfrom what had effectively been theTory Shadow Cabinet, writing toStanley Baldwin: “Now that our divergencesof view upon Indian policyhave become public, I feel that I oughtnot any longer to attend the meetingsof your ‘Business Committee’ to whichyou have hitherto so kindly invitedme. I hope and believe that sincereand inevitable differences upon policywill not affect the feelings of friendshipwhich have grown up between usduring the last six years. I need scarcelyadd that I will give you whatever aidis in my power in opposing theSocialist Government in the House ofCommons, and I shall do my utmostto secure their defeat at the generalelection.”Mr. Baldwin replied a day later:“I am grateful to you for your kind letterof yesterday and much as I regretyour decision not to attend the meetingsof your old colleagues, I am convincedthat your decision is correct inthe circumstances....Our friendship isnow too deeply rooted to be affectedby differences of opinion whether temporaryor permanent. We have foughttogether through testing times: wehave learnt to appreciate each other’sgood qualities and to be kindly indulgentto qualities less good, if indeedthey exist ...”FINEST HOUR 129 / 3550 YEARS AGOWinter 1955-56 • Age 81“ He kissed my hand!”After Christmas with his family atChartwell, Churchill headed forthe south of France to stay with EmeryReves at his villa, La Pausa, which hadbeen built for Coco Chanel in the1920s. Clementine ill and remained inEngland.On 16 January 1956, AristotleOnassis came to dinner and Churchillwrote about it in a letter to his wifethe next day: “All the children gohome today by one route or another,Arabella & Celia were both vy sweet tome. Diana will give you accounts.She seems vy well & mistress of herself.Randolph brought Onassis (theman with the big yacht) to dinner lastnight. He made a good impressionupon me. He is a vy able and masterfulman & told me a lot about whales.He kissed my hand!”On 29 January, Clementinewrote to her husband of a luncheonshe had with his first love, PamelaLytton, née Plowden: “Your Pamelahas just been to luncheon with me,looking exquisite & pretty in spite ofher intense pain––We exchanged thenames of our drugs & I have put heron to demanding pethidine from herdoctor––I, for my part, am going toexplore one of her pains killers.”Churchill spent January revisingthe second volume of his History of theEnglish- Speaking Peoples. He returnedto England on 10 February and sawClementine off on a voyage to Ceylon,from which she wrote on 5 March:“We have just been to the Zoo whichis said to be the most beautiful in theworld––the animals are glossy & wellkept & it is a bower of flowers––TheElephants are of all sizes down tobabies 30 inches high which are fed ona bottle.” Churchill replied: “I am vyglad that the ‘Zoo’ is so attractive, butI think it wd be better not, repeatNOT, to bring more than three 30inch elephants to Chartwell!” ,

Books, Arts&CuriositiesChurchill as SoldierChurchill CentreBook ClubThe club is managed for theCentre by Chartwell Booksellers(www.churchillbooks.com),which offersmember discounts up to25%. To order contactChartwell Booksellers, 55East 52nd Street, New York,New York 10055, emailbscb@dti.net,tel. (212) 308-0643,facsimile (212) 838-7423.A Standard WorkPAUL H. COURTENAYWinston Churchill—Soldier: TheMilitary Life of a Gentleman at War,by Douglas S. Russell. Brassey’s, 388pages, £20.Full disclosurefirst: DouglasRussell has beenSecretary and aGovernor of TheChurchillCentre, also aDistrict Courtjudge. Withthese credentialsone might expecta knowledgeableand lucidaccount of this important phase ofChurchill’s life, and the author doesnot disappoint. His own army experiencegives him a better feel for militarylife than that available to many otherwriters, while his exceptional understandingof the British Army’s regimentalsystem adds to the confidenceof the reader.Russell is also the author ofThe Churchill Centre publication TheOrders, Decorations and Medals of SirWinston Churchill, and his comprehensive,not to say encyclopaedic, knowledgeof this subject adds authenticityto the flair with which he tackles thefascinating theme of this book.Much of what his book discloseshas inevitably been publishedelsewhere, but one of the strengths ofthis offering is the way in which eachof Churchill’s military adventures iscovered in some detail and contributesto the whole picture of how the Armyshaped his early life. We read comprehensiveaccounts of his days at theRoyal Military College (as Sandhurstwas then called), in Cuba, with the 4thHussars, in India, the Sudan andSouth Africa, with the Queen’s OwnOxfordshire Hussars in the TerritorialArmy, and finally his return to fulltimesoldiering during the First WorldWar, which was unique for an ex-cabinetminister.An early poem, written atHarrow, reveals Churchill’s patrioticoutlook, while a rarely quoted extractfrom his speech to a mob in LeicesterSquare, which he led in tearing downbarricades outside a theatre while aSandhurst cadet, struck a similarchord. WSC’s achievements atSandhurst are noted and the diligencewhich he applied to the subjects heespecially enjoyed (such as horsemanship)is fully detailed.More and tougher ridinginstruction in the 4th Hussars is highlightedbefore the scene switches toCuba, from where one of Churchill’spress reports showed great insight intoguerrilla warfare: “The Spanish officersanticipate a speedy end to the war....Iconfess I do not see how this can bedone. As long as the insurgents chooseto adhere to the tactics they haveadopted...they can be neither caughtnor defeated.” Russell leaves Cubaconcluding that WSC had proved tobe steady under fire and sturdy enoughto endure the rigours of active servicein the field; he had had his “privaterehearsal” and as a result knew for certainthat he was well suited to thedemands of the profession of arms.Russell notes that Churchillalways used his highly placed connections“as a springboard, not as a sofa,”and always to get into a battle—neverto avoid it. Thus he found his way tothe Malakand Field Force, where hisambition to be known for personalcourage could be temporarily satisfied.Returning to Bangalore, he wrote hisaccount of the campaign and started towrite Savrola. It is good to have confirmationof what any reader of Savrolamust quickly realise, namely (as WSCwrote to his mother) that “All my philosophyis put in the mouth of thehero.” In another letter home at thisperiod he wrote, “Nor shall anyone beable to say that vulgar consideration ofpersonal safety ever influenced me.”And so to the Sudan, wherethe journey up the Nile and its climaxin the charge at Omdurman are wellknown (and will become even more sowhen James Muller’s new edition ofThe River War is published). After thebattle WSC opined, “...I speculated onthe shoddiness of war. You cannot gildFINEST HOUR 129 / 36

