THE JOURNAL OI : WINSTON CLH'RCHILlAI'Tl.'MN 2007 • NUMBMR i 3(

THE CHURCHILL CENTRE AND SOCIETIESUNITED STATES • UNITED KINGDOM • CANADA • AUSTRALIA

PATRON: THE LADY SOAMES LG DBE • WWW.WINSTONCHURCHILL.ORG

Founded in 1968 to foster leadership, statesmanship, vision, courage and boldness among democratic f®"and freedom-loving peoples worldwide, through the thoughts, words, works and deeds of Winston Spencer Churchill.

THE CENTRE IS THE SUCCESSOR TO THE CHURCHILL STUDY UNIT (1968) AND THE INTERNATIONAL CHURCHILL SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES (1971).

GOVERNORS AND TRUSTEESDr. John V. Banta • Randy Barber • David BolerWinston S. Churchill • Paul H. CourtenaySenator Richard J. Durbin • Governor Jim EdgarMarcus Frost • Gary Garrison • Laurence S. GellerChristopher Hebb • Judith Mills KambestadHon. Jack Kemp • Christopher MatthewsNigel Knocker OBE • Richard M. Langworth CBEJames W Muller • Amb. Paul H. Robinson, Jr.Hon. Celia Sandys • Michael J. Scully • Suzanne Sigman

HONORARY MEMBERSWinston S. ChurchillSir Martin Gilbert CBERobert Hardy CBEThe Lord Heseltine CH PCThe Duke of Marlborough JP DLSir Anthony Montague Browne KCMG CBE DFCElizabeth NelGen. Colin L. Powell KCBAmbassador Paul H. Robinson, Jr.The Lady Thatcher LG OM PC FRS

OFFICERSLaurence S. Geller, President200 West Madison Street,Suite 1700, Chicago IL 60606Tel. (312) 658-5006 • Fax (312) 658-5797Email: lgeller@strategichotels.com

Suzanne Sigman, Secretary &Education Programs Coordinator42 Dudley Lane, Milton MA 02186Tel. (617) 696-1833 • Fax (617) 696-7738Email: s.sigman@comcast.net

Christopher Hebb, Treasurer1806-1111 W Georgia St., Vancouver BC V6E 4M3Tel. (604) 209-6400 • Email: cavell_capital@telus.net

BUSINESS OFFICEDaniel N. Myers, Executive DirectorPO Box 945, Downers Grove, Illinois 60515-0945Tel. (888) WSC-1874 • Fax (866) 275-0477Email: dmyers@winsto nchurchill. o rg

UNITED STATES BRANCHESThe Churchill Centre is represented in the United Statesby local organizers in Alaska, Arizona, California (3),Chicago, Colorado, DC/Delmarva, Florida, Georgia,Michigan, Nashville, Nebraska, New England, NewOrleans, New York City, North Carolina, Ohio,Philadelphia, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas (2).See inside back cover for local contacts.

Gary Garrison, Affiliates Coordinator2364 Beechwood Drive, Marietta GA 30062Tel. (770) 509-5340 • Fax (770) 565-5925Email: ccsgary@bellsouth.net

AFFILIATESCalifornia Churchillians (Desert, North & South)Rocky Mountain ChurchilliansWinston Churchill Society of GeorgiaNorth Carolina ChurchilliansRt Hon Sir W. S. Churchill Society of Vancouver IslandWashington Society for Churchill

THE CHURCHILL CENTRE SUPPORTS ANDWORKS WITH THE FOLLOWINGFRATERNAL ORGANIZATIONSChartwell, Westerham, KentChurchill Archives Centre CambridgeChurchill Memorial Trust, UK and AustraliaChurchill Museum and Cabinet War Rooms, LondonHarrow School, Harrow-on-the Hill, MiddlesexWinston Churchill Memorial & Library, Fulton, Missouri

INTERNET SERVICESWebsite: www.winstonchurchill.orgWebsite committee: David A. Turrell, ChairmanPaul Brubaker • Ian W. D. Langworth • John David OlsenTodd A. Ronnei • Daniel N, Myers, Webmaster.Listserv: http://groups.google.com/group/ChurchillChatModerator: Jonah Triebwasser

ACADEMIC ADVISERSProf. James W. Muller, Chairman

University of Alaska, Anchorage2410 Galewood Street, Anchorage AK 99508Tel. (907) 786-4740 • Fax (907) 786-4647Email: afjwm@uaa.alaska.edu

Prof. John A. Ramsden, Vice ChairmanQueen Mary College, University of London

Prof. Paul K. Alkon, University of Southern CaliforniaSir Martin Gilbert CBE, Merton College, OxfordCol. David Jablonsky, U.S. Army War CollegeProf. Warren F. Kimball, Rutgers UniversityProf. John Maurer, U.S. Naval War CollegeProf. David Reynolds, Christ's College CambridgeDr. Jeffrey Wallm, American Academy of Liberal Education

LEADERSHIP & SUPPORTNUMBER TEN CLUBContributors of $10,000 annually to the work of the Centre:Laurence S. Geller • J. Willis JohnsonMichael D. Rose ' Michael J. Scully

CHURCHILL CENTRE ASSOCIATESAssociates are contributors to The Churchill Endowment,which offers three levels: $10,000, $25,000 and $50,000+,inclusive of bequests. Endowment earnings support the workof The Churchill Centre.

Winston Churchill AssociatesThe Annenberg Foundation • David &c Diane BolerColin D. Clark • Fred Farrow • Mr. & Mrs. Parker H. Lee IIIMichael & Carol McMenamin • David & Carole NossRay & Patricia Orban • Wendy Russell RevesElizabeth Churchill Snell • Mr. & Mrs. Matthew B. WillsAlex M. Worth Jr.

Clementine Churchill AssociatesRonald D. Abramson • Winston S. ChurchillMarcus & Molly Frost • Jeanette & Angelo GabrielCraig & Lorraine Horn • James F. LaneBarbara He Richard Langworth • John & Susan MatherLinda & Charles Platt • Amb. & Mrs. Paul H. Robinson Jr.James R. & Lucille I. Thomas

Mary Soames AssociatesDr. & Mrs. John V. Banta ' Solveig & Randy BarberGaryJ. Bonine • Susan & Daniel BorinskyNancy Bowers • Lois Brown • Carolyn & Paul BrubakerNancy H. Canary • Dona & Bob DalesJeffrey & Karen De Haan • Sam & Judith DodsonGary Garrison • Ruth & Laurence GellerFrederick & Martha Hardman • Leo Hindery, Jr.Bill & Virginia Ives ' J. Willis JohnsonMr. & Mrs. Gerald Drake Kambestad " Elaine KendallDavid M. & Barbara A. Kirr • Phillip & Susan LarsonRuth J. Lavine • Mr. & Mrs. Richard A. LeahyPhilip & Carole Lyons • Richard & Susan MastioCyril & Harriet Mazansky • Michael W MichelsonMr. & Mrs. James W. Muller • Wendell & Martina MusserBond Nichols • Earl & Charlotte NicholsonBob & Sandy Odell • Dr. & Mrs. Malcolm PageRuth &John Plumpton • Hon. Douglas S. RussellDaniel & Suzanne Sigman • Shanin SpecterRobert M. Stephenson • Richard & Jenny StreiffPeter J. Travers • Gabriel Urwitz • Damon Wells Jr.Jacqueline Dean Witter

ALLIES

INTL. CHURCHILL SOCIETY (UNITED KINGDOM)Nigel Knocker OBE, Chairman:PO Box 1257, Melksham, Wilts. SN12 6GQTel. & Fax (01380) 828609Email: nigel.knocker@btinternet.com

TRUSTEESThe Hon. Celia Sandys, ChairmanThe Duke of Marlborough JP DLDavid Boler • David Porter • Geoffrey Wheeler

COMMITTEENigel Knocker OBE, ChairmanPaul H. Courtenay, Vice Chairman & Hon. SecretaryAnthony Woodhead CBE FCA, Hon. TreasurerSmith Benson • Eric Bingham • Robin BrodhurstRandolph S. Churchill • Robert CourtsGeoffrey Fletcher • Derek GreenwellRafal Heydel-Mankoo • Michael KelionAmanda Laurence • Michael Moody " Brian Singleton

INTL. CHURCHILL SOCIETY OF CANADAAmbassador Kenneth W. Taylor, Honorary ChairmanRandy Barber, President14 Honeybourne Crescent, Markham ON L3P 1P3Tel. (905) 201-6687Email: randybarber@sympatico.ca

Jeanette Webber, Membership SecretaryRR4, 14 Carter Road, Lion's Head ON NOH 1W0Tel. (519) 592-3082 • Email: jeanette.webber@sympatico.ca

Charles Anderson, Treasurer489 Stanfield Drive, Oakville ON L6L 3R2Tel. (905) 827-0819 • Email: cwga@sympatico.ca

CHURCHILL CENTRE AUSTRALIAAlfred James, President65 Billyard Avenue, Wahroonga NSW 2076Tel. 61-3-489-1158Email: abmiames@iinet.net.au

THE RT. HON. SIR WINSTON SPENCERCHURCHILL SOCIETY OF BRITISH COLUMBIAChristopher Hebb, President1806-1111 W. Georgia St., Vancouver BC V6E 4M3Tel. (604) 209-6400 • Email: cavell_capital@telus.net

THERT. HON. SIR WINSTON SPENCERCHURCHILL SOCIETY OF CALGARYDr. Francis LeBlanc, President126 Pinetree Dr. SW, Calgary AB T3Z 3K4Tel. (403) 685-5836 • Email: neuron@platinum.ca

THERT. HON. SIR WINSTON SPENCERCHURCHILL SOCIETY OF EDMONTONDr. Edward Hutson, President98 Rehwinkel Road, Edmonton AB T6R 1Z8Tel. (780) 430-7178 • Email: jehutson@shaw.ca

THE RT. HON. SIR WINSTON SPENCERCHURCHILL SOCIETY OF VANCOUVER ISLANDBarry Gough, President3000 Dean Ave., P.O. Box 5037, Victoria, BC V8R 6N3Tel. (250) 592-0800 • Email: bgough@wlu.ca

AUTUMN 2007 • NUMBER 136

"""mil /T" :M

%THE JOURNAL

OF WINSTON CHURCHILL

COVER jaB^S^^^H"View from Chartwell: < H I H ^ ^ ^ H H H H B 1

(Coombs 445), ca. 1946, : J ^ H B H B H H Bshowing WSC's studio jflBH^BniBHaBBBBB

in center fore- iHBH^SH^BH^BHalBground. A similar ^jflBBBH^BH^HEflBfllwork (Coombs jg^SHj^^H^^raHMflHE442) recently . J J H ^ B B ^ B B ^ B H B R H H B Hset a record J B B ^ ^ B H B B H I I B B B B B H B B Hprice for a J I^BH^HH^HHHVHH^HBIBHI

Churchill | 9 | ^ ^ H H H ^ H J H 9 E B 1painting. iflHflRlHHSflBB^BBBB^H

Copyright © ^ W S H B B ^ H H ^ H ^ B B B H HChurchill ^H^H^H|H^k~~^

Heritage Ltd. ^ W H J B ^ H B H H B B B H S TReproduced by ^^H^BBHHPHHBflBBlL

kind permission. ^^n^BRfiBBBJiBBl

, , ^IBBURJBIRight: Testing a Tommy S B B B B l H ^ B lgun, suitably attired in Capone- I S A ^ ^ ^ ^ B ^ H Hlike garb, 1940. This photo was ' BJHBBBHHHHHHB

the cause of much merriment at . imBEBRHBB8Downing Street when German 'jBEHaflflBflH

propagandists reproduced it as '[SIMHHHHH^HHIa wanted poster: "This gang- J & H I ^ ^ H ^ H B H

ster, whom you see in his g^B^BH^BH^BBelement, is wanted for ^Jl inHBBBHBB

murder...." -llEHflBBHBBll

14 Lawrence of Judea? Churchill and Lawrence

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ — ^ ^ DEPARTMENTS^riHHHHHnHHHHJl Despatch Box 4 * Editor's Essay 6f^HS^^HB^flBBfln Datelines 7 * Around & About 9I ^ ^ H ^ ^ H E ^ ^ H Action This Day 12 • Riddles 23• A V A V A W A V A V A V H Wit & Wisdom 29 • Asides 36|Hfl^flBjUBBBflB£ Education 44 • Cohen Corner 48

^^^BBBBBBB^flBBBlMpr Glimpses 51 * Media Matters 52W^EBBBHSB^^^K^ Churchill Quiz 57 * Ampersand 58^ I ^ S S S S S S E H H H H H M ? ' Local Contacts 59 * Churchilliana 60

'JWZM^^mBB&? 38 BOOKS, ARTS & CURIOSITIES. '"WEiblMJFTffP*^^ . Anne Sebba and Ted Hutchinson find a

i*;-' ^fHtj&nfc-Z^F J S H ^ mandatory book for all Churchill•V^k,- • iWc L j B V k ^ libraries ... A more diffidentBBBBBBBba . ~ . sJsBBB^BBlJBiK^b^ ' o o ^ a t t w o m o r e hooksBHH^Ew§&jjn. '^^^^B^B^HBlBHflBi!^, which, though not manda-^ H H ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ H H ^ ^ ^ ^ B ^ B B B B B H B B B B M > tor)', are definite possibili-^^^BBBBBBBBBBJBBBBBBBBBBBBBBL ties ... Marcus Frost readsBB^^^Bj ^H^HBBH^BBHaB^BBBJBBBl Victorian a ... Richard^BJBBBE .^HHK^^^IHfl^^^^^B^^^BBH^: Mastio vicariouslyH W jf lB^BBBB^^^ H 'aB^BBB^Bk experiences WW2 ...H H B B H B ^ ^ B H I H B B B I _ _ ^ B H ^ B H ^ B B K Paul Courtenay• B J H B B B B J H B J H B B B H H B B H ^ B H ^ B B B B B H H , throws up hisBBBBBBJBjBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB hands... StudentsBflBBBflBBBBBjB^BBB^BBBBBBBBBBBBBBft interview the

•SSSHsU^SERHfllflBBsflR^BB^BHflBBRHl Editor...B J B I ^ ^ B B B B H B ^ B B B B B B H B B B B B J B B B B B B H B B Deborah^^^^HBJBfl^BHBjBBBB^BBBBBBBBBJ^BBBBBj Brezina takes[ ^ ^ H H ^ ^ ^ B ^ B B J B B B H B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B on our review

^^Q^HB^^Mll^^^BEHBBBBflBB^BHB '"Ronald

flJB^BJBBJQBB^^^^^^BjBBBj BBBBBBBBBBlBB Cohen pon-^JHBBI^BBBP^ ^ H B H B B B I B H B H I H ^ B B B ^eTS s e m a n r'cs

' ' l ' ' « M H | > S ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ B H ^ B W ... Glimpses of

j ^ y f / Jfli^HBaBHHr wscb>rHHBT ' y / : J B B B ^ B B B B r Margareti^BBr s" J J C J B B B ^ B B ^ B B ^ B B P ^ Sucldeyand^^^H^,. ^ • ^ B H ^ B H ^ ^ B B B B B B B B J K Andre de Staerke ...^BBBBBtfBMBHBBBJHHBBBBBBBBl Media madness skewered byBBBBBBBBBBBBBflBBBBBHSBBBBBHBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBHHBBBi '

BBJVjBBBJBBBBBBBBBBBBBJBBBBH James Lancaster and the.'• "^ '.- " >l -^VBBBBBBBBBHBBBBL Editor ... India reconsidered

It ^ Hij BBBBBBBBBBB B BBBBV and re judged by ManfredHL Ji l^ lBH^BBHaBBHHBBHBB Weidhorn ... Defiance in•BBS. ^ ) ^ ^ B ! ^ ^ ^ 1 ^ B H 9 B H 1 ^ B B ^ B ^ B H K > stained glass on our backBBRJh^ ^BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBJ cover, reported by JL and

B H B ^ ^ S S H B B H B B V H I B B B I Nigel Knocker.

B H B H B HARTICLESthought "the Earth is a Generous Mother..." • Sir Martin Gilbert CBE

18 When Mice Roared: The Thirty-Minute Invasion of St. Pierre and Miquelon • Terry Reardon

24 From the Canon: My30 "Part of the Constitution": Winston

37 History Detectives: Churchill and the46 A Bibliographical Odyssey: Surveyinj

New York Misadventure • Winston S. ChurchillS. Churchill and Parliamentary Democracy • Kevin Theakston

Plunging Investor (Or: When Did Dr. Matthies Hit the Street?);; the Writings of Winston Spencer Churchill • Ronald I. Cohen

52 "Keeping the Memory Green and the Record Accurate" (Or: "There They Go Again") • Richard M. Langworth

54 More on Jan Smuts and the Apartheid Question • James Lancaster

DESPATCH BOX

Hklr

Number 136 • Autumn 2007ISSN 0882-3715www.winstonchurchill.org

Barbara F. Langworth, Publisher(blangworth@adclphia.net)Richard M. Langworrh CBE, E(malakand@langworth.namc)Post Office Box 740Moultonborough, NH 03254 USATel. (603) 253-8900

Editor Emeritus:Ron Cynewulf Robbins

Senior Editors:

James LancasterJames W. Muller

News Editor:John Frost

ContributorsAlfred James, Australia;Terry Rcardon, Canada;Inder Dan Ratnu, India;Paul Addison, Winston S. Churchill,Robert A. Courts,Sir Martin Gilbert CBE,Alien Packwood, United Kingdom;David Freeman, Ted HutchinsonWarren F. Kimball,Michael McMcnamin, Don Piepcr,Christopher Sterling,Manfred Weidhorn, United States

GENTLEMAN CADETSThank you for your appraisal of

Montgomery's book Ten Chapters, whichI think I will give to the Library at theRoyal Military Academy Sandhurst, thehome at one time of both GentlemanCadet Churchill and Gentleman CadetMontgomery. ("Gentleman Cadet" wentout with the 1945 Labour government.)Montgomery is buried in a village nearhere. The Churchill Centre obviously doesa great job. I find much of the present-day nit-picking criticism of Churchillvery irritating. I was only a schoolboy inthe war, but you have a very special viewof Winston Churchill if you had listenedto one of his speeches sitting under thedining room table while the Germanbombers flew overhead.