it. The raw comes through.”Next came the Boer War.Russell reports a conversation on thevoyage to South Africa in whichanother journalist recalled Churchill’swords to him: “The worse of it is thatI am not a good life. My father diedtoo young. I must try to accomplishwhatever I can by the time I am forty.”Russell considers that this revelationdoes much to explain WSC’sunabashed ambition and his reputationfor being pushy and egotistical:his heartfelt reason for acting boldly tomake a name for himself and for hisimpatience about getting into politicsat an early age. The famous armouredtrain incident, and Churchill’s captureand subsequent escape, cover familiarground. Later, describing the relief ofLadysmith, the author reveals someinteresting, if minor, discrepanciesbetween WSC’s own recollections andthose of some other participants.Territorial Army service in theQueen’s Own Oxfordshire Hussars isof interest, not least because it is amajor activity in Churchill’s life whichhas been largely overlooked. WSC wasa conscientious TA officer, whobrought his squadron to a high state ofefficiency. One noteworthy event waswhen doubling his roles as a QOOHmajor and First Lord of the Admiralty,Churchill took two squadrons of theregiment to Portsmouth for a tour ofnaval ships and installations.Finally, we reach the FirstWorld War and are told aboutChurchill’s intervention at Antwerp;although he later admitted that hispresence had been a mistake, a numberof eye-witnesses asserted that his energeticactivities there gained an extrafive or six days for the Allies andplayed a valuable part in ensuring thatthe Channel ports in France were notoverrun. Churchill’s service on thewestern front is covered in detail, withfamiliar accounts of his time with 2ndBattalion, Grenadier Guards, followedby command of 6th Battalion, TheRoyal Scots Fusiliers.Douglas Russell has beenmost successful in drawing together allthe strands of Churchill’s military lifeinto one coherent whole and—familiarthough much of the story may be—hekeeps up the momentum, so that thereader never becomes bored by repetitionof the well-known. His footnotesare very full and informative, revealingthe depth of his knowledge and thequality of his research.Having recounted the facts,the author draws perceptive conclusions.He stresses that, following theFirst World War, Churchill came torecognise the significance of both aerialand armoured warfare. He wasreminded of what he had already discoveredin the Sudan and Natal: thatfrontal assaults by infantry alone weredoomed to fail against modernweapons and were a futile waste oflives. He laid emphasis on the importanceof close coordination betweensea and land forces in amphibiousoperations, so that the failure of theDardanelles should not be repeated.He learnt the strategic importance ofmultiple fronts against an enemy—thefailure of Gallipoli and the collapse ofRussia notwithstanding.Alliances, too, were crucial.Where, after all, would Great Britainhave been without the French army,the troops and resources provided byits Commonwealth partners and, finally,the weight of American manpowerand industry? He laid stress on logistics,particularly the provision of adequatemanpower and munitions andtheir allocation. Strong, unified politicalleadership in the Cabinet wasessential to guide the course of a war.Churchill learnt the value of an openmind to new strategies and tactics andespecially to new technologies. Finally,he came to view war not as romanticor glorious, but as merely tragic; hewas profoundly moved by the sufferingof the common people and juniorranks. He never forgot them.Despite a high number oftypographical and similar errors (largelythe fault of the publisher rather thanthe author, which will be corrected infuture editions, this is a most valuable,well-written and scholarly work on aneglected theme; Churchillians willwant to read and admire it....But This One is Utterly Optional.PAUL H. COURTENAYWinston Churchill: His Military Life1895-1945, by Michael Paterson.David and Charles, 308 pages, £20.Member price $35.Referring to Churchill’sfuneral, the very firstword of the introduction tothis book is his burial place,“Blandon,” which does notexactly inspire confidence inwhat is to come. The firstdisadvantages the reader willnotice is the absence of maps,and of references attributing quotations.To be fair, many quotations dostate their origin in the text, but this isfar from universal; in particular, anumber of Churchill’s alleged sayingsare given no attribution, thus cannotbe verified.The book is generally accuratein the chronology ofChurchill’s career, but consistsessentially of a largenumber of quite lengthyextracts from other peoples’writings, linked with historicalsummaries. Where thebook scores is with numerousstatements by little-knownpeople, such as Harroviancontemporaries, junior officersand others who encounteredChurchill at various times, and someof these may not have been widelypublished before.One of these writers in >>FINEST HOUR 129 / 37

Winston Churchill: His Military Lifeparticular stands out: General SirHubert Gough, who rose to seniorrank in the Great War. He purportedto have been an eye-witness of, or otherwiseclosely involved in, theMalakand Field Force, Spion Kop andthe relief of Ladysmith. In all theseinstances he strongly contradictsChurchill’s writings which, accordingto Gough, grossly exaggerate the intensityand danger of the operations.(Paterson may not have been awarethat Gough was strongly criticised forthe performance of his troops in 1917-18 and recalled from Flanders, so hemay have had an axe to grind.)A curious conversationinvolving Field Marshal Ironside isreported without attribution at aboutthird hand, but so riddled with inconsistenciesthat the whole topic isunavoidably suspect. As the bookmoves towards its close, the authorseems to be anxious to get it over withas soon as possible, and simple errorsmultiply. For example, we are told thatChurchill caught pneumonia while inNorth Africa for the Casablanca conference(wrong); that the Nobel Prizewas awarded for A History of theEnglish Speaking Peoples (not even publishedwhen the prize was given); thatCdr. Tommy Thompson had the greatestinfluence over Churchill (verywrong); and that the Korean Warbegan in May 1951 (a surprise tothose who had already been there forsome ten months).Like many other writers,Paterson is not well informed on mattersto do with military uniforms. Weare told that, when wearing his AirCommodore’s uniform, WSC worewings to which he was not entitled!The author is unaware that these werespecially awarded by the Air Council(with the King’s approval) on 1 April1943 to mark the 25th anniversary ofthe formation of the RAF and WSC’sclose involvement with its creation. Asa digression, it is worth recording theconclusion of Churchill’s letter ofthanks on this occasion: “I am honouredto be accorded a place, albeitout of kindness, in that comradeshipof the air which guards the life of ourisland and carries doom to tyrants,whether they flaunt themselves or burrowdeep.”Perhaps the most commonerror, which Paterson makes in companywith many distinguished historians,is to say that Churchill’s uniform wornat the Rhine Crossing, Berlin andPotsdam (and, incidentally, also atYalta) was that of Colonel, 4th Queen’sOwn Hussars; he was in fact dressed asThe Great Dominion:Winston Churchill inCanada, 1900-1954, byDavid Dilks. Forewordby The Lady Soames LGDBE. Toronto: ThomasAllen Publishers, 457pp., illus., C$45.Member price $XXChurchill visitedCanada nine times,travelled from coast tocoast, and had a fairknowledge of its leaders—and people—ina way that few writers haveappreciated. David Dilks, NevilleChamberlain’s official biographer, formerVice-Chancellor of HullUniversity, and the leader in CanadianStudies in the UK, provides a remarkablewindow on this aspect ofChurchill’s life and travels. Equallyvaluable is the Canadian content ofthis book: inside comments from thelikes of William Lyon Mackenzie King,longest serving Premier of Canada, orthe British Commonwealth for thatmatter; of Prime Minister LesterHon. Colonel, 4th/5th (Cinque Ports)Battalion, The Royal Sussex Regimenton all these occasions. (See page 12 inthis issue. —Ed.)This book is interesting inrevealing the comments of junior individualswhose historical contributionsare usually ignored in favour of thosein grander positions. But in the broadersense it is not so commendable.Perhaps the best one-word descriptionof the work—despite a thoughtfulforeword by Allen Packwood and thepaucity of illustrations—is “tabloid.”A Tour de Force on Churchill and CanadaBARRY GOUGHProfessor Gough, is a member of The ChurchillCentre College of Fellows, historian of the RoyalNavy and Canada, professor emeritus of WilfridLaurier University, Archives Fellow of ChurchillCollege, and past President of The Organizationfor the History of Canada.Pearson; and of BrookeClaxton, Minister ofDefence.The Canadian commentaryprovides a wonderfulcounterpart to theChurchill documents andto journals and insightsprovided by those travellingwith Churchill onhis visits: John Colville,Lord Moran, militarystaff giants Ismay andAlanbrooke. Generallyspeaking American voices are kept outof this work, leaving it an Anglo-Canadian tryst or encounter.The book begins with discussionof Churchill’s speaking tours. Thefirst was in 1900-1901, with theyoung war correspondent recountingadventures in South Africa, includinghis escape from the Boers’ grasp. Hereceived, and receiving warm applausefrom Canadian audiences in Ottawa,Montréal, Toronto and Winnipeg forCanada’s conspicuous part in the BoerWar. He pointed out that Canada’ssacrifices on kopje and veldt had notbeen made in vain. In fact, opinedChurchill, the war had added toCanada’s power and prestige, promotedthe unity of the British Empire, andmaking possible the prospect of a unitedSouth Africa.FINEST HOUR 129 / 38

This was flattering, and confirming,and his audiences, often hearingthe opposite about this messyimperial conflict, loved it. The editorof a Winnipeg paper gives an insightinto Churchill before his address inthat city, and this is typical of the jewelsthat Dilks has found for us:Before the curtain went up the lecturerlooked through the peephole in it, andspeaking to the manager of the theatre,who stood at his elbow, asked him forhis estimate of the sum of money ‘inthe house.’ To the present writer,standing in the wings, a Winnipeglawyer and leading citizen who wasnext to him expressed disappointmenton hearing the lecturer thus openlyshow his interest in the yield of cash tobe reaped from the lecturer....Churchillleft Winnipeg by train dressed snuglyin a coon-skin coat he purchased at theHudson’s Bay Company...withwarmest memories, enhanced reputation,and padded coffers.Churchill came again on theeve of the Wall Street Crash, ponderinginternational and imperial problemsin Suez, Egypt and Singapore.Now his fame was assured by his WorldCrisis volumes and many cabinet positions.He was a person to be watchedand to be described, by such as theToronto Star: “... the most nearly universalgenius in captivity….All that hascome to him—of inspiration, experience,triumph, mastery—he has notsought. It has simply come, as breezesseek Aeolian wires.” Churchill madetwelve speeches on that tour, writingto his wife of his regard for Canada’sfuture and independent mindset:The immense size and progress of this countryimpresses itself upon one more and moreevery day....The sentimental feeling towardsEngland is wonderful. The United States areis [is] stretching their [its] tentacles out in alldirections, but the Canadian National spiritand personality is becoming so powerful andself-contained that I do not think we needfear the future….Churchill renewed his friendshipwith Mackenzie King on thisvisit, and took the opportunity toinquire into the recent and celebratedconstitutional difficulty involving theGovernor General, Viscount Bing ofVimy, and two Canadian premiers,King and Meighen. King, always suspiciousof Churchill, found he hadmore support from WSC than expected.As King was prime architect of theevolution of the Commonwealth heseems to have been an important influenceon gaining Churchill’s appreciationof the Commonwealth ideal ofautonomous dominions and governmentswithin the British Empire.On wartime visits Churchill mademuch of Canada’s growth and economicpower, so vital to the Allied victory.Three large chapters, one for eachgreat meeting—Argentia, 1941 andthe 1943-44 Quebec conferences(Quadrant and Octagon)—are full ofdocumentary snippets offering insightsinto high-level diplomacy and strategy.The Argentia meeting, to establish thetheme of a United Nations and to laydown principles for a postwar world, isworked out against a backdrop of personaldiscord between Churchill andKing, with WSC attempting somefence mending. The second centred ondiscussions on nuclear energy, strategy,and future direction of war. The thirdshows closer bonds of Commonwealth,a meeting of the War Committee ofthe Canadian Cabinet, and a pressconference with Churchill. Dilks provideslovely bridges to the materials,and identifies with editorial skill variousprominent figures who grace thesepages. This is a rich tapestry ofCanadian political life.The best most original scholarshipis the post-1945 era. Churchillcame to Canada in 1952 and 1954.He was bullish on the country, as he sosaid in Ottawa in 1952, in the presenceof Prime Minister St. Laurent:Upon the whole surface of the globe there isno more spacious and splendid domain opento the activity and genius of free men, withone hand clasping in enduring friendshipwith the United States, and the other spreadacross the ocean both to Britain and toFrance. You will have a sacred mission to discharge.That you will be worthy of it I donot doubt. God bless you all.FINEST HOUR 129 / 39It was a wholesome, generoustribute, but Churchill was not in topform. Recently in Washington he hadstrenuously and unsuccessfully foughtagainst Dean Acheson and the JointChiefs of Staff about the evolution of aSupreme Command, North Atlantic.Churchill, older and weakernow, was energized by sentiment: hepushed upon the Canadians to retain“Rule Britannia” as the RoyalCanadian Navy’s signature song, butCanadian statesmen had to point outthat the more appropriate “Vive laCanadienne” had been officially adopted.Still, the hosts yielded agreeably tothe appeals of the guest, and “RuleBritannia” was played by the RCAFband on all suitable occasions whenChurchill was present.Claxton, in a rare insight, tellsus that Churchill was delighted withCanadian-built Sabre aircraft sent toBritain and used in RAF squadrons,because as Churchill said, the existingair capability of fighter aircraft of theHunter and Swift type were no matchfor the Russian MIGs.Canadian postwar loans toBritain, and similar debts written offfrom the World War II receive scanttreatment here. These were years ofmighty Canadian commitment toNATO and to European security, andbefore 1956, when Canada departedfrom British policy on the matter ofSuez, 1956, the, the Anglo-Canadianalliance was fixed and inviolate.This is a grand and handsomebook, a superb companion to modernhistories of Canada and the UK asseen through Churchill’s eyes andthose who saw Churchill in CanadaBringing together so much vast information,some of it hitherto unavailable,makes it an imperishable book, acredit to author and publisher alike. Itgives enhanced value to the Canadianside and insights into modern history,so often neglected. Of course it showsaspects of Canadian independentthought and muted paranoia, for havingto grow up with John Bull as wellas Uncle Sam was never, and couldnever, be easy. ,

I N S I D E T H E J O U R N A L SWHENCE THE AASR?**THE ANGLO-AMERICAN SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP, coined byChurchill and regularly dredged up by politicians of all stripesand both sides of the Atlantic, is questioned anew...1. Europeans donot do war...“How Strong Are Shared Values in theTransatlantic Relationship?,” by AlexDanchev, Professor of InternationalRelations, University of Nottingham.British Journal of Politics andInternational Relations, 2005, vol. 7.A full transcript of this article and aresponse by CC academic adviserWarren Kimball are available byemail; please contact the editor.