ANTHONY CLAYTON, FARNHAM, SURREY

HOSTAGES TO FORTUNEReviewing Nicholson's Hostages to

Fortune, Robert Courts argues that "tohave withdrawn Britain's most powerfulassets" [Prince of Wales and Repulse) fromSoutheast Asia after the Japaneseonslaught would have sent the wrong sig-nals. Perhaps. But an even better ques-tion/comment would be to ask howBritish leaders who had seen what airpower could do to naval vessels at Oranand Mers-el-Kebir (the summer 1940British attack on the interned Frenchfleet) and at Taranto (in November 1940,British torpedo planes sank three Italianbattleships) could send the two Britishwarships into the war zone without wait-ing for the aircraft carrier Indomitable tocomplete repairs being made in Ceylon.The blame properly falls primarily onAdmiral Tom Phillips, but also on theAdmiralty and Churchill himself.

But then not very many had cometo realize that air power had changedtheir world. In the program for the 1941Army-Navy football game, was a photocaptioned: "A bow-on view of the USSArizona as she plows into a huge swell. Itis significant that despite the claims of airenthusiasts, no battleship has yet beensunk by bombs." Technically true. TheBritish did it with torpedoes, a month orso later.

PROF. WARREN F. KIMBALL, JOHN ISLAND, S.C.

• Professor Kimball is correct that, toany student of air power, it was clear by1941 that battleships were horribly vulnera-ble. I do not dispute that, nor thatChurchill, in sending the ships, should havebeen aware of this. But I take issue withNicholson's claim that Churchill was prima-rily to blame for the loss o/Prince of Walesand Repulse. He was responsible for send-ing them to Singapore, but there his respon-sibility ends—unless you buy Nicholson'stenuous evidential thread hanging on whathe calls the "prodding telegram. " The ships'despatch to Singapore did not make theirloss inevitable. The decision to go to sea, thedirection, the change of destination, the

o J

decision to go without air power, and thefailure to break radio silence to call for it,were all operational decisions, with little ornothing to do with Churchill.

HMS Indomitable was to have beenpart of Force Z. Unfortunately, she ranaground on 3 November and simply wouldnot have been repaired in any time framethat would have made a deterrent evenpotentially effective. As Alexander recalledafter the war, "unfortunately the carrier wasstranded on a reef...and it was too late to goback on the promise made to Australia andNew Zealand."

The harvest of the "locust years" wasbeing reaped. Churchill was in an impossi-ble position, and had to do something,equipped with too little, too late. He cannothowever be held to blame for the failure tosupply Singapore with a fully-equippednaval force—1930 cutbacks prevented that.It can sensibly be argued that the "deterrent"idea was flawed—and it might havebeen—but for those in charge in 1941 theycould not afford to do nothing, and did nothave the benefit of hindsight. —RAC

MANY HAPPY RETURNSI came to a roaring halt at FH 132,

page 45, directing me to the website post-ing of Sir Martin Gilbert's 1985 Lectureon "Churchill's London." In it he men-tions a "low building near the Hyde ParkSerpentine": the former City of Londonmagazine, which Churchill rushed sol-diers to guard when when war threatenedwith Germany, an action which helpedconvince Asquith to name this "man ofaction" First Lord of the Admiralty.

FINEST HOUR 136/4

Here, at what we called the"Arsenal," on 9 April 1947, I proposedmarriage to my glamourous "Buckeye"girlfriend of just eight days' acquain-tanceship, and was accepted. I was onmy first leave out of Burma, having leftEngland in 1938. My leave being justfive months, and certain that Dona was"the one," I decided time was not onmy side if I wished to turn a friendshipinto something more permanent. HydePark, the Serpentine and the "Arsenal"mean a great deal to us, as it meant toChurchill. We celebrated our sixtiethanniversary on May 3rd.

ROBERT DALES, SANTA FE, N.M.

DIGGING DIRTI'm enrolled in a history class and

part of the final is to find "dirt" onfamous people in history. It's a 2000+word paper so I need as much "dirt" asyou might be aware of. Maybe hekicked cats when he was a kid? Thebiggest thing is that I need to be ableto reference the "dirt" credibly.

A STUDENT CORRESPONDENT

This elicited various comments,some wry, many to the effect of: how sadthat an educator would dote on the triv-ial and ignore the meaningful, in whatseems to be an attempt to level all histori-cal figures to one common denominator.Even more incredible was the age of thewriter. When asked to reveal the school,and whether high school, college or uni-versity, he replied: "It's a university butI'll keep the name out, as I don't need anynasty emails going to the instructor."Classes led by a teacher who assigns thistype of "research" will never motivate stu-dents to appreciate history.

Churchillians love history for itsrich and vivid accounts of the world ofour ancestors, and others unknown to us.In looking for "dirt," the student willmiss many of Churchill's inspiring words.He'll be looking for what others say aboutWSC, instead of what he himself said,searching for the inconsequential insteadof seeking to understand. We regret anopportunity lost for him, and of course forhis teacher, —THE EDITORS

CHURCHILL AND INDIA"The Gandhi Factor," by Larry

Arnn (http://xrl.us/5ewe) is an interest-ing if myopic view of Churchill's atti-tude toward India. Arnn's assertion thatBritain "had come to exercise sover-eignty there" is just a euphemism for acalculated colonial land grab. Thestatement, "because of [Britain's] actionover many decades the population ofIndia had greatly increased" sounds likesomething out of George Bush'smouth, where "friendly fire" is anexpression to cover up shooting yourown troops. Under British misrule,education was decimated, to the extentthat the illiteracy rate went through theroof. This led to the general impover-ishment of the Indian people.

Poor subsistence farmers tend tohave larger families to handle the land.They have large families because theyare poor, not the other way round. Thegreat increase in the Indian populationunder British rule can be seen as adirect measure of British mismanage-ment. It was not the positive thing thearticle implies.

GERALD L. HARRISON, gerald.l.harrison@shaw.ca

What is myopic is fastening onto aflyspeck point in a 1999 article whosepurpose was to contrast Churchill andGandhi—both nominees, back then, dur-ing the "Person of the Century" hoopla.

Larry Arnn was pointing out thatMay 1940 was fairly late for a man likeGandhi to be saying, "I do not considerHitler to be as bad as he is depicted. Heis showing an ability that is amazing andseems to be gaining his victories withoutmuch bloodshed." Churchill never madeas bad a mistake as that!

We have no idea whether Indictsoverpopulation was caused by cultural orreligious practices or by evil British whomade life so unbearable that Indians wereforced to have huge families. But todayIndia is the largest democracy in theworld, with a future as bright as any.

William Manchester's observation(The Last Lion, vol. 1, 856 n.) is appo-site: "During the early 1950s, when thiswriter was living in Delhi as a foreign

correspondent, social scientists began acomprehensive poll of Indian villages todetermine how many natives knewBritish rule had ended in 1947. The sur-vey was aborted when it was discoveredthat a majority didn't know the Britishhad even arrived."

Here is a more important datum:By 1820, medical progress in a pip-squeak country off the coast of Europecreated a decisive demographic. Suddenly,thanks to a precipitous decline in infantmortality, a small island had the surplusmanpower to settle an empire (the label-ing of which as a "colonial land grab" issimply generational chauvinism, becausein those days nearly every seafaring coun-try was engaged in colonial land grabs).

More significantly, the little islandprovided the administrative and businessclimate in the West Indies, India,Canada, Australia, New Zealand and thePacific. (Africa too, but sadly it mainlydidn't take there.) Fortunately for theworld, this demographic transformationoccurred in a country that even then hada long-established system of law, propertyrights and personal freedom. Imaginewhat the planet would look like today ifthe first country to conquer infant mortal-ity had been, say, Russia or Germany....

Mr. Bush, though often deservingskewering, is hardly relevant, but surelyyou know that the term "friendly fire" hasbeen around a lot longer than he has.War is hell, which is probably the reasonwe in countries settled by colonial landgrabbers try so hard to resist it. —RML

THE NEW FINEST HOURI just received Finest Hour 135

and read with considerable interest thatone of my major beefs about FH isfinally being corrected and the maga-zine will increase the use of literary andscholarly articles, moving the socialactivities to the Chartwell Bulletin.Congratulations, this is long overdue.

CURT ZOLLER, MISSION VTEJO, CALIF.

We heard from a number of readerswho echoed Curt's praise. We are gratefulto you all. Kind words are always hard tocome by. —THE EDITORS $

FINEST HOUR 136/5

EDITOR'S ESSAY

Everybody Needs Their "Own Churchill"n interesting article was published in The Washington Post in July by Lynne Olson, author of TroublesomeYoung Men, a new book on the young Tories who helped put Churchill in office in 1940. (The title tends tooverstate matters: chiefly it was the Labour Party that put Churchill in office, by refusing to serve underChamberlain.) I have not read Olson's book (Ted Hutchinson has, and reports on page 40). But her article,"Why Winston Wouldn't Stand for W." (http://xrl.us/5cnm), is worth reading.

Olson begins with what seems to this writer a sophomoric argument: that George W. Bush, whose friends liketo compare him to Winston Churchill, really compares more closely to Neville Chamberlain.

Like Bush in 2003, Olson writes, Chamberlain in 1938 thought that he alone could bring a troublesome for-eign dictator "to heel." Really? Is it not a fact that Chamberlain wanted desperately to avoid bringing Hitler "to heel,"hoping to ply him with kind words and friendly concessions? Bush offered none of those to Saddam Hussein. (Wouldthey have worked in Saddam's case? That is now only historical conjecture.)

Like Bush, she continues, Chamberlain resisted a "true partnership" with his allies. But isn't a true partnershipwhat Chamberlain had with France at Munich? And did Bush not woo the French and United Nations far moresmarmily before invading Iraq than Chamberlain wooed the Russians and League of Nations before Munich?

Chamberlain, come to think of it, rejected the proffered hand of an American President. Bush, by contrast,grasped and held the hand of a British Prime Minister—held on for dear life. It seems hardly possible to compareBush, who opted for war at any price, to Chamberlain, who opted for peace at any price.

As much as we may despair over current leaders, each in our own way and each from our own political view-point, what Olson says about "shutting down public debate" is way off. All we seem to have is public debate—a verita-ble permanent campaign, thanks to a 24/7 news media and the intellectual vacuity of leaders unable to communicatewhat they are doing, and for what purpose. There is far more debate over the way to handle Iraq than Chamberlainhad (or indeed tolerated) over his handling of Hitler and the Third Reich

Lynne Olson warms to her subject when she quits attempting vain comparisons and rounds out a picture ofher "own Churchill." The key word in her understanding is the single word "Liberty"—which is a pretty good start.She quotes Eric Seal, Churchill's principal private secretary during the early years of the war: Churchill "intensely dis-liked, and reacted violently against, all attempts to regiment and dictate opinion....He demanded for himself freedomto follow his own star, and he stood out for a like liberty for all men...."

Now one thing you have to say about G.W. Bush is that he follows his own star. "But Churchill would snort,"Olson continues, "at the administration's equation of 'Islamofascism,' an amorphous, ill-defined movement of killersforced to resort to terrorism by their lack of military might, to Nazi Germany, a global power that had already con-quered several countries before Churchill took office in 1940."

No argument there (aside from wondering who forces religious zealots to terrorism). Olson's piece is worthreading because it winds up on a much more compelling note than it begins. "The president no doubt has his ownChurchill," she writes—a comment which should instruct all of us who tell Churchill's story to future generations.

"Our role," a colleague suggested to me, is to "show, write, explain, highlight, inform, publish, teach, discussand promote everything Churchill (and others in his life and times) said and wrote. But at the same time, we shouldallow people to learn and think, to work out for themselves their 'own Churchill' " We support individuals whoexplain what Churchill teaches them (like Chris Harmon's "Let Us Preach What We Practise" in our previous issue,and Kevin Theakston's piece on WSC and the British Constitution in this issue). But as a matter of policy, we shouldnot alienate anyone who draws different lessons than we do from what Lady Soames calls "The Saga."

Articles which apply and learn from the Churchill experience in relation to modern situations are a stock intrade of this publication. But our traditional disclaimer bears repeating: The Churchill Centre takes no official posi-tion on modern political questions. Thoughts expressed here are those of the authors; counter-opinions are welcome,and will be published. And to quote WSC's and F.E. Smith's famous Rule 12 of The Other Club: "Nothing in therules of the Club shall interfere with the rancour or asperity of party politics."

We do take an official position in another area: We encourage discussion of Churchill's experience—what itteaches us, and what means to individuals. We encourage this on the widest possible basis. We intervene only whensomeone's ideas about Churchill are not supported by the facts as we know them. —RML M>

FINEST HOUR 136/6

DATELINESTHANKS, DAN, DAVID AND WARREN

The Churchill Centre is grateful to ourexecutive director, Dan Myers, and to DavidWoolner of the Roosevelt Institute, for theirwork in presenting "Roosevelt and Churchill:The Legacy of Two Statesmen," (AugustChartwell Bulletin.)—and to Professsor WarrenKimball for the insipiration. Behind-the-scenesefforts need acknowledgement. In complicatedevents, it is the organizers on whom successdepends. We wanted to say thanks.

Quotation of the Season

™he idea that general reprisals upon the civilpopulation and vicarious examples wouldbe consonant with our whole outlook upon

the world and with our name, reputation and princi-ples, is, of course, one which should never beaccepted in any way. We have, therefore, very greatdifficulties in conducting squalid warfare with terror-ists. That is why I would venture to submit to theHouse that every effort should be made to avoidgetting into warfare with terrorists; and if a warfarewith terrorists has broken out, every effort should bemade—I exclude no reasonable proposal—to bringit to an end."

—WSC, HOUSE OF COMMONS, 31 JANUARY 1947

NEW LUXURY EDITIONSLONDON & NORWALK, CONN., AUGUST 15TH—

The Folio Society (www.foliosoc.co.uk) ispublishing a new edition of My EarlyLife at a price of $60. This will proba-bly be the finest edition of Churchill'sautobiography published since the vel-lum-bound "Collected Works" editionof 1974.

The Easton Press has meanwhilecome out with a leather-bound editionof The Boer War, a title originallyspawned by Leo Cooper in 1990,which combines Churchill's two SouthAfrican war volumes, London toLadysmith via Pretoria and IanHamilton's March, priced at $130. See:www. eastonpressbooks .com/leather.

—DAVID FREEMAN

BLOWN AWAY? NO...HISTORY NEWS NETWORK, JUNE 10TH—

Winston Churchill has been cut froma list of key historical figures recom-mended for teaching in English sec-ondary schools, a government agencysays. The radical overhaul of the schoolcurriculum for 11- to 14-year-olds isdesigned to bring secondary educationup to date and allow teachers moreflexibility in the subjects they teach,the Government said. But althoughAdolf Hitler, Mahatma Gandhi, JosephStalin and Martin Luther King havealso been dropped from the detailedguidance accompanying the curricu-lum, Mr. Churchill's exclusion is likelyto leave traditionalists aghast.

A spokesman for the UKQualifications and CurriculumAuthority said the new curriculum, tobe taught from September 2008, doesnot prescribe to teachers what theymust include. But he added: "Teachersknow that they need to mention thesepivotal figures. They don't need to beinstructed by law to mention them inevery history class. Of course, goodteachers will be teaching the history ofChurchill as part of the history ofBritain. The two are indivisible."

CHURCHILL SURVIVES—CHURCHILL CENTRE STATEMENT, JUNE 20TH

The study of Winston Churchill, hislife, times, thought and wisdom, con-tinues to expand four decades since hisdeath. Churchill would be pleased thathe remains so prominent, and rightlyso. As he once is said to haveexclaimed: "Study history! In historylie all the secrets of statecraft."

Churchill historians are becom-ing celebrities, called upon by the

media to relate Churchill's experi-ence, be it with the Middle East,trade and economics, "summit" con-ferences, the UN and EuropeanCommunity, Africa, Ireland, India,America, religion and conflict, from acareer spanning the terms of tenAmerican Presidents and six Britishmonarchs.

Consider the success of theHistory Channel, burgeoning sales ofbooks (twenty on Churchill in 2006-08), heritage site visitations, historicalreenactments, or the infinite numberof educational websites. Enter"Winston Churchill" into Googleand you get 2,850,000 hits—morethan any figure in the first half of the20th century. (See next page.)

Considerable misinformationattended a recent announcement thatChurchill, Gandhi, Stalin, Hitler andKing were deleted from a suggestedlist of historical figures recommendedfor teaching in English secondaryschools. The story would be disturb-ing if accepted at face value. The factsare more complex.

In the past, England's curricu-lum authority has not only specifiedsubjects to be taught, but has issueddetailed instructions. The new policyfrees teachers from those instructions.Both World Wars remain compulsoryin English secondary schools. Toteach those wars without mentioningChurchill would be impossible.

"It is just conceivable that »

FINEST HOUR 136 / 7

DATELINES

behind this lies the notion that 'greatpersonages' can be taken out of history,which would certainly be a mistake,"states Professor Paul Addison of theUniversity of Edinburgh, a ChurchillCentre academic adviser and author oftwo books on Churchill. "But the restof Churchill's life has never been onthe curriculum at all. If it were, itwould demonstrate among other thingsthe power of the media to distort therecord—with Churchill as one of themain victims."

Sir Martin Gilbert, CC adviserand Churchill's leading biographer,adds: "Paul Addison and I have longbelieved that there was more toChurchill than World War II (impor-tant though the war years are in his lifeand achievement). Both of us havewritten about many other aspects andperiods of his long career. It would begood if the whole of Churchill's storycould be taught. Perhaps it is, in differ-ent parts of the curriculum."

The Churchill Centre believesthere was no anti-Churchill intentbehind these changes, any more thanan anti-Gandhi intent. England hashad an over-centralized system, givingteachers far too many instructions andtrying to dictate the content of everyhour of the school day. In die informa-tion age, the practice was too limiting.

Today, young people curiousabout why China, Russia, Britain andFrance are permanent Security Councilmembers, but not Japan, India, Braziland Germany; why Israel is at suchpains to defend itself; how Ireland wonfreedom; why the Middle East is whatit is, and the borders of Iraq what theyare; or where die Union of SouthAfrica came from, will inevitablyencounter Churchill.

Last year, 142 teachers and twen-ty-four high school students voluntarilygave up a Saturday to sit for eighthours learning about Sir Winston atChurchill Centre seminars. Anothertwenty-nine teachers devoted twoweeks of their lives to furthering ourmission of "teaching the next genera-tion"—thanks to our partnership withthe Ashbrook Center and a major grantfrom the American NationalEndowment for the Humanities.

While these are small blips onthe educational screen, they represent alarger picture. The Centre is honoredto be associated with the ChurchillMuseum in London; the ChurchillArchives Centre at CambridgeUniversity; the Winston ChurchillMemorial and Library at Fulton,Missouri; the Bletchley Park Trust; theChurchill Societies in Canada,Australia and the UK; and Chartwell,Churchill's home, with the highest visi-tation of any UK heritage site.

Teachers and the educationalestablishment have long been support-ive of our work. If curricula neverchanged, that too would be criticized.Education is an ongoing process,extending before and beyond ages 11to 14. Every thoughtful person, when-ever they have the time or the opportu-nity in life, will find in Churchillsomething illuminating.

Churchill Centre PresidentLaurence Geller says: "I get up everyday relishing the fact I am going tolearn something new. I marvel overhow I survived so long by knowing solittle. I credit Churchill's life, writingsand example every day for educatingme in so very many things. Nobodyelse even comes close."

We were encouraged to read inJuly a statement by UK SchoolsMinister Edward Balls: "I guaranteeBritish parents that every child will belearning about [his] life and leader-ship....We must never forget the debtwe owe to Churchill and the genera-tion he led. And we must never stopteaching our kids about it."

POLLING GOOGLEMOULTONBOROUGH, N.H., AUGUST 27TH—

Out of curiosity we entered "WinstonChurchill" and some other prominentnames into Google to see how many"hits" they produced:

Jesus Christ: 7,760,000John F. Kennedy: 4,040,000

Winston Churchill: 2,850,000Adolf Hitler: 2,620,000

Abraham Lincoln: 2,360,000Ronald Reagan: 2,170,000Richard Nixon: 2,150,000

Lyndon Johnson: 1,760,000Franklin Roosevelt: 1,730,000

ERRATA, FH135• On page 7, the author of

Churchill's Bodyguard is TomHickman, not Charles Higham, forwhich our apologies.

• On page 20, column 2, lastline above footnote, for "Churchill"read "Roosevelt."

• On the back cover in theBeresford paragraph, line 4, for "seg"read "serving."

Harry Truman: 1,300,000MaoTse-tung: 1,040,000Benito Mussolini: 995,000

Hirohito: 904,000Joseph Stalin: 752,000

Dwight Eisenhower: 733,000Martin Gilbert: 320,000

While WSC cannot yet claim,like the Beatles, that "we're more popu-lar than Jesus now," Google puts himwell ahead of every contemporary inhis career period (1900-60). It is per-haps unfair to compare him to morerecent figures; yet even amongAmerican Presidents of his lifetime,only John Kennedy has more hits.

Anyone with web access can dothis, but the hit count will vary fromday to day. Ian Langworth, softwareengineer at Google in California, advis-es that search results change regularlyas the company updates its index: "Wefind new sites, incorporate updates toexisting sites, and lose other sites,which requires that rankings change.It's our intent to represent the contentof the internet fairly and accurately. Wedon't manually assign keywords to sites,and site positions in our results aredetermined by many factors, which areexplained in more detail at the follow-ing URL: www.google.com/technolo-gy/index.html."

WSC RIPOSTES #167LONDON, 1932— "Dear Winston: Amreserving two tickets for you for mypremiere. Come and bring a friend—ifyou have one." —GEORGE BERNARD SHAW

"GBS: Impossible to be presentfor the first performance. Will attendthe second—if there is one." —WSC

(The play was "St. Joan." —ED.)

FINEST HOUR 136/8

FH JOURNAL AWARD 2007VANCOUVER, SEPTEMBER 14TH— " T h e

Queen and Mr. Churchill," byProfessor David Dilks in FH 135,received the Finest Hour Journal Awardfor the best article published over thelast four numbers (132-135).

Past winners are Professor PaulAlkon for his contributions to FH 119on Lawrence of Arabia (2003); LarryArnn, President of Hillsdale College,for his essay "Never Despair" in FH122 (2004); Robert Pilpel for his arti-cle "What Churchill Owed the GreatRepublic" in FH 125 (2005); and TerryReardon for "Winston Churchill andMackenzie King" in FH 130 (2006).Since David Dilks was not atVancouver, our plaque was sent to him.

Although we were rich in articlesthat qualified for high recognition overthe past four issues, there was only oneon which our editors could agree with-out qualification, not only for its his-torical aspects but for its lyrical quali-ties. When David wrote about the needfor "someone at the summit of publiclife who can think and write" atChurchill's level, it reminded us of howpleased we are to have someone at thatlevel writing for Finest Hour.

Professor Dilks replied: "Field-Marshal Lord Roberts, on reading inThe Times that his post asCommander-in-Chief of the BritishArmy had been abolished, wrote withimpressive understatement, 'I was con-siderably taken aback....' But not moretaken aback than I to learn about theAward. Surely it cannot have been wonbefore by anyone who did not evenintend his article for publication! NeedI tell you how flattered I feel that youshould have come to this conclusion? Ishall be proud of the Award. My moth-er, who died a few months ago, wouldhave been so pleased. When I wasgiven an Honorary Doctorate by theAcademy of Sciences in Moscow, shesaid, "David, I do hope this won'tmean that people think you are aCommunist." I replied, "Only a veryfoolish person could think that I am aCommunist." She retorted: "The worldis full of very foolish persons."

Datelines continue overleaf >>

AROUND & ABOUTFrom "The Real Deal," a June 25th op-ed ,

piece in The Wall Street Journal: "Roosevelt per-sonally experimented with the currency—one day in bed(emphasis added), he raised the gold price by 21 cents. When HenryMorgenthau, who would shortly become Treasury Secretary, askedhim why, Roosevelt said, 'It's a lucky number, because it's three timesseven"; Morgenthau wrote: 'If anybody ever knew how we set the goldprice through a combination of lucky numbers, etc., I think they wouldbe frightened.'" Given the flak Winston Churchill gets over returningBritain to the Gold Standard (as Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1925),it's interesting to learn how FDR handled currency decisions.

%•* *•* « • **is *is *is

A member sent us this from a Roosevelt publication: "[FDR's]military chiefs tell no stories of Roosevelt tinkering with their plans inthe way that Winston Churchill drove his chief of staff, General AlanBrooke, to distraction. Brooke is quoted describing the Prime Minister"sitting in Marrakesh...now full of beans. As a result a three-corneredflow of telegrams in all directions is gradually resulting in utter confu-sion. I wish to God that he would come home and get under control."

Well... 1) Churchill challenged but never overruled his militarychiefs. 2) Brooke was not "distracted" enough to fail in his mission. 3)How do we know what Marshall thought? He published no diaries, asthe financially-destitute Brooke did. When offered $1 million for hismemoirs, Marshall replied, "I have already been adequately compen-sated for my services."

Sir Martin Gilbert wrote of Emery Reves, who treatedChurchill the way Marshall treated Roosevelt (http://xrl.us/vwbo): "Hekept no disagreeable diary and told no prurient stories about the manhe admired and helped, and saw so much of....Reves recognised (asone or two recent writers seem to ignore) how great was Churchill'scontribution, not only to the survival of Britain, but also to the survivalof liberty and democracy in Europe and beyond."

On July 2nd the PBS-TV "History Detectives," claiming a newdiscovery, presented semi-facts about the Harry Hopkins ShortSnorter (Finest Hour 131: 26-28), identifying some of the signatures.Two years ago, FH identified virtually all of the signatures on theHopkins "Snorter," including those at London in July 1942 and those atCasablanca in January 1943, and sent owner Gary Schulze this infor-mation. But on the program, Schulze expressed delighted surprise atthe "discovery" of this information from the "History Detectives."Schulze has since told us his reaction was a scripted "put up job"arranged by the self-serving producers. Humph.

We wish to thank PBS-TV for the non-existent credit to FinestHour, and to remind them that the capital of Morocco is Rabat, notCasablanca; and that the Hopkins Short Snorter differs markedly fromShort-Snorters exchanged by fighting military in WW2—as FHexplained, and the Library of Congress could have demonstrated.Wonder if the "Detectives" would be interested in how Churchill andRoosevelt knew about Pearl Harbor in advance? $

FINEST HOUR 136 / 9

DATELINES

FINEST HOUR IS BILINGUALMOULTONBOROUGH, N.H., AUGUST 12TH—

From time to time we like to remindreaders that Finest Hour and our otherpublications take pride in being "bilin-gual": When an article, includingChurchill's articles, originates in Britainor the Commonwealth, it is spelled(spelt?) in "English-English"; if it origi-nates in the USA it is spelled in"Americanese."

But then there are the Churchillspeeches on our website, as Mr. A. G.Morley in New Zealand writes: "In[some] transcripts, you use Americanspellings. For example, Churchillwould not have written 'defense' but'defence.' Surely, in deference to thegreat man, you should use the spellingshe used; to do otherwise dishonours hismemory and his country."

The fact is that some speechtranscripts on our website come fromAmerican editions. We learned thisrecently after transcribing twenty freshspeeches for posting. The editorial styleof speech transcripts will remain, alas,inconsistent. It is impossible to doeverything; we have no appetite to goback and standardize every posting.Since Sir Winston was half-American,we are sure he would see neither dis-honor nor dishonour in this.

FUNERAL COACH RETURNSLOS ANGELES, AUGUST 21ST— Sir Winston

Churchill's funeral coach started itslong journey back to the Englandtoday, when it sailed for Southamptonaboard Wallenius Wilhelmsen Line'sTamerlane. The return of the coach tothe UK has been made possible by thegenerosity of the current owners, theCity of Industry, on behalf of whichLos Angeles Mayor David Perez donat-ed it to the Swanage Railway Trust as agift to the British people.

With repatriation now assured,The Swanage Railway Trust has thetask of raising additional funds toensure the coach's long-term preserva-tion and display. What form these takewill very much depend on how muchcan be raised, but the hope is that thecoach and other associated artifacts willform the centrepiece of a new museumfacility on the Swanage Railway. Fulldetails of the project, including how todonate to the next phase, are at:www.swanagerailway.co.uk/news319.htm.

"THE FORM"LONDON, NOVEMBER 16TH—A n o t e b o o k

kept by Sir Winston's nurse MurielThomson late in his life was sold byBloomsbury Auctions today. Among itscontents are twenty-two pages ofmeticulous notes entitled The Form: aset of instructions shared by those car-ing for WSC at Chartwell or London.

In addition to making sure WSChad his cigars and whisky to hand, andchecking on police protection at HydePark Gate, the duty nurse was expectedto put Sir Winston's budgerigar, Toby,"to bed" of an evening and to wakehim in the morning. "When [WSC]rings his bell, tell the chef first and takepapers up," she wrote. "Draw theblind, put bed-jacket ready on thetable; bird cage over on a shelf; break-fast (two lots), orange juice to cool infridge." The list of items to rememberfor trips between London andChartwell included "cigar case, birdcage and stand."

Rather breathlessly, as if it were anew discovery, The Daily Telegraphrevealed Churchill's love for animals,quoting historian Piers Brendon: "Hehad an anthropomorphic attitude tothem. He had budgerigars, goldfish[golden orfe], cats, dogs, and he lovedpigs. You name it, he loved it. He treat-ed them like human beings and talkedto them. [His routine was] all a bit of amystery towards the end."

Graduate Churchillians know ofSir Winston's love of animals frommany sources. In a melancholymoment in 1946, he mused to WalterGraebner, his editor at Life: "Theworld would be better off it it wereinhabited by animals."

OLIVIER AS WSC'S AGENTLONDON, JULY 16TH—When Laurence

Olivier stayed inHollywood atthe start of theSecond WorldWar he wasaccused of lack-ing patriotism.In reality he wasworking as anagent to per-

suade influential Americans to supportBritain, according to a new biography,Lord Larry, by Michael Munn. Olivier,Munn says, was enlisted in Britain'sSpecial Operations Executive by filmproducer and Churchill friendAlexander Korda. Noel Coward toldMunn, "It was down to Korda to tellLarry that Winston Churchill was notasking but telling him that his countryexpected him to do his duty." The lateDavid Niven said: "If German agentsrealised, they would have gone afterhim." Olivier returned to Britain in1941 and joined the Fleet Air arm,recording 456 flying hours.

—RICHARD STIMSON, DAILY MAIL

IMMIGRATION, 1954LONDON, AUGUST 5TH— Church i l l

expressed alarm about an influx ofblack people in 1950s Britain and con-sidered imposing a quota or haltingimmigration completely, declassifiedCabinet papers revealed today.

In Cabinet notes for 3 February1954 Churchill is quoted: "Problemswill arise if many coloured people settlehere...are we to saddle ourselves withcolour problems in the UK?...attractedby Welfare State...public opinion inUK won't tolerate it once it getsbeyond certain limits."

WSC's Home Secretary, DavidMaxwell Fyfe, told colleagues: "Weshould be reversing the age-long tradi-tion that British subjects have right ofentry to [the] mother-country ofEmpire. We should offend liberals andalso sentimentalists....There is a case onmerits for excluding riffraff. But politi-cally it would be represented and dis-cussed on basis of colour limitation."

Churchill suggested letting "pub-lic opinion develop a little more before

FINEST HOUR 136/10

taking action." There matters resteduntil the 1962 CommonwealthImmigrants Act, which allowed anyCommonwealth citizen to enter andstay in the UK without restriction.Before World War II, there were 7000immigrants in Britain; in 1954 therewere 60,000. Today, as a result of the1962 Act, there are six million inBritain who were born overseas, 10%of the population, destined to go muchhigher because of higher birth rates.

—SUNDAY TELEGRAPH, DAILY MAIL

REBUFFED ANTI-NAZILONDON, MARCH 2ND— Newly-releasedMI 5 files divulge that Churchillrebuffed a proffered meeting withCount Helmuth von Moltke, whoseKreisau Circle was a Hitler resistancemovement, fearing that it might be aset-up to compromise the British. VonMoltke, who worked as a legal adviserfor German military intelligence andhad freedom to travel, tried to arrangea meeting with Michael Balfour of thePolitical Warfare Executive in Stock-holm in 1942, and again in 1943. Hehad hoped to negotiate a peace thatwould leave Germany with some powerand military capability but, of course,no Hitler. At Casablanca in 1943, theRoosevelt-Churchill declaration thatthey would settle for nothing short of

UnconditionalSurrender putpaid to thenegotiations.Count vonMoltke wasimprisoned ayear later, andexecuted fortreason inJanuary 1945.

TREE HOUSE OFTHE AUGUST MANLONDON COLNEY, HERTS., JANUARY 29TH—

The remains of 31-year-old WinstonChurchill's tree eyre are still visible atSalisbury Hall, off Ridge Hill at SouthMimms. His mother, Lady RandolphChurchill, bought the house in 1905and lived there after her marriage toGeorge Cornwallis-West. WSC, a fre-quent visitor, built the tree house to

SALISBURY HALL (left) has twoChurchill connections: Winston'smother, then Mrs. George Cornwallis-West, lived there from 1906 to 1911and WSC was a frequent visitor. Thede Havilland Mosquito (below) wasdesigned there beginning 1939, andthe de Havilland Heritage Centre nowhas a prototype on display. TheMosquito was the world's fastestoperational piston engine aircraft ofWorld War II, and the most versatilecombat, serving in a variety of rolesincluding a day or night fighter, strikefighter-bomber, photo-reconnaissanceplane, pathfinder, intruder, maritimestrike aircraft. There were even mailplane versions in regular nightly serv-ices over Nazi-occupied Europe.

meditate and write, disturbed only bythe the rustling of leaves and branches.Salisbury Hall, where guides oncepointed out the tree house remains andWSC's room, is no longer open to thepublic. However, there is a museumdevoted to the de Havilland Mosquitoaircraft, which was designed there.WSC himself returned to SalisburyHall in 1940, to observe progress onthe Mosquito. The de HavillandHeritage Centre is open from Marchthrough October on weekends,Tuesdays and Thursdays. For moreinformation telephone Ralph Steiner at(0208) 954-5080 or visit www.dehavil-landmuseum.co.uk.

CONGRATULATIONSST. MARY'S HOSPITAL, LONDON, MARCH 19TH—

Our Patron is a great-grandmother!Clementine Silvia Fraser (b. 1976, neeHambro) wife of Orlando GregoryFraser (b. 1967), gave birth to a Ruby

Elizabeth Mary here today. Orlando isa scion of the Lords Lovat, 3rd son ofthe late Rt Hon Sir Hugh CharlesPatrick Joseph Fraser MBE MP (1918-84), of Beauly, Inverness-shire, by hiswife the former Lady AntoniaPakenham, daughter of the 7th Earl ofLongford KG, now Lady AntoniaPinter. Clementine is a scion of theHambro family, daughter of RichardHambro, by his former wife, the for-mer Hon. Charlotte Soames (b. 1954),now Countess Peel, 2nd wife of the 3rdEarl Peel, daughter of Lord and LadySoames. The Lady Soames is thedaughter of the Rt. Hon. Sir WinstonLeonard Spencer Churchill KG OMCH TD, Prime Minister 1940-45, and1951-55, and his wife ClementineOgilvy Hozier (later Baroness Spencer-Churchill GBE), descended from theEarls of Airlie. That is the officialannouncement. We congratulate ourPatron and her family. M>

FINEST HOUR 136 /11

125-100-75-50 YEARS AGO

125 \KAKS A(J<>: Aue7

"lam very happy at school."