“We are the ally of theUnited States notbecause they are powerful,but because weshare their values,” saidTony Blair in 2003. But how muchwill the desire to live up to a transatlanticpast alleviate the inevitable tensionsnow that Europe has lost importancefor many Americans, and Europehas lost faith in America?We live in an era when the ideaof an alliance of values seems eitherquaint or oppressive, and even contradictorywhen one remembers that,recently, 43 percent of Americans feltthat torturing suspected terrorists couldsometimes be justified, when there isno similar feeling amongst Europeans.Moreover, there are broad differencesbetween Europe and the US over capitalpunishment, income inequalitybetween rich and poor, the tax burdenand religious observance.Although the two sides of theAtlantic may recognise the same coreconcepts (such as the rule of law, freedomof speech, equal rights and religioustoleration), their interpretationsof them are strikingly different.Europeans do not do God. NoEuropean would express himself as didPresident Bush during the election:“Freedom is the Almighty God’s gift toevery man and woman in this world.”Europeans do not do self-belief, andare bemused by America’s “can do”attitude. Europeans do not do China:that huge country, indeed, the widerworld generally, barely features onEurope’s radar. Europeans do not doverbalization: the open, unselfconscious,affirmativeness of Americanspeech is something totally alien to theEuropean way of expressing themselves.And Europeans do not do war,as the German and French ForeignMinisters said exactly in the run-up tothe 2003 Iraq War.The alliance of values is thereforeoverblown and oversold. Europeansand Americans, in Kagan’s words,“agree on little and understand oneanother less and less…they do not sharethe same broad view of how the worldshould be governed, about the role ofinternational institutions and internationallaw, about the proper balancebetween the use of force and the use ofdiplomacy in international affairs.”The Atlantic alliance was createdfor the Cold War: each was thenindispensable to the other. Europeansand Americans are, however, no longerblood brothers; they are merelyfriends. The old common threat hasgone, and for many Americans,Europe is no longer in the eye of thestorm, and may never be again. Formany Europeans, America is no longerthe beacon of hope, and is neitherloved nor trusted.The transatlantic relationshipstill has formidable assets, perhapsthe greatest amongst them the storiesit tells to sustain itself. The truth liessomewhere between the monumentalisedpast and the mythical fiction.Once upon a time, we held thesetruths to be self-evident. But not anymore.—Abstract by Robert Courts2. Britons do notdo Vichy...When nations are fighting for life,when the Palace in which the Jesterdwells not uncomfortably is itselfassailed, and everyone from Prince togroom is fighting on the battlements,the Jester’s jokes echo only throughdeserted halls, and his witticisms andcommendations, distributed evenlybetween friend and foe, jar the ears ofhurrying messengers, of mourningwomen and wounded men. The titterill accords with the tocsin, or the motleywith the bandages.—Churchill on Bernard Shaw,Great Contemporaries, 1937Professor Danchev is a verynice man and a scholar whosecause is deconstructing theAnglo-American SpecialRelationship (AASR). He haspreviously offered his thoughtful bookOn Specialness: Essays in Anglo-FINEST HOUR 129 / 40

American Relations (FH 105:38) and aretort-provoking edition ofAlanbrooke’s Diaries (FH 112: 34).The theme of his article describedopposite is similar: the SpecialRelationship is a dangerous shibbolethand distraction; Britain must abandonher slavish adherence to America andblend with Europe, where she is culturallyand philosophically at home.Against this philosophy, Churchill’s1930 words about Britain and Europe(see next page) seem antique.Who is right? Pardon the cynicism,but what has Britain had out ofFrance lately, besides the 2012Olympics? Perhaps in retaliation forthat, Jacques Chirac remarked that theUK’s main gastronomic contributionto European agriculture was Mad CowDisease. (He never dined in a goodpub?) But, of course, we must makeallowances for our Jacques.Professor Danchev says that“statespersons” should reject the AASRbecause, among a list of things they donot do, “Europeans do not do war.”No, and they’d better not, consideringwhat they did with it in the previouscentury, which Churchill described as“more common men killing each otherwith greater facilities than any otherfive centuries put together in the historyof the world.”America’s enterprise and affirmativenessmay be superficiallydemonstrated by comparing the continentalG-8 economies with America’s(and, for that matter, Britain’s,Australia’s and Canada’s). Granted,American attitudes toward individualenterprise are stronger, and there arecongruent contrasts in approaches tohealth care. But it is really quiteimpossible to lump each side of theAtlantic into opposite baskets. In theBaltic one meets Poles driving BMWs,who got where they are with a workethic comparable to America’s. Manymotivated, successful individuals livein Britain and Estonia and Italy, and ifyou look hard you might even findone or two of them in France orGermany or Belgium.If “Europeans do not do God,”they must be too sophisticated tobelieve in a higher power than themselves.Isn’t it odd, then, that establishedreligion exists in Europe but notAmerica? Or that the first thing theRussians did when they cast offBolshevism was to recommission theirsurviving Orthodox priests, to blessamong other things the bones of theRomanovs, dug up and reinterred atSt. Peter and Paul Cathedral?And Europe has religious lawsthat would shock Americans. Britain’sLabour government offered a bill toban speech or writing “likely to stirup...religious hatred,” not only againstmajor religions but any established sectincluding atheists and humanists. If itpasses, you could to go gaol for sayingsomething unkind about Druids.(That was before July 7th.) In Italy,author Oriana Fallaci was indicted forvilifying not Roman Catholicism butIslam, saying the Islamic invasion ofEurope proceeds not only in a physicalbut also in a mental and cultural sense:“Servility to the invaders has poisoneddemocracy with obvious consequencefor the freedom of thought, and forthe concept itself of liberty.”These are remarkable abridgementsof something Churchill helddear, along with Jefferson and, onehopes, a few others still.Professor Warren Kimball—Churchill Centre academicadviser, author of importantworks on the wartime relationship,and no knee-jerkWinstonphile—wrote an eloquentriposte to Danchev in the same Britishjournal. Even eliminating Churchill’s“soaring rhetoric” on the Anglo-American Special Relationship,Kimball wrote, doesn’t fundamentallyalter the case for its existence.Danchev’s skepticism, Kimballsays, is driven by current politics.While not supporting the decision tofight in Iraq, Kimball asks: “Why putthe blame on the Special Relationship?If the current political stance of theBritish government is unappetizing,elect a different leadership!” Largenumbers in the last UK election didjust that, voting for the LiberalDemocrats. Like the Anglo-AmericanIraq enterprise, Kimball notes, theAASR has always been “practical andrealistic.” Are not the roots of the currentsituation in Iraq and the entireMiddle East a perfect example?” (Theyare, if you ignore how much oil thehalf trillion we’re spending on Iraqwould have bought.)Kimball finds Danchev’s list ofthings Europeans do not do clever. (Acolleague crafted two especially forBritain: “Britons do not doEuros...Britons do not do Vichy.”) ButDanchev’s assumption of a homogeneousEurope undermines his argument,Kimball explains:The distances—geographic, culturaland historical—between east and west,between Turkey and Ireland, betweenSlovakia and Great Britain, betweenMalta and Norway, are too wide anddeep to allow such generalisations. The“Europeans don’t do” inventory hasfar, far too many exceptions and exemptionsto stand without wobbling.Consider now the parallelsbetween Britain and America, fromformer American Ambassador toLondon Raymond Seitz in the firstChurchill Lecture (1998):...today the genuine “special relationship”really exists outside the officialbody of government intercourse andwell beyond the headlines and photoops. You see this in all manner of publicpolicy, from welfare reform toschool reform, from zero-tolerancepolicing to pension management. Yousee it in every scholarly pursuit fromarchaeology to zoology, in every fieldof science and research, and in everysocial movement from environmentalismto feminism...in financial regulationand corporate governance andtrade union interchange...along thecultural spectrum from the novel tothe symphony and from the movies torock ’n’ roll....in the big statistics oftrade and investment, and in the tinystatistics of transatlantic tourism ortransatlantic flights or transatlanticphone calls...You see it in the work ofThe Churchill Centre and its allies.Perhaps Professor Danchev >>FINEST HOUR 129 / 41