In My Early Life, Churchill recalls histime at St. George's School: "...what

a life or anxiety I lived there for morethan two years." At the time, however,Winston's letters to his parents weresinging a different tune. On 2December 1882, the seven-year-oldused the phrase: "I am very happy atschool." He probably wasn't happy andhis place in class at the end of his firstterm explains why: eleventh of elevenboys in the Fourth Division and four-teenth of fourteen boys in the third set.

Winston's father returned to theHouse of Commons in the autumnafter what WSC describes in LordRandolph Churchill wos "a long andpainful illness." Lord Randolph's returnwas felt at once, wrote his son: "It waseverywhere admitted that rhe wholeconduct and temper of the Oppositionhad undergone a change and that thatchange was intimately connected withLord Randolph's return. Mr. Gladstonehad barely had time to offer somecourteous congratulations upon hisrecovery when they were engagedtogether in the liveliest ofdisputes He jeered at the Liberalparty—who had been exhorted by theirWhips not to take too much pan inthe discussion—'for assisting in thecapacity of mutes at the funeral obse-quies of free speech.'"

As always, lord Randolph didn'tspare the Leaders of his own party. TheConservatives weie suppoiting aLiberal Party attempt to require a two-thirds vote rather than a bare majorityto close debate. L ord Randolph said onthe House Floor: "I own I am a firmbeliever in the general infallibility ofsimple majorities: they have practicallygoverned the British Empire from timeimmemorial; and I must express mysurprise that the Tory party...whichrecoils with horror from the Radicalinnovation of the cloture, should pro-pose with eagerness, with anxiety,almost with desperation, the muchgreater Radical innovation of a two-thirds majority."

*t\li' 5i . ; : i . u i''

"Most tiresome to deal nidi"

Churchill had turned down the orfeiof a non-cabinet post in December

1905 and lobbied for Undersecretaryfor the Colonies, because Lord Flgin,the head of the Colonial Office, sat inthe House of Lords. Churchill thustook the lead on colonial affairs in theCommons, which did not always sirwell with Lord Elgin (not espei iallv ahands-on administrator). Departmentalminures came first to Churchill, whohad the habit of writing marginal com-ments directly on them, and the paperswere often seen by others before Flginhad them.

In the Official Biogtaphy,Churchill's son Randolph observed,howevci, that "relations between thetwo were, on the whole, amicable:Elgin was twenty-five years older thanChurchill: he had been Viceroy ofIndia while WSC was a subaltern there.He was at the end of his political lifeand realized that Churchill was at thebeginning of his. It was remarkable inthe circumstances that he viewed hisbrilliant young subordinate with, onthe whole, such amiability. In fact, theygot on surprisingly well; they spoke toother people in terms of marked civilityabout each other."

Jn the autumn, alter attendingFrench Army maneuvers with hisfriend F.E. Smith, Churchill made hisway to Malta where he boarded thecruiser Venm in company of his privatesecretary Eddie Marsh and ColonelGordon Wilson, the husband ot

mby Michael McMenamin

4* - *

Churchill's Aunt Sarah, for a tour ofBritish East Africa. During the journey,Churchill had dictated several longmemoranda, much to the displeasureof the Permanent Undersecretary ai theColonial Office, who wrote to LotdElgin a malicious letter highly eiiticalof his young number two: "Fie is mosttiresome to deal with & will I iear givetrouble—as his father did-iri any posi-tion to which he may be called. Therestless energy, uncontrollable desire (ornotoriety and the lack of moral pcuep-tion make him an anxiety indeed!

"Churchill should have reservedhis points until he returned home-anybody else would have done so outof caution, il not foi convenience.Marsh gives a vivid description of four-teen hours' work in one day upon thesememoranda in the he\u ik discomfortof the Red Sea:

"1 am bound to say that in all myrelations with him he fully respects yourauthority & judgment but he ean neverunderstand that there is a better way ofenforcing an argument than by intrigue& by pugnaciously overstating a case..."

In Africa, Churchill went biggame hunting and described it in a 6November 1907 letter to his mother ina manner reminiscent e)l the way heused to describe to her the battles hehad been in and the1 men he had killed:

"I he- (list clay I killed I Atua, 1wilekliesti |sie|, .' hai k-lx-sh\ 1Cia/elle, I buslald (a gianibllel) Suddenly on ruining roundt h e LOini ' i o l , i h i l l (V n > m m g i n t o a

gieat wide plain of elry guss- v>e saw,

almost 500 yards away a ihmoeeros

quietly glazing. 1 eaiinot d i s u i k to

FINEST HOUR 136/12

you me impiession pro<mind t'V the sight ol die gum black

silhouette of this mighty beast—a

Miiviv.il of ptclustone times—icain-

ing about die plain as lie & his forc-

i minus h.td done since the dawn of

the woikl. It was like being (uns-

poiled back, into the stone age. . .

1 fired ai the big one with a heavy

-ISO tide &.' bit hu plum m the chest.

She sweued round & tame stiaighr

leu us .tt that un ions litisk tiol which

is ueatlv .is last a.s <i hoist's gallop, &

full ol stupiising activuv Cvctybod\

(iied & lioth the ihiiid turned

olf-tntiih to out teliel, and then in a

few nion seconds down came ilie big

one on the giound & the smallei OIK

managed to get away undet a heavy

ine— this one we followed up &

killed latei in the day.

lH hey are looking for weapons"

At the depth ol the Depression,Churchill demonsuated his faith

in the future ol America by instructinghis stockbroker, on 21 ]une, to investU 2,000 in the New Yenk stock market:

I do not think Aineiica is going tosmash. C >n the contiaiy 1 beliiveth.itthey will quite soon begin to ic-covci.. As a countiy descends theladdei or values many giievaucesai tse, bankiuptcies and so fotth Butone must ncui loiget ih.ic at thesame linn all sorts ol collectives atebeing applied, and adjustments beingmade b\ millions ol people andthousands ol rums. II ilit wholewoild except the United States sankundci the ocean that communitycould get its living. They caived it

out of the prairie and the forests.They are going to have a strong na-tional resurgence in the near future.Therefore, I wish to buy sound lowpriced stocks. 1 cannot allord anyothers.

In Germany, the Nazi party hadcapitalized on the Depression tobecome the largest party in theReichstag. Randolph Churchill hadcovered the German elections tor theSunday Graphic, had actually metHitler during the campaign, and hadtraveled all day with the Nazi leader onhis private aircraft as he flew betweencampaign stops. Randolph prescientlywrote on 31 July:

"The success of the Nazi partysooner or later means war They aredetermined once more to have an army.1 am sure that once they have achievedit they will not hesitate to use it."

In Britain, Foreign Secretary SirJohn Simon was urging comprehensivedisarmament, especially by France, as ameans to forestall another war.Churchill had disagreed, telling theHouse in May: "1 would say to thosewho would like to see Germany andFrance on an equal footing in arma-ments: 'Do von wish for war?'"

On 6 November, German}' held asecond general election. This timeNazis lost thirty-four seats in theReichstag but still remained the largestpatty. A little over two weeks later,Churchill issued a warning about acountry now barely two months awayfrom having Adolf Hitler installed asChancellor:

I am making no indictment of Ger-many. I have respect and admirationfor the Germans, and desite that weshould live on terms of good feelingand fruitful relations with them; butwe must look at the fact that everyconcession which has been made—many concessions have been made,and many mote will be made andought to be made—has been followedimmediately by a ftesh demand

Do not let His Majesty's Governmentbelieve—I am sure they do not be-lieve—that all that Germany is ask-ing foi is equal status All thesebands of sturdy leutonic youths,inarching through the streets androads ol Germany, with the light oldesire in fheir eyes to suffer for theirfatherland, aie not looking for sta-tus. They aie looking for weapons,and, when they have- the weapons,believe me they will then ask for thereturn oi lost territories and lostcolonies, and when that demand ismade it cannot lail to shake and pos-sibly shatter to their foundationsevery one of the countries I havementioned, and some other countries1 have not mentioned.

"Make no mistake"

Chin chill continued to work in vari-ous locales on A History of rhe

English Speaking Peoples, the third vol-ume oi which, The A^e of Revolution,was published in October. In early July,Churchill gave a speech in his con-stituency where, in the wake of theaborted Franco-English invasion of theSuez Canal, he spoke of the impor-tance of NATO and British-Americanrelations:

1 am so happy to see our relationswith our American partner aie beingrestoied to then normal warm tem-perature. Make no mistake. It is inthe closest association with ouifriends in the Commonwealth,America, and NATO that our hopesof peace and happiness lie. Neitheiwe nor they can affoiel estrangement.To rely solely on the United Nationswould be disastious for the future. $J

FINEST HOUR 136 /13

CHURCHILL ANDLAWRENCE AREFREQUENTLYACCUSED OF

CREATING THE

STRIFE IN TODAY'S

MIDDLE EAST.

THOUGHTFUL

INVESTIGATION

REVEALS THAT

THEY HAD GOOD

GROUNDS TO

ADOPT THE MAXIM

OF WSC'S EARLY

MENTOR, BOURKE

COCKRAN: "THE

EARTH IS A

GENEROUS

MOTHER; SHE

WILL PROVIDE

IN PLENTIFUL

ABUNDANCE

FOOD FOR ALL

HER CHILDREN, IF

THEY WILL BUT

CULTIVATE HER

SOIL IN JUSTICE

AND IN PEACE."

homas Edward Lawrence (1888-1935), betterknown as Lawrence of Arabia, was a lifelongfriend of Arab national aspirations. In 1917and 1918 he participated as a British officer inthe Arab revolt against the Turks, a revolt led

by Sharif Hussein, later King of the Hedjaz. He was alsoan adviser to Hussein's son, Sharif Feisal.

On 5 June 1918, Feisal met the Zionist leader, Dr.

Sir Martin Gilbert is the official biographer of Winston Churchill, anhonorary member and academic adviser of The Churchill Centre, anda frequent contributor to Finest Hour. His new book, Churchill andthe Jews, will be reviewed in our next issue.

Chaim Weizmann, at the Red Sea port of Akaba (near towhere Feisal's great-nephew, King Hussein of Jordan,and Yitzhak Rabin, Prime Minister of Israel, were to signthe Israel-Jordan peace treaty seventy-five years later).

Lawrence was not present at that Weizmann-Feisalmeeting, but the British official who took his placenoted that Feisal "personally accepted the possibility offuture Jewish claims to territory in Palestine," although"he could not discuss them publicly."

In London, acting as an intermediary in the inter-est both of Arab national aspirations and of Britishpolicy, on 29 October 1918, Lawrence told the Eastern

FINEST HOUR 136/14

Committee of the War Cabinet thatdespite French pressure to serve asadvisers to the Arabs in Syria,Feisal "took the view that he wasfree to choose whatever advisers heliked." Lawrence added that Feisal"was anxious to obtain the assistanceof British or American Zionist Jewsfor this purpose," and that "TheZionists would be acceptable to theArabs, on terms."

In mid-December 1918, amonth after the end of the war,Lawrence was instrumental in secur-ing an agreement between Feisal andWeizmann. The meeting was held atthe Carlton Hotel in London (whereon the outbreak of the First WorldWar, Churchill and Lloyd Georgehad dined, and Ho-Chi-Minh hadbeen employed in the kitchens). At this meeting,Lawrence acted as the interpreter.

Lawrence's official biographer, Jeremy Wilson,notes that both leaders "were now in a position to helpone another politically: the Zionists needed Arab acqui-escence to their programme in Palestine, while Feisalknew that Jewish support during the Peace Conferencemight help to swing American opinion behind his cause.Lawrence had already impressed upon Feisal the poten-tial value of Jewish capital and skills."

According to Weizmann's account at the time, heassured Feisal that the Zionists in Palestine should beable "to carry out public works of a far-reaching charac-ter" and that the country "could be so improved that itwould have room for four or five million Jews, withoutencroaching on the ownership rights of Arab peasantry."

In reply, Feisal told Weizmann that "it was curiousthere should be friction between Jews and Arabs inPalestine. There was no friction in any other countrywhere Jews lived together with Arabs He did notthink for a moment that there was any scarcity of landin Palestine. The population would always have enough,especially if the country were developed. Besides, therewas plenty of land in his district."

On 3 January 1919, Feisal and Weizmann metagain in London, to sign an "Agreement between theKing of the Hedjaz and the Zionists." Lawrence hopedthat this agreement would ensure what he, Lawrence,termed optimistically "the lines of Arab and Zionist poli-cy converging in the not distant future."

In early 1920, as Lawrence prepared for publica-tion The Seven Pillars of Wisdom, his wartime experiencesof the Arab Revolt, he asked Rudyard Kipling if hewould read the proofs. Kipling replied that he would be

WINSTON S. CHURCHILL ON PALESTINE AND ISRAEL:It is hard enough in all conscience to make a new

Zion, but if over the portals of the new Jerusalem you: are going to inscribe the legend 'No Israelites needi apply,' I hope the House will permit me in future to con-

fine my attention exclusively to Irish matters....Jewishimmigration into Palestine can only come as it makes a place foritself by legitimate and honourable means.

"The present form of Government [Palestine Mandate] willcontinue for many years, and step by step we shall develop repre-sentative institutions leading up to full self-government. All of ushere will have passed away from the earth and also our childrenand our children's children before it is fully achieved." —1921

"It is manifestly right that the Jews, who are scattered all overthe world, should have a national centre and a nationalhome, where some of them may be reunited. And whereelse could that be but in this land of Palestine, withwhich for more than 3000 years they have been inti-mately and profoundly associated? —1922

glad to see the proofs, but that if it emerged from themthat Lawrence was "pro-Yid," he would send the proofsback to him untouched.

Kipling thought, and was distressed at the thought,that Lawrence might be pro-Jewish. Lawrence's view ofthe potential evolution of the Jewish National Home inBritish Mandate of Palestine was certainly not hostile toJewish hopes. In an article entitled "The ChangingEast," published in Round Table in 1920, Lawrencewrote of "the Jewish experiment" in Palestine, that it was"a conscious effort, on the part of the least Europeanpeople in Europe, to make head against the drift of theages, and return once more to the Orient from whichthey came."

Lawrence noted of the new Jewish immigrants:"The colonists will take back with them to the land whichthey occupied for some centuries before the Christian erasamples of all the knowledge and technique of Europe.They propose to setde down amongst the existing Arabic-speaking population of the country, a people of kindredorigin, but far different social condition. They hope toadjust their mode of life to the climate of Palestine, andby the exercise of their skill and capital to make it as high-ly organised as a European State."

As Lawrence envisaged it in his Round Table arti-cle, this would be done in a way that would be beneficialto the Arabs. "The success of their scheme," he wrote ofthe Zionists, "will involve inevitably the raising of thepresent Arab population to their own material level, onlya little after themselves in point of time, and the conse-quences might be of the highest importance for thefuture of the Arab world. It might well prove a source >>

FINEST HOUR 136/15

CHURCHILL ON PALESTINE AND ISRAEL, 1943-1949I'm committed to the creation of a Jewish national

- ^r home in Palestine. Let us go on with that; and at the endM_ of the war we shall have plenty of force with which to

compel the Arabs to acquiesce in our designs. Don'tshirk our duties because of difficulties." —2 July 1943

"The whole question of the Middle East might have been set-tled on the morrow of victory, and an Arab Confederation...and oneJewish State might have been set up which would have givenpeace and unity throughout out the whole vast scene.

"The coming into being of a Jewish State in Palestine is anevent in world history to be viewed in the perspective not of a gen-eration or a century, but in the perspective of a thousand, two thou-sand or even three thousand years." —26 January 1949

"Remember, I was for a free and independent Israel r—all through the dark years when many of my most distin-guished countrymen took a different view. So do notimagine for a moment that I have the slightest idea ofdeserting you now in your hour of glory. —29 March 1949

LAWRENCE OF JUDAEA?...of technical supply rendering them independent ofindustrial Europe, and in that case the new confedera-tion might become a formidable element of worldpower."

That "new confederation" was something which,twenty-four years later, Winston Churchill hoped to cre-ate in the aftermath of the Second World War, withKing Ibn Saud of Saudi Arabia as the head of the con-federation, and a Jewish State—stretching from theMediterranean to the River Jordan—as an independentJewish sovereign entity within that confederation.

It seemed to Lawrence—as it did to Churchillwhen he discussed the question of eventual Jewish sover-eignty with the Peel Commissioners in 1937, afterLawrence's death—that it would take a long time beforea Jewish majority would come into being. Such acontingency, Lawrence had written in his Round Tablearticle, "will not be for the first or even for the secondgeneration, but it must be borne in mind in any layingout of foundations of empire in Western Asia. These to avery large extent must stand or fall by the course of theZionist effort, and by the course of events in Russia."

Russia was then still in the turmoil of revolutionand civil war. Its influence in the Middle East had beengreat before 1914. What that influence would be oncethe Soviet Union gained in power, no one could tell. Butfor Lawrence, it was "the course of the Zionist effort"that was one of the main keys to the future of theregion.

When Churchill became Colonial Secretary inJanuary 1921, with special responsibility for the MiddleEast, he appointed Lawrence his Arab Affairs Adviser.

Lawrence had already held talks withFeisal about Britain's BalfourDeclaration, which had promised aJewish National Home in Palestine.In return for Arab sovereignty inBaghdad, Amman and Damascus,Lawrence reported to Churchill, on17 January 1921, that Feisal had"agreed to abandon all claims of hisfather to Palestine."

This was welcome news forChurchill, but there was a problem.Since the French were alreadyinstalled in Damascus, and were not

willing to make way for Feisal orany Arab leader, Churchill pro-posed giving Feisal, instead ofthe throne of Syria, the throne ofIraq—and at the same time giv-

ing Feisal's brother Abdullah thethrone of Transjordan (that part of

Britain's Palestine Mandate lying to the east of the RiverJordan).