I N S I D E T H E J O U R N A L SBRITONS DO NOT TO VICHY...has chosen an impossible task, muchas the writers of the stillborn, 448-articleEuropean Constitution: to findnationhood in the disparate nations ofEurope to which individually theworld owes so much: science, literature,culture, democracy. The voterswho rejected efforts to lump them allinto a single constitutional stew mighthave had their own ideas as to whatEuropeans do and do not do.More than Britain’s future, thechallenge posed by this kind of thinkingis to Western civilization itself. TheAnglo-American Special Relationshipis nothing more than a distillation ofthe only rational model for liberaldemocracy. Many in Europe, wherethe model was born, have no stomachto defend it anymore. It seems almosta death wish, recalling Toynbee’smaxim: “Civilizations die from suicide,not murder.”And perhaps that’s the root ofAmerica’s differences with her old alliesin Europe. Google “Anglosphere” andyou will find a grass-roots movementto ally the English-Speaking democracies,and non-English speakers withsimilar goals, as disparate as India andmany nations east of the old IronCurtain: a far wider community thaneven Churchill envisioned.“Anglospherists adhere to thefundamental customs and values thatform the core of English-speaking cultures,such as individualism, rule oflaw, honoring covenants, and the elevationof freedom to the first rank ofpolitical virtues.” At present anyway,the part Europe Professor Danchevdescribes does not. It will be interestingto watch how the nations in themiddle tilt.—Richard M. Langworth3. From the CanonThe United States of EuropeBY WINSTON S. CHURCHILL, 1938 • PART IEditor’s note: We publish this long,reflective article not as a prescription formodern times but to shed light onChurchill’s thinking when he wrote it,and on those concepts of his that may beworthy of reflection. It was published inThe Saturday Evening Post and in TheNews of the World on 9 May 1938,under the heading “Why Not ‘TheUnited States of Europe’?” An abridgedversion, “A Great Big Idea,” appeared inJohn Bull on the same day. Reprinted bypermission of Winston S. Churchill.Ideas are born as the sparks flyupward. They die from their ownweakness; they are whirled awayby the wind; they are lost in thesmoke; they vanish in the darknessof the night. Someone throws onanother log of trouble and, effort, andfresh myriads of sparks stream ineffectuallyinto the air. Men have alwaystended these fires, casting into themthe fruits of their toil—indeed, all theycan spare after keeping body and soultogether.Sometimes at rare intervalssomething exciting results from theiractivities. Among innumerable sparksthat flash and fade away, there nowand again gleams one that lights upnot only the immediate scene but thewhole world. What is it that distinguishesthe fortunes of one of thesepotent incendiary or explosion ideasfrom the endless procession of its fellows?It is always something very simpleand—once the surroundings areilluminated—painfully obvious. In factwe may say that the power and vitalityof an idea result from a spontaneousrecognition of the obvious.For instance, not far from thefire there is a rubbish heap, and as theweather has been very dry for sometime and the night breeze isblowing in that direction,one single spark out ofall the millions hassuddenly acquiredenormous importance.It has fallen glowingupon the rubbish; and there is the heapbeginning to smoulder, smoke andbreak into flame; and already there is ablaze and everyone can see for himselfthe rubbish heap and that the spark hasset it alight. No one knows how far theflames will go, whose buildings will bethreatened or what will happen next.There is no lack of excitement andbustling about and running around,and no one—not even the slowest—has any doubt but that somethingunusual has happen, or that it all arosefrom the spark and the rubbish heapcoming together in this way. But whatto do about it is quite a different tale.So when the idea of the UnitedStates of Europe drifted off upon thewind and came in contact with theimmense accumulation of muddle,waste, particularism and prejudicewhich had long lain piled up in thegarden, it became quite evident that anew series of events had opened.To quit a metaphor before itbecomes a burden, never before havesome four hundred millions of thestrongest, most educated and most civilizedparent races of mankind donethemselves so much harm by theirquarrels and disunion as have the greatnations of Europe during the 20thcentury. Never had they more reasonto be discontented with the conditionto which they have reduced themselves,and never could they see moreclearly at once the cause of their misfortunesand its remedy. They haveonly to look around to see the fairregions they inhabit starved andimpoverished by the greatest of allwars, disturbed by hatreds and jealousieswhich the conflict has aggravated,and burdened at every point by fettersand barriers they have themselvescreated and must spend a large part oftheir income to maintain.FINEST HOUR 129 / 42

Then comes science, gatheringpower every day, and stimulated by thestress and fury of the great war. Newpossibilities of profitable cooperationin industry, compulsive need for widerand more reasonable distribution ofproductive effort are apparent to thehumblest unbiased intelligence. Whitecoal from mountain torrents readjuststhe disparity of mineral deposits.Electric cables transmit, or offer totransmit, new sources of energy andwealth in directions and to areas hithertounconsidered. Aircraft fly in a dayacross half-a-dozen frontiers.Lastly there is the economic andfinancial portent of the United States.Here is a region little larger thanEurope and occupied by only a fractionof its population. Here, too, areregions of vast resources and educatedinhabitants, but they are progressing,and prosper at a speed and in a degreenever before witnessed, and stillincreasing. Their resources, althoughbetter distributed and disposed, arenot so much greater than those ofEurope; their population is far smaller.What are the causes which arefavouring the New World and hinderingthe old? The demand of the massesin all countries is for higher economicwell-being. Science and organizationstand ready to supply it. Knowledge isnot confined to one side of theAtlantic Ocean. Why, then, is the contrastbetween American and Europeanconditions so cruel and their rates ofmaterial progress so unequal? To findthe answer, we have only to look at therubbish heap upon which a brisk flamehas already begun to crackle.We must regard this heap a littlemore closely in the growing light. Ithas been the growth of centuries, andeven millenniums have passed sincesome of its still-existing materials weredeposited. In the main, it is made upof the bones and broken weapons ofuncounted millions who brought oneanother to violent deaths long ago.Upon these, three or four centurieshave cast masses of rotting vegetation,and latterly an increasing discharge ofwaste paper. But in it, mixed up withall this litter, scattered about and inter -mingled, are some of the most preciousand dearly loved treasures of thestrongest races in the world. All thehistory books of Europe are there; itshousehold gods; all the monumentsand records of wonderful achievementsand sacrifice; the battle flags for whichthe heroes of every generation haveshed their blood; the vestments of religionsstill living and growing in theminds of men; the foundations of thejurisprudence still regulating their relationsone with another—all flung andblended together.Clearly the burning of the rubbishheap is not so small a matter as itseemed at the first glance. ShouldEuropeans let it burn away and startafresh, or must the conflagration bepromptly extinguished and the rubbishheap preserved for the sake of the preciousrelics and possessions it contains?Certainly if this is the choice, and theonly choice, there