Establishing an Arab ruler in Transjordan wouldenable Western Palestine—the area from theMediterranean Sea to the River Jordan, an area that nowcomprises both Israel and the West Bank—to becomethe location of the Jewish National Home, under Britishcontrol.

On 17 March 1921, while at the Cairo Conferenceto delineate the Middle East borders and forms of gov-ernment, Churchill explained to the senior officials gath-ered there that the presence of an Arab ruler underBritish control east of the Jordan would enable Britain toprevent anti-Zionist agitation from the Arab side of theriver. In support of this view, Lawrence told the confer-ence, as the minutes recorded, "that in four or five years,under the influence of a just policy," Arab opposition toZionism "would have decreased, if it had not entirelydisappeared."

Lawrence went on to explain to the conference that"it would be preferable to use Trans-Jordania as a safetyvalve, by appointing a ruler on whom we could bringpressure to bear, to check anti-Zionism." The "ideal"ruler would be "a person who was not too powerful, andwho was not an inhabitant of Trans-Jordania, but whorelied upon His Majesty's Government for the retentionof his office." That ruler, Lawrence believed, would bestbe Emir Abdullah, Feisal's brother (who was to rule untilhis assassination by a Palestinian Arab in 1951).

The presence of Lawrence of Arabia at the CairoConference was of inestimable benefit to Churchill inhis desire to help establish a Jewish National Home inPalestine. Lawrence's friendship with the Arab leaders,

FINEST HOUR 136/16

with whom he had fought during the Arab Revolt, andhis knowledge of their weaknesses as well as theirstrengths were paralleled by his understanding of Zionistaspirations. He also shared Churchill's unease at exces-sive Zionist ambitions: the Jews, Churchill had writtenin a year and a half before the Cairo Conference, "take itfor granted that the local population will be cleared outto suit their convenience."

The unease that Churchill and Lawrence sharedabout the wilder claims of the Zionists did not, however,diminish either man's keenness to see the Zionists helpthe Arabs forward—in Palestine, and elsewhere in theMiddle East—to modernity and prosperity. InNovember 1918, on the first anniversary of the BalfourDeclaration, Lawrence had told a British Jewish newspa-per: "Speaking entirely as a non-Jew, I look on the Jewsas the natural importers of western leaven so necessaryfor countries of the Near East."

On 27 March 1921, ten days after Lawrence's sug-gestions in Cairo, Churchill sent him from Jerusalem tothe Transjordanian town of Es-Salt, to explain toAbdullah what Churchill would ask of the Emir whenhe came up to Jerusalem later that day: he would have toaccept that his own authority would end at the easternbank of the River Jordan, that the Jews were to be estab-lished in the lands between the Mediterranean and theJordan ("Western Palestine") and that he, Abdullah,must curb all anti-Zionist activity and agitation amonghis followers.

The next day, in Jerusalem, Lawrence, Churchill

and Abdullah were photographed at British GovernmentHouse on Mount Scopus: Churchill bundled up againstthe cold, Lawrence in a dark suit and tie, Abdullah inarmy uniform with Arab headdress. At their meetingthat day, Abdullah agreed to limit the area of his controlto Transjordan, and to refrain from any action againstthe Jewish National Home provisions of the PalestineMandate west of the Jordan.

Lawrence had helped ensure that the building upof the Jewish National Home could continue. Healready knew that National Home's potential. Twelveyears before the Cairo Conference, while travelingthrough Galilee in the region of Tiberias, he reflected onthe glory days of the region in Roman times, and on theJewish farm settlements that he saw on his travels, writ-ing home on 2 August 1909:

Galilee was the most Romanized province of Palestine.Also the country was well-peopled, and well wateredartificially: There were not twenty miles of thistles be-hind Capernaum! and on the way round the lake theydid not come upon dirty, dilapidated Bedouin tents,with the people calling to them to come in and talk,while miserable curs came snapping at their heels:Palestine was a decent country then, and could so eas-ily be made so again. The sooner the Jews farm it allthe better: their colonies are bright spots in a desert.

Churchill felt similarly when he saw one of thosecolonies, Rishon le-Zion, after leaving Jerusalem inMarch 1921. The two men were well suited to help atthe early evolution of the Jewish homeland. $

FINEST HOUR 136/17

MAP BY SPMEXPRESS.NET FERRIES

Newfoundland

St Johns

HalifaxNova Scotia

When MiceRoared:

The Thirty-Minute

Invasion ofSt. Pierre

and Miquelon

St-Pierre et MiquelonMiquelon Fortune

******

St-Picrre

NOBODY KNOWS THE TROUBLE THEY'VE

SEEN...TWO SLEEPY REMNANTS OF NEW

FRANCE PROVIDED BRIEF DRAMA AMIDST

THE STUNNING NEWS OF PEARL HARBOR

BY TERRY REARDON

FINEST HOUR 136 /18

ying southwest ofNewfoundland, the islandsof St. Pierre and Miquelon,93 square miles with 6500

people, are the oldest French overseaspossessions. They receive some C$25million annually, the highest per capitaaid in the world. Ownership from 1530bounced between France and Britainuntil 1815, when the Treaty of Parisfinally established French sovereignty.

The islands became a major fish-ing center but the early years of the20th century saw economic crisis.Fortunately for the islanders, theUnited States enacted Prohibition in 1920, and until itsrepeal in 1933 the French outpost became a major alco-hol exporter, with rum runners operating a fleet oftrawlers in St. Pierre. Taxpayer Number One during thisperiod was Al Capone, who visited his St. Pierre opera-tion in 1927. When World War II broke out the colonymobilized, 550 citizens joining the armed forces. Afterthe fall of France the islands came under Vichy control.1

The PlotAfter the fall of France, Canada and the United

States, but not Britain, recognized the Vichy French gov-ernment under Marshal Petain. The USA was a non-bel-ligerent, but Canada maintained diplomatic relations inan attempt to keep Vichy from declaring war on theAllies and transferring the French fleet to the Axis.

Although most inhabitants supported the FreeFrench, Vichy's administrator, Baron Gilbert de Bournat,was intensely loyal to Petain, resisting, along with theCatholic hierarchy, demands for a plebiscite to decidethe colony's loyalties.

The Canadian Government, concerned withmounting ship sinkings in the western Atlantic, believedthat the powerful St. Pierre radio transmitter may havebeen sending coded messages to the Germans aboutBritish-bound convoys. Churchill commented that thestation was spewing out "Vichy lies and poisonthroughout the world. "^

A message from the U.S. Ambassador to Canada toSecretary of State Cordell Hull on 3 November 1941advised that Canada was considering sending wirelessspecialists to St. Pierre to control outgoing messages and,if Administrator de Bournat did not agree, was preparedto take unilateral action.^

Mr. Reardon is a director of the International ChurchillSociety of Canada and a Finest Hour contributor. His last arti-cle was "Winston Churchill and Mackenzie King," FH 130.

DRAMATIS PERSONAEBaron Gilbert de Bournat, Vichy AdministratorM. Poisson, Roman Catholic Apostolic PrefectGen. Charles de Gaulle, Free French Leader

Vice Admiral Emil Henri Muselier, C-in-C, Free French NavyWinston S. Churchill, Prime Minister of Great Britain

Anthony Eden, British Foreign SecretaryFranklin D. Roosevelt, President of the United States

Cordell Hull, U.S. Secretary of StateMaurice Pasquet, U.S. Consul in St. Pierre

W.L. Mackenzie King, Prime Minister of CanadaHume Wrong, Canadian Minister-Counselor in Washington

Lester Pearson, Canadian Under-Secretary of Foreign Affairs

The Curtain Rises12 December 1941: The United States and Vichy

conclude an agreement for the "neutralization" of theFrench Caribbean fleet. De Gaulle fears that neutralitymight be extended to St. Pierre and Miquelon and ordersthe Free French Admiral Muselier to prepare to liberatethe islands, but Muselier asks the Canadian and Americangovernments for their assent. "The secret was thus out,"de Gaulle wrote. "I found myself obliged to warn theBritish in order to avoid the appearance of concealment."4

18 December 1941: The British are in favour of deGaulle's plan but Washington is not. "A few hours afterreplying to me," de Gaulle recorded,

the Foreign Office let us know—was that intentional?—that the Canadian government, in agreement with theUnited States, if not at their instigation, had decided toland at St. Pierre, with consent or by force, the staff nec-essary to take over the radio station. We at once protestedin London and Washington. But as soon as foreign inter-vention on French territory was in question no hesitationseemed to me permissible. I gave Admiral Muselier theorder to win St Pierre and Miquelon over at once."5

22 December 1941: Unbeknown to de Gaulle,Hume Wrong, Counselor of the Canadian Legation inWashington, advises the U.S. State Department thatCanada is cancelling the attempt to take over the radiostation.

23 December 1941: Muselier has advised theCanadian Naval officials in Halifax, Nova Scotia, that hewas undertaking naval exercises, but his consciencebegins to trouble him. He signals a change of course toLondon in order, as he later writes, to give the British anopportunity to intercede with de Gaulle to cancel theoperation if they so desired. This is an unnecessary pre-caution as the British have already cracked the FreeFrench codes; however, the Admiralty and the ForeignOffice do nothing about it. »

FINEST HOUR 136/19

WHEN MICE ROARED...24 December 1941: A gendarme on lookout duty

at the harbour in St. Pierre runs out of coal for his stove,goes into town to procure more, and decides not toreturn that night. From three corvettes and a submarine,360 Free French sailors storm ashore and take over thetown's administrative center. They meet no resistanceand the island's eleven gendarmes offer to round up "theusual suspects." Not a gun is fired, not a drop of bloodis spilt.6

The operation takes just thirty minutes. DeBournat is taken into custody and detained in Muselier'sflagship. A telegram from Consul Pasquet to CordellHull advises of the landings and that "no difficulties areanticipated."^

Muselier reads a proclamation from the Town Halladvising that a plebiscite will be held "between the FreeFrench and collaboration with the Axis powers, whostarve, humiliate and martyr our country." MackenzieKing records in his diary that he is shocked to learn thenews, "...it may prove to be a very critical business and Iam terribly annoyed as well as distressed about it.""

In the wake of Pearl Harbor, Churchill arrives inWashington, where he is meeting with Roosevelt.Secretary of State Cordell Hull interrupts them withnews of the seizure. The two leaders chuckle andattempt to brush off the matter, but Hull, livid, proteststhat this action is a threat to his policy of propping upVichy in the hope that it will stand firm. Rooseveltagrees to pursue the matter.

Churchill later discounted Hull's fury: "He did notseem to me to have full access at the moment to thePresident. I was struck by the fact that, amid giganticevents, one small incident seemed to dominate hismind."9 Historian David Reynolds wrote that Churchillin his draft claims that the Secretary cut a "rather pathet-ic figure."10

De Gaulle wrote later: "One might have thought

that this small operation, carried out so happily, wouldhave been ratified by the American government withoutany shock...But no, it was a real storm that broke out inthe United States. Mr. Cordell Hull himself began itwith a communique that he was interrupting hisChristmas holidays and returning in haste toWashington."11

25 December 1941: Vichy issues a statement: "Thepreliminary reports show that the action taken by so-called Free French ships at St. Pierre and Miquelon was anarbitrary action contrary to the agreement of all partiesconcerned....This government has enquired of theCanadian Government as to the steps that government isprepared to take to restore the status quo of these islands."

Canada's Undersecretary of Foreign Affairs, futurePrime Minister Lester Pearson, records in his autobiography:

The Americans thought, wrongly, that this seizurehad been made with the knowledge and approval of theCanadian Government. Cordell Hull, a courtly but ex-plosive southern gentleman, was particularly angry andtried to browbeat us forcing the "so-called Free French" (aphrase which makes us angry) from the islands andrestoring them to Vichy. Mr. Hull was informed that theCanadian government would do no such thing....Wemade it clear that we were no banana republic to bepushed around by Washington. 12

The American press is soon full of scornful remarksabout the "so-called State Department" and letters ofprotest are sent to the "so-called Secretary of State." Aplebiscite is conducted in St. Pierre and Miquelon whichresults in 98 percent support for the Free French.

26 December 1941: Axis shortwave stations broad-cast fictitious claims of a bloodbath on St. Pierre, with1000 refugees escaping to safety in Canada and theUnited States and later that Muselier had ordered that deBournat and Monsignor Poisson be shot.13

Mackenzie King's diary records that he has met in

FINEST HOUR 136/20

the State Department with Cordell Hull: "I told himthat it would not do to have the Governor restored as hewas pro-Axis, and his wife a German. I also mentionedthat while we had nothing to do with the matter,Canadian feeling was relieved and pleased with the deGaulle accomplishment."14

King and Hull meet with Churchill and Roosevelt.King records: "Churchill said he was prepared to take deGaulle by the back of his neck and tell him he had gonetoo far and bring him to his senses."15 In the Americanpress The New York Times praises Muselier's expedition,which, it says, was "accomplished with a display of styleand manners in the best tradition of Alexandre Dumas."The New York Post accuses Hull of treason by trying to"prop up Vichy against Hitler."

27 December 1941: King and Hull agree the bestcourse is for de Gaulle to withdraw and put the radiostation under American and Canadian supervision.Vichy sends a note to the U.S. government expressingsatisfaction with American disapproval of the actionagainst the islands and demanding a return to the statusquo, including evacuation of the "Gaullist mercenariesand the reinstallation of the governor." M. Poissonbluntly tells Muselier that he has concluded that "I can-not in all conscience recognize you as the legitimate gov-ernment of St Pierre," and nails this declaration on thedoor of the cathedral!

28 December 1941: Hull asks Churchill to inducede Gaulle to withdraw from the islands. Churchillresponds that if he should make such a request his rela-tions with the Free French will be impaired. Rooseveltacts as moderator in a contentious discussion.

29 December 1941: De Gaulle telegraphsChurchill: "It does not seem right to me that in war theprize should go to the apostles of dishonesty. I am sayingthis to you because I know you feel it and that you arethe only one who can explain it in the right way."1^

30 December 1941: Churchill speaks to theCanadian Parliament: "...some Frenchmen there werewho would not bow their knees and who under Generalde Gaulle have continued to fight on the side of theAllies."^ WSC's words cause Hull's anger to reach "hur-ricane proportions."1

31 December 1941: De Gaulle broadcasts toFrance: "We entirely concur with the statement madeyesterday by the great Churchill," and cables WSC,"What you said yesterday about France at the CanadianParliament has touched the whole French nation."^Churchill replies that his words also raised a storm that"might have been serious had I not been on the spot tospeak to the President."20

Churchill is asked about the invasion at a pressconference in Ottawa. He responds: "I would not sayanything about this now. No doubt things will be settled

in a satisfactory way. I regard it as a very minor matter incomparison with the other things which are going on."21

2 January 1942: Fifty prominent American citizensincluding Carl Sandburg and Helen Keller send atelegram to Roosevelt, asking him to reverse the StateDepartment's plan to return the islands to Vichy control.The Press continues to batter Hull and the StateDepartment, The Washington Post sympathizing withthose who are "bewildered by the psychology of menwho wage war with their right hand and appease withtheir left." With Churchill back in Washington, Hulladmonishes him in front of Roosevelt that his commentsin Ottawa were "highly incendiary." He pleads withChurchill to issue a statement supporting the UnitedStates policy towards Vichy but Churchill "was not cor-dial to the suggestion."22

6January 1942: Vichy rejects Hull's modified pro-posals and reiterates its previous demands. Eden cablesChurchill, "I am not surprised at Vichy's reaction....Itwas surely a mistake for the State Department to makean approach to Vichy....Mr. Hull's delineating publicstatement has of course made it difficult for him."2^

8 January 1942: Presidential special assistant HarryHopkins records: "The President suggested to Hull thathe, with the President, should talk it over with Churchillbut Hull demurred at this. Obviously Hull is so mad atChurchill because of his anti-Vichy speech in Canada,which he thinks made the settlement of this issue in theIslands so much more difficult for him He is obvious-ly very sensitive of the criticism he is receiving andblames it on the British, and particularly onChurchill."24

12 January 1942: After further pressure, includingHull's threat to resign, Churchill in Washingtontelegraphs to Eden in London a proposal to de Gaullefor a joint communique declaring that "The islands areFrench and will remain French....the wireless station willbe subject to the supervision and control by observersappointed by the American and CanadianGovernments....all armed forces will be withdrawn."Churchill adds: "However you dish it up he has got totake it. I cannot believe he will refuse If he were to,they are in a mood here to use force....I hope to hearfrom you that it is all fixed we shall soon be flittingand I must settle this before I go."2^

Deputy British Prime Minister Clement Attleeresponds: "Cabinet felt public opinion here would notunderstand why after Dakar, Syria etc. de Gaulle was notallowed to occupy French territory which welcomedhim. People will not appreciate going easy with Vichy. Inour view State Department overestimated Vichy reac-tion. I do not think Cabinet will acquiesce to our com-pelling de Gaulle though they have agreed to Eden try-

ing persuasion. "26

FINEST HOUR 136/21

MICE THAT ROARED...14 January 1942: Eden tells de Gaulle that the

islands must be "neutralized" under Allied control, hint-ing that the U.S. may send a destroyer to St. Pierre. DeGaulle recounts the conversation in his memoirs:

"What will you do then?" he asks me. "The Allied ships,"I answered, "will stop at the limit of territorial waters, andthe American admiral will come to lunch with Muselier,who will be delighted." Eden: "But if the cruiser crossesthe limit?" De Gaulle: "Our people will summon her tostop in the usual way." Eden: "If she holds on hercourse?" De Gaulle: "That would be most unfortunate,for then our people would have to open fire." Mr. Edenthrew up his arms. "I can understand your alarm" I con-cluded with a smile, "but I have confidence in thedemocracies."

Later in the day, Eden notes Churchill's reaction:"The PM was very angry. He thought his original pro-posal eminently fair....He thought that I had failed lam-entably with General de Gaulle."2''

22 January 1942: Now back in London, Churchillsends for De Gaulle, who recalls:

The Prime Minister, with Eden beside him, proposed tous on behalf of Washington, London and Ottawa anarrangement according to which everything at St. Pierreand Miquelon would remain as we had ordered it. In ex-change we were to let the three governments publish acommunique which would to some extent save the faceof the State Department. "After which," the British Min-isters told us, "no one will meddle in the business." Weaccepted the arrangement. In the end nothing was pub-lished. We kept St. Pierre and Miquelon, and none of theAllies bothered about it any more.28

24 January 1942: Cordell Hull's blood pressureeventually returns to normal.

Finis"If we shadows have offended, think but this, and all

is mended." —Shakespeare, A Midsummer Night's Dream

The thirty minute invasion and subsequent machi-nations have been called a "tempest in a teacup" and"trivial to the point of ridiculous." At the time, however,it was a major, albeit short-lived, political and diplomat-ic incident. Historically its greatest value may be that itthrows light on the subsequent attitude of Roosevelt,who never warmed to de Gaulle, who himself constantlytaxed Churchill's attempts to bear "The Cross ofLorraine" with equanimity.

"Remember, Winston," said Churchill's friend andcrony Brendan Bracken at a low point in the de Gaullerelationship, "he thinks of himself as the reincarnation ofSt. Joan." "Yes," Churchill replied, "but my bishopswon't burn him!"2^

Endnotes1. Doody, Richard, "Over by Christmas." World at

War website, www.worldatwar.net.2. Churchill, Winston S., The Second World War,

vol. 3, The Grand Alliance (London: Cassell, 1950), 591.3. Encyclopedie des lies Saint-Pierre & Miquelon,

www.grandcolombier.com.4. De Gaulle, Charles, The Call To Honour (New

York: Viking Press, 1955), 215.5. Ibid.6. Doody, op. cit.7. Encyclopedie, op. cit.8. Pickersgill, J.W., The Mackenzie King Record

(Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1960), 318.9. Churchill, op. cit., 591.10. Reynolds, David, In Command of History

(London: Allen Lane, 2004), 270.11. De Gaulle, op. cit., 215.12. Pearson, Lester B., Mike: The Memoirs of the Rt.

Hon. Lester B. Pearson, vol. 1 (Toronto, University ofToronto Press, 1972), 200.

13. Doody, op. cit.14. Pickersgill, op. cit., 321.15. Berthon, Simon, Allies At War (New York:

Carroll & Graf, 2001), 152-53.16. Dilks, David, The Great Dominion: Winston

Churchill in Canada 1900-1954 (Toronto: Thomas Allen,2005), 185.

17. Kersaudy Francois, Churchill and de Gaulle(New York: Athenaeum, 1983), 174-75.

18. Sherwood, Robert, The White House Papers ofHarry Hopkins, vol. 1 (London: Eyre & Spottiswoode,1948), 460.

19. Kersaudy, op. cit., 177.20. Berthon, op. cit., 153.21. Dilks, op. cit., 220-21.22. Hull, Cordell, The Memoirs of Cordell Hull, vol.

2 (New York: Macmillan, 1948), 1134.23. Roosevelt & Hopkins Papers, University of

Wisconsin digital collection, 392.24. Ibid., 399.25. Ibid., 400.26. Ibid.27. Kersaudy, op.

cit., 177.28. De Gaulle,

op. cit., 215.29. Halle, Kay,

Irrepressible Churchill(New York andCleveland: World,1966), 213. »

FINEST HOUR 136/22

RIDDLES, MYSTERIES, ENIGMAS

Troubled Like Martha"Q; While reading The World Crisis 1911-1918 (one-volume edi-

tion, page 744) I came upon the expression, "troubled likeMartha." What does it mean? —JONATHAN SPERO, JDSPERO@ZAHAV.NET.IL

A Churchill had a photographicjtl. memory, and the book he knewand quoted most often was the Bible.See Luke 10:38-42, King James version,which he usually read:

"38. Now it came to pass, as theywent, that he entered into a certain vil-lage: and a certain woman namedMartha received him into her house.

"39. And she had a sister calledMary, who also sat at Jesus' feet, andheard his word.

"40. But Martha was cumberedabout much serving, and came to him,and said, Lord, dost thou not care thatmy sister hath left me to serve alone?bid her therefore that she help me.

"41. And Jesus answered and saidunto her, Martha, Martha, thou artcareful and troubled about many things:

"42. But one thing is needful: andMary hath chosen that good part, whichshall not be taken away from her."

In the first edition, the passage is inPart II of 1916-1918, 362-63: "TheOperations Division, hitherto troubledlike Martha over many things, had notbeen able to think far enough ahead."

WSC AND THE BIBLEChurchill's encounters with the

Bible began early. He writes in MyEarly Life: "I had accumulated in thoseyears so fine a surplus in the Bank ofObservance that I have been drawingconfidently upon it ever since." Moreimportantly, as Darrell Holley writes inChurchill's Literary Allusions (Jefferson,N.C.: MacFarland, 1987):

"More than to any other book orgroup of books, Churchill alludes tothe King James Bible. It is for him theprimary source of interesting illustra-tions, descriptive images, and stirringphrases. His knowledge of the Biblemanifests itself in direct quotations, inparaphrased retellings of Biblical sto-ries, and in his frequent, perhaps evenunconscious, use of Biblical terms and

phrases....By using the homelybut often profound phrases of the KingJames Bible, he could not onlyinterest his audience (many of whomknew the Bible as well as he), buthe could lead them to greater under-standing of the cosmic meanings oftheir situation...he borrows from noother work the way he does fromthe Bible. For him it is the magnumopus of Western civilization; itis the source of many a beautiful pas-sage in his works."

Q How did Clementine Churchill'ssister Nellie Hozier find herself in

France during World War I? Did theGermans make propaganda of her cap-ture? —ROBIN BATES, MESA, ARIZ.

A Nellie Hozier was a nurse in Bel-JLX. gium in 1914; captured by theGermans, she was released almost im-mediately. There was a certain honoramong both sides then that was notpresent in Hitler's Germany. The Ger-mans occupied her house, but didn'tmolest her. More details are at:www.collectnobel.com/Heroines.html,which floats a story that she becamepregnant by WSC, which is rubbish.There is more on Nellie on Google.

Q Do you know how or why SirWinston's father, Lord Randolph

Churchill (1849-1895) came to havethe name Randolph? I know that thename has alternated through the gener-ations, but am not aware its origin.

—CHARLES LANDGRAF, WASHINGTON, D.C.

A We consulted John Forster, Di-U~X rector of Education at BlenheimPalace, along with Paul Courtenay andJames Lancaster. Lord Randolph'sgrandmother was Lady Jane Stewart,daughter of Admiral George Stewart,Eighth Earl of Galloway. She marriedGeorge Spencer-Churchill, Sixth Duke

Send your questions to the editor

of Marlborough, in 1819.The Earl named his eldestson (later the Ninth Earlof Galloway) Randolph—the Eleventh, Twelfth andthe present Thirteenth Earlsalso bore that name. TheSeventh Duke of Marlboroughmay have named his third son Ran-dolph because it was becoming a strongfamily name, especially if his mother'sbrother Randolph, Ninth Earl of Gal-loway, was Lord Randolph's godfather.Mr. Forster is searching baptismalrecords to confirm this.

It should be remembered that theChurchill family tradition is to namesons after grandparents. Hence: Ran-dolph (born 1849), Winston (1874),Randolph (1910), Winston (1940),Randolph (1965) and John Winston(2007). The last is named after the Sev-enth Duke of Marlborough, govern-ment minister, Viceroy of Ireland, andLord Randolph's father.

Q Have you encountered this puz-zle? His mother was a society

beauty. His father's political career wascut short and his father died young. Hetook part in his country's last cavalrycharge in 1898. He enjoyed huntingand polo. He proposed marriage threetimes, was fond of children and played"bear" with them in his country estate.He was nearly killed in a road accident.He entered politics early, was consid-ered "finished" several times, and criti-cised the government for pursuing"peace at any price." He achieved highoffice with the navy, and when warthreatened, he mobilised the navy onhis own initiative. When war began, heresigned his government post and wentto fight in the front line. Ultimately heachieved his country's highest office,served twice in this post, and spoke of"blood and tears." He was fond ofusing the word "Pray" in memoranda.He won a Nobel Prize and wrote thirty-eight books. His son tried to emulatehis career but failed.

Who is this man?

—DAVID HATTER, ONGAR, ESSEX

A Theodore Roosevelt!

FINEST HOUR 136 / 23

FROM THE CANON

MY NEW YORKMISADVENTUREBY WINSTON S. CHURCHILL

First published in two parts in The Daily Mail, 4/5 January 1932, and later in volume form inThe Collected Essays of Sir Winston Churchill, vol. IV, Churchill at Large (London: Library ofImperial History, 1975). Copyright © Winston S. Churchill, reprinted in Finest Hour by kindpermission of Curtis Brown, Ltd., and the Churchill Literary Estate.

INTRODUCTIONIn New York in December 1931,

on a lecture tour seeking to recoup his1929 losses in the stock market crash,Churchill was searching for his friendBernard Baruch's apartment. Looking thewrong way halfway across Fifth Avenue,he was struck by a car and almost killed.In hospital, he began dictating, while hisbodyguard Sgt. Thompson took measuresto maintain his privacy— "which includ-ed flinging all the clothes out of incominglaundry baskets to prevent reporters fromdisturbing the sickroom by hiding in thebaskets to gain admittance," according toRobert Lewis Taylor in WinstonChurchill: An Informal Study ofGreatness (New York: Doubleday,1952). No working writer can be unim-pressed with Churchill's ability to turnmishap into opportunity. Taylor adds:

Churchill was in agreement withhis doctors that he should beguarded from upsets. His concern,while identical to theirs, wasprompted by a different reason.Propped up in bed, he was busily atwork on a rush article tentativelytitled, "My New York Misadven-ture." He finished it without dis-traction, sold it for $2500, then gotup and took a convalescent trip tothe Bahamas on the proceeds.Some weeks later, back home atChartwell, he resumed the massivewriting projects to which he wasnow dedicated.

Today, two things strike us aboutthis article. The first is amusing: it couldhave happened yesterday, not seventy-fiveyears ago; yet much would be avoided—Churchill would have had a cell phone!The second is more profound. It is the les-son Churchill offers us in facing death:

"There is no room for remorse orfears. If at any moment in this long seriesof sensations a grey veil deepening intoblackness had descended upon the sanc-tum I should have felt or feared nothingadditional. Nature is merciful and doesnot try her children, man or beast,beyond their compass....For the rest—livedangerously; take things as they come;dread naught, all will be well. " —RML

FINEST HOUR 136/24

"THERE WAS A MOMENT OF A WORLD AGLARE, OF A MANAGHAST....I DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHY I WAS NOT BROKENLIKE AN EGGSHELL OR SQUASHED LIKE A GOOSEBERRY"

ome years ago there was a playat the Grand Guignol called"At the Telephone," whichattracted much attention. Ahusband, called away to Paris,

leaves his wife in their suburban home.Every precaution is taken against bur-glars. There is the maid who will stayin the kitchen; there is the door whichis locked; there is the revolver in thedrawer of the writing table; and lastly,of course, there is, if needed, the appealfor help by the telephone.

One by one the usefulness of allthese measures disappears. The servantis called away; she leaves the front doorunlocked so that she can return. Shetakes with her the key of the drawer inwhich the revolver is kept. Darknesscomes on, and in the final act the ago-nized husband hears over the telephonehis wife's appeal for help while she isthe victim of a murderous outrage. Animpressive effect is given of doommarching forward step by step and ofevery human preventive slipping silent-ly out of the path.

Something of this impression restswith me when I recall my experiences ofthe night of 13 December 1931. I hadfinished dinner and was inclined to goto bed; but an old friend of mine rangup and suggested that I should go roundto his house. He was Mr. BernardBaruch, who was the head of the WarIndustries Board during the two years Iwas Minister of Munitions. We madefriends over a long period of officialcables on grave business, and have pre-served these relations through the nowlengthening years of peace. He said hehad one or two mutual friends whom Iwas most anxious to meet, and as thehour was a little after half past nine, Iwas readily enlisted in the project.

I descended by lift the thirty-ninestoreys which separated my room fromthe street level. When I arrived at diebottom it occurred to me that I did not

know the exact number in Fifth Avenueof my friend's house. I knew it wassomewhere near 1100. I knew theaspect of the house; I had been there bydaylight on several occasions. It was ahouse of only five or six storeys stand-ing with one or two others of similarconstruction amid large apartmentbuildings of more than double theheight. I thought it probable I wouldpick it out from the windows of mywaiting taxicab, so after a vain search inthe telephone book—only Mr. Baruch'sbusiness address was there—I started.

Fifth Avenue is an immenselylong thoroughfare, and the traffic uponit, as elsewhere in New York, is regulat-ed by red and green lights. When thered light shows, every vehicle must stopat the nearest crossroad. When after aninterval of two minutes the lights turngreen, they all go as hard as possibleuntil the light changes into red. Thuswe progressed by a series of jerks.

When I got near the eleven hun-dreds I peered out of the cab windowand scanned the houses as we spedpast, but could not see any like the oneI was seeking They all seemed to be tallbuildings of fourteen or fifteen storeys.On the left lay the dark expanse ofCentral Park.

At length we reached the twelvehundreds and it was certain I had over-shot my mark. I told the cabman toturn round and go back slowly so thatI could scan every building in turn.Hitherto we had been moving up theright or centre of the thoroughfare andcould at any moment have stoppedopposite any house. Now we hadturned round. We were on the Park, orfar side from the houses, with a streamof traffic between us and the pavement.

At length I saw a house smallerthan the rest and told the cabman toturn in there to make inquiries. Itoccurred to me that as we must be with-in a hundred houses of Mr. Baruch's

address, and that as he was so promi-nent a citizen, any of the porters of thebig apartment houses would knowwhich his house was. A London butlernearly always knows who lives in thethree or four houses on the right or left.

The porter of the apartmenthouse at which I inquired recognizedme at once and said he had served inthe South African War. He had no ideawhere Mr. Baruch lived, but eagerlyproduced the telephone book, whichcould, as I have stated, give no clue inmy present quest.

In order to stop opposite thishouse we had to wait until the lightchanged, then turn round on to theopposite course, draw up at the pave-ment [sidewalk in USA], and thereaftermake a second turn, again being verylikely stopped by a change in the light.When this had happened three timesand we were unlucky in missing thepermissive green light, I began to be alittle impatient.

It was now nearly half-past ten.My friends knew I had started an hourbefore. Ordinarily the journey shouldnot have taken ten minutes. Theymight think some accident had hap-pened to me or that I had changed mymind and was not coming at all. Theywould be waiting about for a tardyguest. I began to be worried about thesituation at the house I was seeking. Ithought I might have, after all, to goback to my hotel and go to bed.

We had now arrived, as I sup-posed, at about the nine hundreds, andhere were certainly houses much small-er than the others. So instead of goingthrough this long ritual of cab-turningon to the other side of the street, withall the delays of the lights, and thenreturning again on to its generalcourse, I told the cabman to stopwhere he was on the Central Park sideof the avenue; I would walk across theroad myself and inquire at the mostlikely house.

In England we frequently crossroads along which fast traffic is movingin both directions. I did not think thetask I set myself now either difficult >>

FINEST HOUR 136/25

MY NEW YORK MISADVENTURE...or rash. But at this moment habitplayed me a deadly trick. I no soonergot out of the cab somewhere aboutthe middle of the road and told thedriver to wait than I instinctivelyturned my eyes to the left. About 200yards away were the yellow headlightsof an approaching car. I thought I hadjust time to cross the road before itarrived; and I started to do so in theprepossession—wholly unwarranted—that my only dangers were from theleft. The yellow-lighted car drew nearand I increased my pace towards thepavement, perhaps twenty feet away.

Suddenly upon my right I wasaware of something utterly unexpectedand boding mortal peril. I turned myhead sharply. Right upon me, scarcely itsown length away, was what seemed a longdark car rushing forward at full speed.

There was one moment—I can-not measure it in time—of a worldaglare, of a man aghast. I certainlythought quickly enough to achieve theidea, "I am going to be run down andprobably killed." Then came the blow.

I felt it on my forehead andacross the thighs. But besides the blowthere was an impact, a shock, a concus-sion indescribably violent. Many yearsago at "Plugstreet" in Flanders, a 4.2shell burst in a corner of the little roomin which we were gathered for lunch-eon, reducing all to dust and devasta-tion. This shock was of the same orderas the shell explosion. In my case itblotted out everything except thought.

Mario Constasino*, owner of amedium-sized automobile, was runningbetween 30 and 35 miles an hour onroads which were wet and greasy. Hewas on his proper side of the road andperfectly entitled to make the bestspeed he could, when suddenly a darkfigure appeared immediately in front ofhim. He applied all his brakes, and atthe same moment, before they couldact, he struck a heavy body. The carshuddered, and, after skidding some-what under the brakes, came to rest inprobably a few lengths. Three or fourfeet from the right-hand wheel lay a

black, shapeless mass.Mario had driven for eight or

nine years and had never had an acci-dent. He seems to have been overpow-eringly agitated and distressed. Heheard a loud cry, "A man has beenkilled!" The traffic banked up on eitherside. People came running from alldirections. Constables appeared. Onegroup clustered around Mario, anotheraround the prostrate figure.

A friend of mine of mathematicalpredilections** has been kind enoughto calculate the stresses involved in thecollision. The car weighed some 2400pounds. With my evening coat on Icould not have weighed much less than200 pounds. Taking the rate of the carat 35 miles an hour—I think a moder-ate estimate—I had actually to absorbin my body 6000 foot-pounds. It wasthe equivalent of falling thirty feet onto a pavement. The energy absorbed,though not, of course, the applicationof destructive force, was the equivalentof stopping ten pounds of buckshotdropped 600 feet, or two charges ofbuckshot at point-blank range.