will be two opinionsabout the burning, and men andnations and interests and social organizationsof all kinds will range themselveson opposite sides. But is thereno other course? Is there not a morecomplicated, but more scientificmethod of dealing with this pile whichcumbers the earth? Has not Europethe wisdom, the strength, the patience,by the same process to rescue its treasuresand incinerate its rubbish?Continuing to inspect theburning dump, we observethat it is overlaid with a tangledgrowth and network oftariff barriers designed torestrict trade and production to particularareas. This network is the productof modern times. It has markedlyincreased since the Great War. In fact,every improvement which science hasbeen given to European communicationshas been tripped up and renderedlargely nugatory by this new andimmense apparatus. Nothing like it isto be seen in the United States.An English member of theHouse of Commons—an impeccableConservative—Sir Clive Morrison-Bell, has had the wit and ingenuity toconstruct a model of the tariff walls ofEurope. He mounted a large-scale mapand built in imitation brickwork andat their relative heights around thefrontiers of the different states the tariffwalls which exist in Europe today.The Governor of the Bank of Englandinvited him to place it on view in thebank parlour. Since then it has beenexhibited in the parliaments and atconferences in most of the great capitals.One specimen has now reachedWashington.Sir Clive Morrison-Bell claimsthat his model enables people to “visualizethe idea” and that “its presencedoes not make a fleeting but a lastingimpression,” giving “an advantage overthe written or spoken word.” This isno doubt true. No European can gazeupon the astonishing spectacle of theseinternal tariff walls of Europe withoutbeing amazed at embarrassments anddifficulties in spite of which the peoplesof Europe get their daily bread.This lively impression is stimulatedby a glance at the map of theUnited States and by observing thatthroughout the whole of that vast territory,possessing within its boundsalmost every commodity necessary formodern life, there is no obstacle orbarrier of any kind except those whichNature has raised and which science isovercoming. Certainly it would seemthat the free interchange of goods andservices over the widest possible area orover very wide areas, is a dominatingfactor in the rapid accretion of materialwealth.But this idea of European unity,so novel to untutored ears, is no more,in fact, than a reversion to the oldfoundation of Europe. Why should itappear startling to its inhabitants ?Europe has known the days whenRumanians lived on the Tyne andSpaniards on the Danube as equal citizensof a single state. She has dwelt innearer centuries in the catholicity ofChristendom. She has rested her >>FINEST HOUR 129 / 43

I N S I D E T H E J O U R N A L SUNITED STATES OF EUROPE...emaciated body upon the venerablestructure of the Holy Roman Empire.She has seen, as if it were but yesterday,the sword of Napoleon uplifted ina cause which, cavil how you may,meant and could only mean, in theterms of political science, a revivalunder Gallic forms of Roman solidarity.And even in the lifetime of livingmen she has enjoyed the spectacle ofunited Italy and endured the overflowingstrength of united Germany.Everywhere, in every age, in every areahowever wide, over every grouping ofpeoples however diverse, unity hasmade for strength and prosp erity forall within its circle. Why shouldEurope fear unity ? As well might aman fear his own body.Upon the petty states, principalitiesand tribalisms of Europe eachintermediate organism had to grow.The majestic Roman scene had passedaway. The clammy bonds by whichmedieval Christendom had masteredanarchy must be torn asunder. Thefierce youth, nationalism, was born forthis peculiar task. But nationalism isan agent and not an end. It is a championand not a breadwinner. It is a ladderand not a story, a process and nota result.The Treaty of Versailles representsthe apotheosis of nationalism.The slogan of self-determinationhas been carried intopractical effect. The weaker orless fortunate competitors in the struggleof races have been set free. The oldimperial organizations within whichthey had been compressed have beendisbanded or burst. The Treaties ofVersailles and Trianon, whatever theirfaults, were deliberately designed to bethe consummation of that nationalfeeling which grew out of the ruins ofdespotisms, whether benevo lent otherwise,just as despotism grew out of theruins of feudalism. All the inherent lifethirst of liberalism in this sphere hasbeen given full play.Europe is organized, as it neverwas before, upon a purely nationalisticbasis. The scissors of treaty-makingand boundary-drawing have cutsharply through the fringes and acrossdisputed border lines. But in the mainthe Treaties of Versailles and Trianonrepresent the fullest expression ofnational and racial feeling whichEurope has ever known.But what are the results? First ofall, there is a gasp of relief and expansion,and immediately thereafter asense of weakness. The organization ofEurope today is at once more onerousand less economically efficient than itwas before the war. More than seventhousand miles have been added to hercustoms barriers. Every new frontierhas increased the cost in time andmoney of the transport of goods. Atraveller is forced to descend at stationswhose names he cannot pronounceand to justify himself to states ofwhich he has never heard. Professor deMadariaga complains that a journeyfrom Paris to Stockholm—althoughthe distance is less than the diameterof many American states—requires nofewer than six different kinds of coinsand stamps, the passage of seven differentfrontiers and the use of five differentlanguages.The empire of the Hapsburgshas vanished. That immense, unwieldy,uneasy, but nevertheless coherent entityhas been Balkanized. Poland hasescaped from her eighteenth-centurydungeon, bristling with her wrongsand dazzled by the light. The wholezone of Middle Europe, from theBaltic to the Aegean, is split into smallstates vaunting their independence,glorying in their new-found liberty,acutely self-conscious and exaltingtheir particularisms. They must wallthemselves in. They must have armiesto defend the ramparts. They musthave revenues to pay the armies. Theymust have foundries and factories toequip them. They must have nationalindustries to make themselves self-containedand self-supporting. They mustrevive half-forgotten national languagesjust to show how different theyare from the fellows across the frontier.No more discipline of greatempires: each for himself and a cursefor the rest. What a time of jubilee!In this vale of tears nothing ismore disappointing than getting one’sown way. The peoples of MiddleEurope, famished by the privations ofthe Great War, have indulged in abanquet of Dead Sea apples. Evenour own pet Ireland has found thetask of rejoicing over freedomregained strenuous and bleak.Nationalism throughout Europe, forall its unconquerable explosive force,has already found, and will find, itsvictorious realization at once unsatisfyingand uncomfortable. More thanany other world movement, it is fatedto find victory bitter. It is a religionwhose field of proselytizing is strictlylimited, and when it has conqueredits own narrow world, it is debarred,if it has no larger aim, by its owndogmas from seeking new worlds toconquer.The stages of human developmentpress upon one another’s heelsand now here, now there, block ortrample down one another. Loyalty tothe tribe is overtaken by loyalty to thenation; loyalty to the nation obstructloyalty to the continent; and someday we may see loyalty to the continenta danger to mankind. But nothingis gained by cutting out the intstages. Each must find its place in theprocession. Each will have its part toplay in the assembly, and from everyman will some day be required notthe merging or discarding of variousloyalties, but their simultaneous reconciliationin a complete or largersynthesis.I am always twitted with usingwarlike metaphors. But in my life Ihave been brought in contact withmany wars, small and great, and eversince Armageddon the world is familiarwith military modes and phrases.In that harsh school pupils receivedlifelong impressions. Under the pressureof war, men and nations learn todiscard unessential things. They reachFINEST HOUR 129 / 44