I do not understand why I wasnot broken like an egg-shell orsquashed like a gooseberry. I have seenthat the poor policeman who was killedon the Oxford road was hit by a vehicletravelling at very much the same speed

*On 28 January, Conscasino wasamong 2000 at the Brooklyn Academy ofMusic to hear Churchill's first lecture afterhis recovery. WSC also presented him withan inscribed copy of My Early Life.

"WSC cabled Professor FrederickLindemann for a description of what hadhappened to him. Lindemann replied on30 December: "Collision equivalent fallingthirty feet onto pavement, equal six thou-sand foot-pounds of energy. Equivalentstopping ten pound brick dropped six hun-dred feet, or two charges buckshot point-blank range. Shock probably proportionalrate energy transferred. Rate inversely pro-portional thickness cushion surroundingskeleton and give of frame. If assume aver-age one inch, your body transferred duringimpact at rate eight thousand horsepower.Congratulations on preparing suitablecushion, and skill in taking bump."

and was completely shattered. I certain-ly must be very tough or very lucky, orboth.

Meanwhile, I had not lost con-sciousness for an instant. Somewhere inthe black bundle towards which thepassers-by are running there is a smallchamber or sanctum wherein all isorderly and undisturbed. There sitsenthroned a mind intact and unshaken.Before it is a keyboard of letters or but-tons directing the body. Above, a wholeseries of loudspeakers report the sensa-tions and experiences of the empirecontrolled from this tiny headquarters.This mind is in possession of the fol-lowing conclusion:

"I have been run over by a motor-car in America. All those worries aboutbeing late are now swept away. They donot matter any more. Here is a realcatastrophe. Perhaps it is the end."

Dhe reader will observefrom this authentic recordthat I experienced noemotion of regret or fear. Isimply registered facts

without, except for a general sense ofdisaster, the power to moralize uponthem. But now all the loudspeakersbegan to blare together their informa-tion from the body. My mind wasoverpowered by the hideous noise theymade from which no intelligible con-clusion could be drawn. Wave uponwave of convulsive, painful sensationsseemed to flood into this small room,preventing thought, paralysing action,but impossible to comprehend. I had,for instance, no knowledge of whetherI was lying on my back or side or face.

How long this period lasted Icannot tell. I am told that from thetime I was struck down to when I waslifted into a taxicab was perhaps fiveminutes, but although I was in no waystunned, my physical sensations wereso violent that I could not achieve anycontinuous mental process. I just hadto endure them.

Presently, however, from myheadquarters I see a swirl of figuresassembling around me. I have an

FINEST HOUR 136/26

impression of traffic arrested and ofdramatically gathered crowds. Friendlyhands are laid upon me.

I suppose I ought now to havehad some very pious and inspiringreflections. However, all that occurredto me was, "I shall not be able to givemy lecture tomorrow night inBrooklyn. Whatever will my pooragent do about it?" Then more definiteimpressions. A constable is bendingover me. My head and shoulders arebeing raised towards him. He has abook, quite a big book, in his hand.

"What is your name?""Winston Churchill."I protest I am no snob, but on

this occasion I thought it lawful andprudent to add, "The Right

Honourable WinstonChurchill fromEngland." I heard dis-tinctly respectful "Oh,ohs" from the crowd.

"What is your age?"asked the officer,adhering to his rou-tine.

"Fifty-seven," Ireplied, and at thesame moment thisodd thought obtrudeditself upon my mind."How very odd to beknocked down inthe street by a motor-car. I shall have a verypoor chance of gettingover it."

The constable pro-ceeded to demand par-ticulars of the accident.My mind and speechapparatus workedapparently withouthitch, and I could vol-ubly have told him allthat is set down here;but instead, to savetrouble, I said: "I amentirely to blame; it isall my own fault."

Later it seemed thatanother constable came

with the question, "Do you make anycharge against any person?" To which Ireplied, "I exonerate everyone."

At this the interrogation ceasedabruptly, and Mario in the background(though I did not know this until after-wards) was released from captivity.

During all this time I was inwhat I suppose would be called greatpain; though the sensations really pre-sented themselves to me mainly as anoverpowering of the mind. Gradually Ibegan to be more aware of all that wasgoing on around me.

It appears that an ambulance waspassing, and the crowd stopped it anddemanded that it should take me to thenearest hospital. The ambulance, whichhad a serious case on board, refused.

Thereupon a taximan exclaimed in avoice which I would perfectly well hear,"Take him in my cab. There's theLenox Hill Hospital on 76th Street."

Accordingly I was lifted by per-haps eight or ten persons to the floorof the taxicab. I now discovered thatmy overcoat had been half torn off meand trussed my arms back. I thoughtboth shoulders were dislocated. Myright shoulder dislocates chronically,and I asked repeatedly that care shouldbe taken in lifting me by it. Eventuallythe constable and two others got intothe cab and we all started, jammed uptogether.

Up till now nothing could havebeen more calm and clear than myinterior thought, apart from the blaringof pain and discomfort which camethrough the loud-speakers. All was inorder in my inner sanctum, but I hadnot ventured to touch the keyboard ofaction and had been content to remainan entirely inert mass.

I now saw, as I lay on the floor ofthe cab, both my hands, very white andcovered with blood, lying across mybreast. So I decided to give them anorder to move their fingers and at thesame time I pulled the levers whichaffect the toes. Neither hands nor feettook the slightest notice. They might aswell have belonged to someone else forall the attention they paid to my will.

I now became, for the first time,seriously alarmed. I feared that in thisbundle of dull pain which people werecarting about, and which was my body,there might be some grave, seriousinjury to the spine. The impression"crippled for life" registered itself in thesanctum. Yet even then there was somuch going on that one could not focusit very clearly or grieve about it much.

What a nice thing it would be toget to the hospital and have this over-coat cut off, to have my shoulders putback into their sockets, and, above allto lie down straight upon a bed. Mycompanions kept cheering me up. "Weare very near now: only another blockor two," and so on. So we rumbled on.

And then a most blessed thing »

FINEST HOUR 136 / 27

MY NEW YORK MISADVENTURE...happened. I began to experience vio-lent pins and needles in both my upperarms. They hurt intensely; but I didnot mind, because at the same time Ifound my fingers beginning to move inaccordance with my will. Almostimmediately afterwards the toesresponded to my orders. Then swiftly,by waves of pins and needles almostagonizing in their intensity, warmth,life and obedience began to flow backinto the whole of my trunk.

By the time we pulled up at thehospital I had the assurance that,although I might have an arm or leg ortwo broken and was certainly bruisedand shaken, the whole main structureof my body was sound. Blood contin-ued to flow freely from my foreheadand my nose; but I did not worryabout that at all, because in my sanc-tum we had decided: "There can be nobrain injury, as we have never lost con-sciousness even for a second."

At last we arrive at the hospital.A wheeled chair is brought. I am car-ried into it. I am wheeled up steps intoa hall and a lift. By now I feel batteredbut perfectly competent. They saidafterwards I was confused; but I didnot feel so.

"Are you prepared to pay for aprivate room and doctor?" asked aclerk.

"Yes, bring all the best you have....Take me to a private room....Whereis your telephone?....Give me theWaldorf Astoria....I will tell my wifemyself riiat whatever has happened. Iam going to get quite well."

But after an interval they said,"She is already on the way here."

Not for one moment had I feltup to the present any sensation offaintness, but now I said, "Give me salvolatile, or something like that." Areviver was brought. A house surgeonstaunched my wound.

"Let me," I asked, "get theseclothes off and lie down. I can standfor a moment if you hold me up."

Soon I am on a bed. Presentlycome keen, comprehending eyes and

deft, firm fingers."We shall have to dress that scalp

wound at once. It is cut to the bone.""Will it hurt?""Yes.""I do not wish to be hurt any

more. Give me chloroform or some-thing."

"The anaesthetist is already onthe way."

More lifting and wheeling. Theoperating room. White glaring lights.The mask of a nitrous-oxide inhaler.Whenever I have taken gas or chloro-form I always follow this rule. I imaginemyself sitting on a chair with my backto a lovely swimming bath into which Iam to be tilted, and throw myself back-wards; or, again, as if one were throw-ing one's self back after a tiring day intoa vast armchair. This helps the processof anaesthesia wonderfully. A few deepbreaths, and one has no longer thepower to speak to the world.

With me the nitrous-oxide tranceusually takes this form: the sanctum isoccupied by alien powers. I see theabsolute truth and explanation ofthings, but something is left out whichupsets the whole, so by a larger sleep ofthe mind I have to see a greater truthand a more complete explanationwhich comprises the erring element.Nevertheless, there is still somethingleft out. So we have to take a still widersweep. This almost breaks mortal com-prehension. It is beyond anything thehuman mind was ever meant to master.

The process continues inexorably.Depth beyond depth of unendurabletruth opens. I have, therefore, alwaysregarded the nitrous-oxide trance as amere substitution of mental for physi-cal pain.

Pain it certainly is; but suddenlythese poignant experiences end andwithout a perceptible interval con-sciousness returns. Reassuring wordsare spoken. I see a beloved face. Mywife is smiling. In the backgroundthere rises the grave, venerable counte-nance of Mr Bernard Baruch. So I ask:

"Tell me, Baruch, what is thenumber of your house?"

"1055.""How near was I to it when I was

smashed up?""Not within ten blocks." (Haifa

mile.)Such in short were my experiences

on the night of 13 December; and themessage I bring back from these darkplaces is one of encouragement.

I certainly suffered every pang,mental and physical, that a street acci-dent or, I suppose, a shell wound canproduce. None is unendurable. There isneither the time nor the strength forself-pity. There is no room for remorseor fears. If at any moment in this longseries of sensations a grey veil deepeninginto blackness had descended upon thesanctum I should have felt or fearednothing additional. Nature is mercifuland does not try her children, man orbeast, beyond their compass. It is onlywhere the cruelty of man intervenes diathellish torments appear. For the rest—live dangerously; take things as theycome; dread naught, all will be well.

I ought not to forget to add thatI have since looked into my despatchbox and I have found that my far-see-ing private secretary in England, Mrs.Pearman, had furnished me with atravelling address book of people Imight want to communicate with inthe United States, and in this I read;"Baruch, 1055 Fifth Avenue," with theprivate telephone number duly set out.

All of which goes to show thateven the best human precautions affordno definite guarantee of safety. Mi

The SequelOn 31 December Churchill,

his wife and daughter Diana left NewYork (or Nassau, where he .spentthree weeks, impatient at the slow-ness of his recovery. "1 rather plumemyself" for the article, he wroteRandolph, "bin find it very dearlybought." While in the i'rohibition-free islands he wrote "My HappyDays in the 'Wet' Bahamas"-—anoth-er piece which is not at all datedtoday. We will publish it anon.

FINEST HOUR 136 / 28

Intervention at 88DESPITE OLD AGE, WSC TOOK A RARE BUT

DEFINITE STAND ON BRITISH FOREIGN POLICY

he Herskovits Library, North-western University, was prepar-ing an exhibition to mark thefiftieth anniversary of the inde-pendence of the Gold Coast,

which became Ghana on 6 March1957. They asked if WSC had madeany post-World War II visits to Africa,or had remarked about African inde-pendence, Ghana in particular, orKwame Nkrumah, the first Prime Min-ister of independent Ghana.

Churchill made no postwar visitsto the continent other than brief stopsat North African ports aboard Onassis'syacht Christina. Aside from a few con-stituency addresses, he made no publicspeeches after retiring as PM in 1955;nor did he speak in Parliament, al-though he was an MP until mid-1964.

But we did find a reference toGhana and Nkrumah, striking to read,given its date. Churchill generally madeno attempt to influence internationalpolitics after his personal appeal toEisenhower during the Suez Crisis in1956. Yet he felt so strongly aboutGhana and its leader in 1961 to advisePrime Minister Macmillan to call offthe Queen's state visit to that country.From the official biography, Winston S.Churchill, vol. 8, "NeverDespair,''by SirMartin Gilbert (London: Heinemann,1988), 1130-31:

On 18 October 1961, Churchilldined with Anthony Eden, whothree months earlier had been cre-ated Earl of Avon. The two mentalked of the situation in Ghana. "Ifind," wrote Churchill to HaroldMacmillan on the following day,"that he shares the increasing per-turbation with which I view theQueen's forthcoming visit there."Churchill went on to explain: "Ihave the impression that there iswidespread uneasiness both overthe physical safety of the Queenand, perhaps more, because her

visit would seem toendorse a regimewhich has imprisonedhundreds of Opposi-tion members without trial andwhich is thoroughly authoritarianin tendency. "I have little doubtthat Nkrumah would use theQueen's visit to bolster up his ownposition. No doubt Nkrumahwould be much affronted if thevisit were now cancelled and Ghanamight leave the Commonwealth. Iam not sure that that would be agreat loss. Nkrumah's vilification ofthis country and his increasing as-sociation with our enemies doesnot encourage one to think that hiscountry could ever be more than anopportunist member of the Com-monwealth family.

"Is it too late," Churchill asked,"for the Queen's plans to bechanged?" Macmillan replied that...It was "a great tragedy," Macmil-lan wrote, that the Queen's visit toGhana "did not take place when itwas originally planned over a yearago, for then things were calm. Un-fortunately, it had to be postponedowing to the Queen's baby. Nowthere is this dilemma to which yourefer." Macmillan also toldChurchill: "I need hardly say thather wish is to go. This is naturalwith so courageous a personality."

The Queen's visit did take place:from 9 to 20 November. "Sir Win-ston is well," [private secretary]Montague Browne wrote to LordBeaverbrook on November 16,"but rather bored with events, anddisturbed by the internationalscene and notably by the Queengoing to Ghana and thus endorsingNkrumah's corrupt and tyrannicalregime."

NOT WSC ON CASTRODuring a lecture aboard the Queen

Mary 2 in 2005, we were told that SirWinston once said of Castro, "that manshould have been castrated at birth."Could this be true? —CAROLE MARTIN

We doubt the alleged remark: Itdoesn't sound like him; he loved Cubancigars and was well disposed towardCuba; and by 1959, when Castro tookover, he was not much concerned withworld events. Incidentally, Castro gavean interview to Celia Sandys when shewas writing her book, ChasingChurchill, laced with expressions of ad-miration for her grandfather.

I did look up "castrated" in thecanon, and found this charmer, almostcertainly not original to WSC, in LordMoran's Churchill: The Struggle for Sur-vival (London: Constable, 1966, 198):

September 21, 1944....Winstonmade some gurgling sounds in histhroat. "Do you know the yarn ofthe man who was castrated?" Moregurgling. "A man called Thomsonwent to a surgeon and asked him tocastrate him. The surgeon de-murred, but when the man per-sisted and argued he eventuallyagreed, and took him into hospital.The morning after the operationThomson woke up in great dis-comfort. He noticed that the manin the next bed was in pain and wasgroaning. He leant towards himover die side of the bed. 'What didthey do to you,' he called. The manreplied: 'I've been circumcised.''Good Lord,' Thomson exclaimed,'that's the word I couldn't remem-ber when the surgeon asked mewhat I wanted done.'" $

FINEST HOUR 136/29

CHURCHILL IN CONTEXT

"Part of the Constitution":Winston S. Churchill andParliamentary Democracy

CHURCHILL WAS AS OFTEN A CRITIC AS HE WAS A CHAMPION OF DEMOCRACY.

TODAY'S DEBATES ABOUT ITS INSTITUTIONS, FROM THE U.S. SENATE AND SUPREME

COURT TO THE BRITISH AND CANADIAN HOUSES OF COMMONS AND THE EUROPEAN

CONSTITUTION, MAY OFTEN BENEFIT FROM CHURCHILL'S PARALLEL THOUGHTS

BY KEVIN THEAKSTON

t would be easy to go through WinstonChurchill's voluminous canon and pick out arange of quotations depicting him as an appar-ently fervent and uncritical admirer of theBritish constitution. The House of Commons,

for instance, he once described as "the shrine of theworld's liberties"; "the home and citadel of free govern-ment." Britain had "the strongest" and also "the oldest,the least unwise and the most democratic parliament inthe world."1 The British system of constitutional monar-chy was the "ancient and glorious institution" that "ren-ders inestimable services to our country."2

One can even find Churchill praising the civil serv-ice for "maintaining the continuity of government."("Reckless ministers are protected against themselves," heonce wrote with grudging admiration; "violent ministersare tamed, timid ministers are supported and nursed.")3"If. ..every country gets the form of government itdeserves," he told MPs in May 1945, "we may certainlyflatter ourselves. The wisdom of our ancestors has led usto an envied and enviable situation.'"*

A self-congratulatory tone was perhaps understand-able after victory over Hitler, but even at a low point inhis career—as when shaken by electoral defeat atDundee in 1922—Churchill could praise the British sys-tem of government for providing "the fullest methodand opportunity by which popular wishes, howevercapricious, however passionate, however precipitate,might be given full effect to." He had been all his life, hesaid, "a sincere believer in democratic and parliamentary

A Professor of British Government at the University of Leeds,England, Kevin Theakston is the author of the seminal WinstonChurchill and the British Constitution (Politico's, 264 pp.), which wasreviewed in Finest Hour 124:45-

processes by representative government, and in the pro-cedure of the British Constitution."5 There is force inPeter Hennessy's description of Churchill as "the greatestromantic of all about British constitutional practice."6

Half-Hearted Democrat?Yet Churchill was often far from an unthinking

and complacent defender of the constitutional statusquo. He was a vocal and radical critic of the House ofLords and a champion of "the people's rights" during theLiberal Party's pre-World War I constitutional strugglewith the peers. He violently denounced the House ofLords as "one-sided, hereditary, unpurged, unrepresenta-tive, irresponsible, absentee"; it was "not a national insti-tution, but a party dodge," a "lingering relic of the feu-dal order," filled with "old doddering peers, cute finan-cial magnates, clever wire pullers, big brewers with bul-bous noses...all the enemies of progress." In a Cabinetmemorandum in February 1910 he declared: "The timehas come for the total abolition of the House of Lords."'7

He could be scathing about the Commons, too,complaining between the wars that it was letting powerslip from its hands, and of a decline in the quality ofparliamentarians and their debates. In the Thirties heargued that it had degenerated into "an organised votingmachine," full of "tame, docile, subservient Members."^

He had a long-term interest in the devolution ofpower, believing that British government was "much toocentralised" and that Parliament suffered from "conges-tion" and was choked with a mass of detail. As early as1901 he was toying with ideas about devolution to"provincial councils," and in 1911-12 put forward a planfor the creation of ten regional and national assem-blies—a "Home Rule All Round" scheme, mocked byAsquith as going back to the Heptarchy. 9

FINEST HOUR 136/30

Later, in the 1920s, Churchill could still be foundarguing that the British system of government was "top-heavy" and that there was "a storey missing" in its struc-ture.^ Moreover, for all the Churchillian talk of "trust-ing the people" and being in harmony with "theGettysburg ideal," he could seem a pretty reluctant andhalf-hearted democrat. The suffragettes regarded him asan enemy; they broke up his political meetings and oneeven physically attacked him with a whip. "The truth iswe already have enough ignorant voters and we don'twant any more," Churchill remarked about franchisereform plans in 1912. When the franchise was extendedin 1918 he believed that "a whole mob of the worst classof voters was embraced."11

In the 1930s in particular he argued for checks andbalances tocounteract . ' / /universal suf-frage, claim-ing thatBritain hadgone "too far"and "too fast"down thedemocraticroad, andtalking of theneed to"retrace oursteps." Hisconcerns thenwere aboutthe dangers of"constitution-al decay," ofthe absence ofconstitutionalsafeguards,and the needfor "more bone and structure in our parliamentary sys-tem."^ This is not Churchill the constitutional roman-tic, but Churchill the would-be constitutionalreformer—and Churchill as the critic, not the champi-on, of parliamentary democracy.