“WHY CANNOT EUROPEin time of peace utilize alittle of the wisdom shehas bought so dearly inthe crunch of war?”out in thought and grasp realities.They mine and countermine amongfundamentals. The ordeal is over.Lessons as well as scars have beenreceived. Necessity is the mother ofinvention, and military organization isthe result of intensely concentratedthought. Everyone knows a lot aboutit. Battalions a nd brigades are gatheredtogether in a division, and the divisionforms part of a corps or army. Thearmies are grouped under a commander-in-chief,and finally the commander-in-chiefis subordinate himself tothe allied generalissimo.Imagine the ruin which wouldovertake the army, if there were nothingbut battalions and brigades anddivisions; if divisional generals soughtto meet together in a council of war tosettle on every plan, arrange for all thesupplies and give their views upon thestrategy and policy to be pursued.Imagine, on the other hand, a supremecommand which had nothing betweenitself and the numerous divisions, allmarching and manoeuvering independently.Either method has but to beconsidered to be found mani festlyabsurd. Why cannot Europe in time ofpeace utilize a little of the wisdom shehas bought so dearly in the crunch ofwar? Why cannot the civilian realizehimself as French, German, Spanish orDutch, and simult aneously as aEuropean and, finally, as a citizen ofthe whole world. The flame of war haspassed, its hideous losses have beenwritten off. Europe might at least gathersuch experience from that time oftrial as has been left upon the ground.The resuscitation of the Pan-European idea is largely identified withCount Koudenhove-Calergi. He hasconducted his campaign from Vienna.The headquarters are well chosen. Theplight of Vienna since the Great Warconstitutes the bitterest example of thewaste and folly of the present system.This forlorn capital, for centuries theseat of an empire, now merely thenodal point of severed or strangulatedrailways, a London walled in by hostileIrelands, makes its unanswered appeal.It is right that that appeal should beno longer mute. The form of CountCalergi’s theme may be crude, erroneousand impracticable, but theimpulse and the inspiration are true.We have, further, a manifestoissued by the bankers in 1927, statingin effect that Europe is slowly stranglingherself and that if her economicpolicy is not reversed she may findherself utterly impoverished and bankrupt.The report of the ConsultativeCommittee of the League of Nations,published May, supports the bankers.Finally M. Briand, one of themost powerful and eloquent ofEuropean statesmen, has, with the deftvagueness of an experienced parliamentarian,proclaimed to League ofNations his adherence to the cause of aUnited Europe. He would like to seesome “federal link” establishedbetween all these different states. “Themost important component” of that“federal link” should be “economicagreement.” He branded the Europeancustoms barriers as “mountain chainsthat divided one state from another.”He gained the support of HerrStresemann and of Dr. Benes.Whereupon the Assembly appointed acommittee, under direction to reportas soon as may be.Thus we may exclaim withZola, “Truth is on themarch,” but the time hascertainly not come when wecan complete the quotation—“andnothing will stop her.” Lether, then, march forward, and let usaid her march. The farther she can getthe better. We may be quite sure shewill not get far in the immediatefuture to do anything but good.Concluded next issue. ,WHO WILLREMEMBER WINSTONCHURCHILL?Will future generationsremember?Will the ideas you cherish nowbe sustained then?Who will guide yourgrandchildren, and your country?There is an answer.The Churchill Centre Associates(page 2) have each committed$10,000 or more, over five years,all tax-deductible, toThe Churchill Centre Endowment.Its earnings guarantee thatThe Churchill Centre will endureas a powerful voice,sustaining beliefsWinston Churchill held dear.Now. And for future generations.To join us please contactRichard M. Langworth,Chairman, Board of Trustees(888) 454-2275malakand@adelphia.net,“Send for Churchill”:1951 Campaign PinFrom theWashington Societyfor Churchillcomes this finelyenameled replica of thepin Churchill’s supporterswore in the 1951 GeneralElection—which also happens to behighly relevant today, or any day. Thecraftsmanship is a major improvementon the original—crisp, clear and bright.US $10 or the equivalent postpaid.Send cheques payable to WSC, c/oDan Borinsky, 2080 Old Bridge Road#203, Lake Ridge VA 22192 USA.FINEST HOUR 129 / 45

B O O K A N N O U N C E M E N TBecoming Winston ChurchillThe Churchill Centre is delightedto announce that in 2007,Finest Hour contributorsMichael McMenamin (“ActionThis Day”) and Curt Zoller(“Churchilltrivia”) will publish theirbook, Becoming Winston Churchill: TheUntold Story of How Churchill’sPolitical Thought and Oratory WereShaped by His Irish-American Mentor,Bourke Cockran. The publishers will beGreenwood Publishing in Britain andPraeger in the United States.Becoming Winston Churchill isan outgrowth of Zoller’s Finest Hourarticle, “The Earth is a GenerousMother: William Bourke Cockran,Churchill’s American Mentor” (FH115, Summer 2002) and McMenamin’s“Becoming Winston Churchill,” deliveredat the 2004 convention of theAmerican Political Science Association.It will contain all known Churchill-Cockran correspondence (25,000words), the major portion of whichoccurs between 1895, when Churchillwas 20, and 1906, when WSCachieved his first executive office asColonial Under-Secretary. FH readersmay obtain an electronic version ofMcMenamin’s text from the authorat mcmenamin@walterhav.com.While Churchilliansknow of Bourke Cockran, he issadly little-known in Americanhistory. Yet Cockran, who diedin 1923, was a free trade, antiimperialistDemocrat Memberof Congress whose friendTheodore Roosevelt called him“the greatest orator using the Englishlanguage today.” Cockran’s Republicancolleague in Congress from New York,Hamilton Fish, Jr., said that, except forTheodore Roosevelt, Cockran was theablest man he had ever met, and thathe had more knowledge of historythan anyone in his generation.In 1906, Churchill wrote hisfirst cousin, Shane Leslie (who laterbecame Cockran’s brother-in-law) andasked him to tell Cockran that “Iregard his as the biggest and most originalmind I have ever met. When I wasa young man he instantly gained myconfidence and I feel that I owe thebest things in my career to him.”In 1930, Churchill wrote ofCockran in Thoughts and Adventures:“I have never seen his like, or in somerespects his equal....his conversation, inpoint, in pith, in rotundity, in antithesis,and in comprehension, exceededanything I have ever heard.”Even in his seventies Churchillremembered his old friend, tellingAdlai Stevenson that Cockran “taughtme how to use every note of thehuman voice like an organ....He wasmy model—I learned from him howto hold thousands in thrall.”Excerpts from the book may bepublished in future issues; for readerswho would like a flavor of what is instore for them, we reprint below, withthe authors’ permission, the prologueto Becoming Winston Churchill.It began with a love story. Bornon different sides of theAtlantic, two Americans––aman and a woman––met inParis in the spring of 1895, each grievinga lost love. They had led politicallives at the highest level in their chosenlands. Attractive and strong-willed,they were immediately, magneticallydrawn to one another. They rode horsesand bicycles. They went to plays,restaurants, museums and glitteringdinner parties. They talked and theyargued, in English and in French.They became lovers.Their affair was intense andexhausting, each too strong for theother. They reluctantly parted thatsummer, friends still. That autumn,she asked a favor. Would he take her20-year-old son under his wing on hisfirst journey to the land of her birth,and provide a strong man’s influence,something needed but unreceived fromthe boy’s late father? The man wouldand did, because he had no child ofhis own. And because she asked.He immediately recognized theyoung man’s courage, strength andbrilliance—truly his mother’s son. Hewas the first man, but not the last, tosee this. For the next ten years, whenno one else could or would, he taughtthe young man all that he knewthrough word and deed, showing himhow to place principle over party,helping him to use the English languageas a painter would a palette,offering himself as a role model asif the young man were his ownson, stepping silently back oncehe was done and the young man’spublic career had well begun.The two lovers in turn remarried—butnot to one another.Still, along with her son, he was ather side the day she died, twenty-sixyears after they met, the friend he hadpromised always to be. Two years later,he was gone as well.And less than two decades aftertheir deaths, her son’s courage savedhis country. And the world.The man was Bourke Cockran.The woman was Lady RandolphChurchill, the former Jennie Jerome.Everyone knows her remarkable son. ,PHOTOGRAPHS: LIBRARY OF CONGRESSFINEST HOUR 129 / 46

C U R T Z O L L E R ’ SCHURCHILLTRIVIAQuestions on contemporaries (C), literary(L), miscellaneous (M), personal Revolt?” (S)1577. What was the 1914 “Curragh(P), statesmanship (S) and war (W)arranged in four sets of six.1567. I his maiden speech in theCommons, Churchill commented favorablyon what British Commissioner ofSouth Africa? (C)1568. Churchill started painting in1915. Who wrote about WSC’s earlypainting experiences in A Number ofPeople (1939)? (L)1569. What was the name of the GrandCommittee, formed to consider the1904 Aliens Bill, which Churchill wasappointed? (M)1570. Why did Churchill have toimprovise his opening remarks duringhis maiden speech in Parliament? (P)1571. Reginald McKenna, First Lord ofthe Admiralty, proposed to build fourdreadnoughts in 1908 and, if necessary,six in 1909. Why did Churchill andLloyd George oppose these plans? (S)1572. On 13 August 1913, Churchillsent a lengthy memorandum to theCommittee of Imperial Defence on alikely war between which two sets ofalliances? (W)1573. Who was Colonial Secretary whenChurchill was appointed Undersecretaryof State for the Colonies in 1905? (C)1574. Who wrote about the 1914Ulster Crisis: “Churchill was indeed inour eyes the villain of the piece, theauthor of the ‘Plot’ or Pogrom’—withAsquith and Seeley as his weak accomplices.”(L)1575. Summarize the questionsChurchill asked Prime Minister Asquithabout women’s suffrage in December1911. (M)1576. What was the subject was ofChurchill’s first speech from theOpposition benches in 1904? (P)1578. In January-February 1909, theCabinet debated how many dreadnoughtsto build. How many didChurchill and Lloyd George favor? (W)1579. Who were Churchill’s twoPrincipal Private Secretaries during theearly years of World War I? (C)1580. In The World Crisis, Churchillwrote that the Royal Navy made noimportant contribution to naval literature.Which American Admiral wrotethe “standard work on Sea Power”according to WSC? (L)1581. Who was technically responsiblein 1911 for the safety of reserves of navalcordite, some of which was stored inLondon magazines? (M)1582. Which Parliamentary constituencydid Churchill contest as a Liberal candidatein 1906? (P)1583. What did Churchill say duringthe Korean war about appeasement fromthe position of strength? (S)1584. How many times did Churchillwatch German Army maneuvers as aguest of Kaiser Wilhelm? (S)1585. Which wife of a British PrimeMinister quoted in her diary her husband’sremark, “Of course Winston isintolerable. It is all vanity—he isdevoured by vanity....” (C)1586. Which close friend did Churchillrefer to as “Linky”? (L)1587. An editor of The Morning Post wasamong Churchill’s many critics beforethe outbreak of World War I. Who washe? (M)1588. What was the cause of WinstonChurchill’s temporary estrangement in1914 from his cousin, the Duke ofMarlborough? (P)FINEST HOUR 128 / 471589. Long before the start of WorldWar I. Churchill predicted how theGerman attack of France would develop.What was his prediction? (S)1590. What was the first major Britishnaval disaster of World War I? (W)ANSWERS(1585). Margot Asquith. (1586). Lord HughCecil. (1587). Howell Arthur Gwynne. (1588).Clementine Churchill had written to LloydGeorge, the outstanding radical reformer of theday, on Blenheim Palace stationery. (1589)WSC predicted a German thrust throughBelgium, which proved exactly right. (1590).On 5 August 1914 the British light cruiserAmphion, which had sunk the German minelayerKoenigin Louise and had many German prisonerson board, hit a mine and sank, with theloss of one British officer, 150 enlisted men,and nearly all the prisoners.(1579). Edward Marsh and James Masterton-Smith. (1580). Admiral Alfred Thayer Mahan.(1581) Churchill, as Home Secretary. (1582).North-West Manchester. (1583). “Appeasementfrom strength is magnanimous and noble andmight be the surest way and perhaps the onlypath to world peace.” (1584). Twice.(1573). Lord Elgin. (1574). Leo Amery in MyPolitical Life. (1575). “Is there a real desire onthe part of great numbers of women to assumepolitical responsibility? Would this addition tothe Electorate be for the good of the Country?Has the Country ever been effectively consulted?”(1576). Churchill spoke opposing the proposalto send the 1904 Aliens Bill to a GrandCommittee rather than discuss it on the floor ofthe House. (1577). On 20 March 1914, at themilitary camp at Curragh, Ireland, BrigadierHugh Gough and three officers offered theirresignations in protest against being sent toenforce the acceptance of Home Rule byNortheast Ulster. (1578) Four.(1567) Sir Alfred Milner. (1568) EdwardMarsh. (1569). The Standing Committee onLaw. (1570). On the order paper, which liststopics of speeches, Lloyd George, who precededWSC, had listed an amendment to to theAddress on the King’s speech; but he droppedthe amendment in favor of an attack on methodsof warfare. Churchill, who had prepared hisspeech according to the order paper, had toimprovise a new opening. (1571). They wantedto spend money on social reform rather thannaval armaments. (1572). Britain, France andRussia vs. Germany and Austria-Hungary.

I M M O R TA L W O R D S : W A R C O M E S T O A M E R I C A“It may be that these societies,dazzled and dizzy with their own schemes of aggression and the prospect of early victories,have forced their country against its better judgment into war.They have certainly embarked upon a very considerable undertaking. [Laughter]For after the outrages they have committed upon us...they must know that the stakes for which they have decided to play are mortal.Here we are together facing a group of mighty foes who seek our ruin;here we are together defending all that to free men is dear.Twice in a single generation the catastrophe of world war has fallen upon us;twice in our lifetime has the long arm of fate reached across the oceanto bring the United States into the forefront of the battle....Prodigious hammer-strokes have been needed to bring us together again,or if you will allow me to use other language I will saythat he must indeed have been a blind soul who cannot seethat some great purpose and design is being worked out here belowof which we have the honour to be the faithful servants.It is not given to us to peer into the mysteries of the future.Still, I avow my hope and faith, sure and inviolate,that in the days to come the British and American peoples will,for their own safety and for the good of all,walk together side by sidein majesty, in justice, and in peace.”—WSC, CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, WASHINGTON, 26 DECEMBER 1941 • PHOTOGRAPH: LIBRARY OF CONGRESS ,