Representative DemocracyChurchill was a democrat, but with qualifications

and reservations. He always emphasised that British gov-ernment was based on representative, not direct, democ-racy. Parliament, rather than elections, had the primaryplace in Churchill's democratic order. Elections exist forthe sake of the House of Commons and not the otherway round, he once said, and he described himselfrevealingly as a servant of the House of Commons, not aservant of the people. In 1911 he denounced the refer-

endum as a dangerous device and subversive of parlia-mentary government, although on a number of occa-sions he toyed with or opportunistically proposed refer-enda as ways of getting off the hook or defusing particu-lar political issues or problems (including the femalefranchise in 1911-12, protective tariffs in 1930, and thecontinuation of the wartime coalition in 1945).

He never claimed that democracy was "perfect orall-wise." He famously remarked, quoting someone else,that "democracy is the worst form of Government exceptall those other forms that have been tried from time totime." Democracy, he used to muse while prime ministerafter 1951, was "an appalling muddle, riddled withfaults, dangers, unfairness and contradictions."^

Churchill had an aristocratic view of democracy, pol-itics and socie-ty. VioletBonhamCarter oncedescribed himas "a democratto the bone,imbued with adeep reverencefor Parliamentand a strongsense ofhumanrights." But,she comment-ed, whereasLloyd Georgewas "saturatedwitli class-con-sciousness,"Churchill"accepted classdistinctionwithout

thought." "I am all for die social order," Lucy Mastermanquoted Churchill as declaring in 1909, when he was a rad-ical, social reforming Liberal minister; later she wrote ofhim "praising government by aristocracy and revealing theaboriginal and unchangeable Tory in him."1^

Before the First World War, Churchill did notthink the British system less democratic because nowomen and not all men had the vote. He supportedonly a slow "levelling up" approach to franchise reform,new working class voters being incorporated into andsupporting the British Constitution in a democratic sys-tem that was marked by both hierarchy and deference."Democracy properly understood means the associationof all through the leadership of the best," was Churchill'sdefinition in 1909—that he saw himself as one of thosefitted to lead went without saying.15 »

FINEST HOUR 136/31

"There is no one to replace him [Roosevelt], On the other hand, the[U.S.] Constitution says there must be an election, and even now when it istwenty months away all thoughts are turned to the question of who is to holdthe power. We should certainly not allow such a state of affairs in our coun-try, but a written Constitution makes slaves of its subjects and is in this casetotally unfitted to the waging of war." —wsc to his wife, 28 May 1943

"...though a democrat to the bone, imbued with a deep reverence forParliament and a strong sense of human rights, he was never quite aLiberal. He never shared the reluctance which inhibits Liberals frominvoking force tO Solve a problem. " —Violet Bonham Carter

WSC AND PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY...Democratic leaders and governments should not be

slaves to public opinion, Churchill believed. It wassometimes necessary for them to stand firm against pub-lic outcries and passions. "People who are not preparedto do unpopular things and to defy clamour are not fitto be Ministers in times of stress," he wrote in his WorldWar II memoirs. The statesman should have "his eyes onthe stars rather than his ears on the ground," he oncesaid. 16 He was clear-sighted and tough-minded aboutupholding the authority of Parliament and the state,whether against militant suffragettes, striking workers, orrebellious Irishmen or Ulstermen.

Individual Liberty, Human RightsAll the same, Churchill was very clearly and

strongly committed to individual liberty and the protec-tion of individual rights against the state. He liked to saythat the nations of the world could be divided into twogroups: those in which the government owned the peo-ple, and those in which the people owned the govern-ment. "To abuse the Government," he once declared,was "an inalienable right of every British subject."Britain had no constitutionally-enacted formal bill ofrights, but Churchill spoke confidently of "the great fab-ric of British liberties," which had been "built up by somany exertions....All English men and women are equalbefore the law, with the same rights in the Constitution,the same political liberties."1''

The independence of the courts and the judiciary,Churchill knew, was a vital guarantee of freedom, therule of law, and of the rights and liberties of the citizen.But the ultimate defender of the individual and of dem-

ocratic rights and freedoms was Parliament. The ideathat the law lords might start acting like the U.S.Supreme Court and be able to strike down an Act ofParliament, declaring it invalid, illegal or unconstitution-al, he found unimaginable.

He stood for the traditional doctrine of parliamen-tary sovereignty: parliament made the law, and judgesand the courts were bound by it. This meant that theultimate "constitutional remedy" for a disgruntledminority lay through parliamentary and electoral poli-tics: "They should obey the law. If they dislike thelaw...let them agitate for a majority when an electioncomes, and then, if they choose, they can amendor...repeal a law against which the country would thenhave pronounced."18

This was the only course legitimately open to theUlster Protestants opposed to Irish Home Rule in 1914,Churchill insisted—which was a perfectly correct view oftheir constitutional position, but which ignored the issueof the rights of a minority in the face of what it sees andexperiences as a parliamentary majority steam-rolleringover it. He did not in fact pose the uncircumscribednature of parliamentary sovereignty under the Britishconstitution as a potential problem for rights and forminorities in the way that a later generation did (as withtalk in the 1970s and after of "elective dictatorship").

In the inter-war period, Churchill came to bewidely regarded as a reactionary figure and was critical ofmany aspects of parliamentary democracy. However,there are good grounds for arguing that his underlyingpolitical opinions and commitment to democracyremained basically the same, and that what changed wasthe wider political context (domestic and international)

FINEST HOUR 136/32

in which he and other politicians had to function.Democracy was precarious, Churchill suggested, and itspreservation and operation posed difficult problems ofstatesmanship, but he did not question its worth orvalue. Across the British political spectrum there wereconcerns about the sort of politics produced by the newmass electorate after 1918, worries about the future ofdemocracy, and dissatisfaction with the traditional insti-tutions and processes of representative government.

Churchill was no isolated figure in voicing uncer-tainties and doubts about the nature and the health ofrepresentative democracy in the 1920s and 1930s. Hebelieved basically in the nineteenth century Liberalmodel of the constitution, emphasising parliamentarysovereignty, ministerial responsibility and the rule of law.The division of power and checks and balances in theconstitution were other key themes of his, and many ofthe institutional reforms he favoured would have built inadditional checks and constraints on the power of thecentral executive and limited the power of an electoralmajority as expressed through the House of Commons.

When in the 1930s he appeared to be "deeplyalienated from the democratic process" (as DavidCannadine puts it), he was still adhering to the Liberalview of the constitution, accepting it as an idealisedmodel, complaining that contemporary practice fellshort, and proposing franchise and other changes to tryto make political practice better correspond to Liberaldemocratic-constitutional principles (looking for a moreengaged and better-informed electorate, for instance). Itmay have seemed reactionary, but it can be argued thathe actually wanted "both to maintain and to improvethe existing framework of Parliamentary democracy," asSir Martin Gilbert says.19

Churchill's view of the development of the Britishconstitution was coloured by his romantic understandingof British history in general, something which profound-ly influenced his whole political outlook and thinking.Like others of his class and generation, he saw British (ormore properly, English) history in Whiggish terms,marked by the slow but sure development of liberty andfreedom, parliamentary government, constitutionalmonarchy, the rule of law, and the eventual growth ofdemocracy.

The story was one of prosperity, progress andEnglish political genius at home, under the leadership ofa small but able aristocratic ruling class, and of thedefeat of foreign rivals and tyrants beyond these shoresand the growth of Empire. Churchill's pride in theBritish constitution is rooted in this sense of Britain as agreat power and British history as a providential saga. Attimes Churchill suggested that "Almighty God" wasbehind the growth of Britain's power and itsinstitutions.20 Britain was certainly a beacon of, and seta defining standard for, democratic governance.

American ComparisonsChurchill was to emphasise the connections

between British and American democracy from the1930s onwards, making great play of Americas Englishlegal and constitutional heritage. He commented in1947 that "the American Constitution, with its checksand counterchecks, combined with its frequent appealsto the people, embodied much of the ancient wisdom ofthis island." In old age he would praise the U.S. consti-tution as "one of the finest political documents" ("noconstitution was ever written in better English"), but hetold an American visitor in 1961 that "our parliamentarysystem of Government is a cut ahead of yours."21

Churchill preferred the unwritten British constitu-tion with its "store of traditions and precedents" to thewritten American constitution. The latter, he argued,"enshrined long-standing English ideas of justice and lib-erty"; it was based on "Old English doctrine, freshly for-mulated to meet an urgent American need." He was pre-pared to admit that a "fixed constitution" could be a"bulwark" rather than a "fetter." The "rigidity" of theConstitution of the United States, enforced by theSupreme Court, was "the shield of the common man."But he maintained that "a written constitution carrieswith it the danger of a cramping rigidity. What body ofmen, however far-sighted, can lay down precepts inadvance for settling the problems of futuregenerations?"22 He was concerned about the potentialfor constitutional deadlock in the U.S. system. To beworkable, constitutions had to have a certain dynamic,rather than brittle, quality.

An Evolutionary ApproachAlthough in the mid-1930s Churchill argued that

"we need more structure in our system," and that "thereought to be some very much stronger security againstviolent change in the fundamental laws of our state andsociety," he clearly envisaged specific institutionalreforms (of the electoral system, parliament, etc.) ratherthan the adoption of a written constitution.2^

Churchill would sometimes quote Napoleon to theeffect that a constitution should be short and obscure.The British Constitution was certainly flexible and, as hesaid in 1905, was marked by a "generous vagueness."2^It was in other words a political constitution, shaped bypolitical circumstances and adaptable to changing politi-cal needs. Churchill himself could exploit this make-it-up-as-you-go-along character of the constitution, as in1940 when, without any legal backing, he called himselfMinister of Defence (as well as becoming PrimeMinister) in order to take on supreme authority to directthe war effort. But he was strongly conscious also that itwas a historical constitution, growing out of "the wis-dom of our ancestors" and "the practice of formertimes," as he put it. »

FINEST HOUR 136/33

WSC AND PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY...Human societies and institutions are not mechani-

cal structures but organic ("plants that grow"), hebelieved. Systems of government express and grow out ofand through a country's and a community's history, cul-ture and traditions. Thus to say that "the British consti-tution was mainly British common sense," as he did in1908, was actually to affirm its reality and strength.Remarks he made in the late 1940s about European con-stitution-mongering have a wider relevance, criticising ashe did "laboured attempts to draw [up] rigid structuresor constitutions," and deprecating involvement "in allthe tangles and intricacies of rigid constitution-making,which appeals so strongly to a certain type of mind."2^

Churchill's sense of the British constitution drewupon themes and ideas that can be traced back to Burke,Macaulay and Bagehot. Like Burke, he emphasised theimportance of historical continuity, inheritance, adapta-tion and preservation in the political system and politicalcommunity. Like Macaulay, he believed that British his-tory demonstrated that the constitution could peacefullyassimilate and adapt to change while preserving its formsand traditions. The relationship between the differentelements of the constitution might change over time,but the integrity of the structure would not be compro-mised. And like Bagehot, he understood the stabilisingand constraining functions of custom, tradition, ceremo-ny and the theatrical aspects of the constitution—allhelping the British constitution to absorb change.

"It is a great pity to change things simply for thesake of changing, or out of a desire to arrive at unnaturalsymmetry," he told the Cabinet Secretary in wartimeexchanges about proposals for Whitehall reform."Tradition must not be flouted on behalf of logic," washis response when someone proposed making the titlesof two ministerial posts more descriptive.-2"

Similarly, in relation to Parliament, he wasadamant that "logic is a poor guide compared with cus-tom." In 1934 he warned that it was vital that procedur-al changes designed to bring about "any slight gain inefficiency" did not undermine or have too large a cost interms of "Parliamentary custom and tradition."27 Whenit was destroyed by enemy bombing during World WarII, Churchill insisted on having the House of Commonschamber rebuilt and restored in all essentials to its oldform, arguing that its distinctive shape was a fundamen-tal feature of the British system of party and parliamen-tary politics.

Nevertheless, as Paul Addison has noted,"Churchill enjoyed constitution making."2** But whileingenious, his many reform ideas had only a limitedimpact on the actual changes that occurred in practice.As a Cabinet minister under Asquith before 1914 andBaldwin in the 1920s, Churchill's big ideas for constitu-tional reform were usually beaten down by his ministeri-

al colleagues or ran into the sands. More significant con-stitutional changes occurred under Lloyd George's lead-ership than under Churchill's (extension of the franchiseand votes for women; modernisation of Whitehall withthe creation of the Cabinet Secretariat, new ministriesand the reorganisation of the civil service).

Constitution vs. PoliticsIn trying to understand Churchill's thinking about

or commitment to particular ideas or schemes, one mustalways be aware of (and therefore cautious about) hischaracter and style as a rhetorical politician. Close col-leagues noted "the tendency in him to see first therhetorical potentialities of any policy."29 What is strik-ing, however, is the way in which on issues like House ofLords reform and Home Rule for Ireland, in the Liberalyears before 1914, Churchill was at times pretty unre-strained in public, but in private and behind the sceneswas often much more moderate, constructive or biparti-san. On the "peers versus the people" controversy in par-ticular, Churchill sounded much more radical than hereally was.

It cannot be claimed that on the big constitutionalquestions Churchill took up strikingly original positions.Ideas about federalism, "Home Rule All Round," andthe devolution of power to tackle overload atWestminster, had been discussed in British politics forthirty or more years before Churchill arrived on thescene and took them up, for instance. Similarly, in the1920s and 1930s, ideas for reform of parliamentary andgovernment machinery were being widely canvassedacross the political spectrum and Churchill's own pro-posal for an "Economic Sub-Parliament" was not partic-ularly novel.30

What Piers Brendon has called Churchill's "flair forexploiting each major political issue as it arose andmatching his ambition to the hour" should not beunderestimated. But that does not mean that he wascompletely "opportunistic and unprincipled," as hassometimes been claimed, for instance, in relation to hisstance over Irish Home Rule. His admission that inorder to "strengthen myself with my party, I mingledactively in the Irish controversy" is widely quoted. Butthis comment actually only refers to the events of 1914,when his position within the Liberal Party and theCabinet was weak, and he seems to have charged intothe Irish situation with his violent speech at Bradfordabout facing down Ulster's resistance in order to improvehis party standing.31

To interpret Churchill's stance on Home Rule sole-ly in terms of his struggle to advance his personal ambi-tions and his political career is to go too far. Churchillseems to have been genuinely interested in ideas of devo-lution, provincial councils and federalism in one form oranother not just during the controversy over the Liberals'

FINEST HOUR 136/34

Home Rule policy, but both before (in 1901-05) andafterwards (in the 1920s). And he took many politicalrisks inside the government and with his own party onthe Irish issue, particularly by arguing strongly and earlyfor special treatment for, or the exclusion of, Ulster—hardly something calculated to win him political points.

Churchill necessarily adapted to changing circum-stances. With the Irish issue removed from British poli-tics after the early 1920s, the steam largely went out ofthe devolution issue and it became apparent that therewas little support for political nationalism in Scotlandand Wales. By the 1950s Churchill had dropped his ear-lier idea for separate parliaments in Edinburgh andCardiff. His support for federalism or devolution cannotbe explained simply in terms of his changing party iden-tity, however, for his first ideas about this had beenexpressed in 1901 when he was a Conservative, he thencame to strongly support it under Asquith as a LiberalCabinet Minister, and he was still flirting with the ideain 1925 and in 1931 after "re-ratting" back to theConservatives.

Similarly, in relation to the House of Lords, it istrue that he was arguing as a Conservative in the 1920sfor a "chamber of review" with the power to check theHouse of Commons with the "weapon of delay." But asa Liberal, he had also penned Cabinet memos in 1910stressing the need for a revising chamber able to impose"the potent safeguard of delay." In both cases he wantedthe Lords to be subordinate to the Commons, and bothas a Liberal and a Conservative he supported reform ofthe composition of the Lords. While as a Conservativehe talked of "strengthening" the Lords, he was not areactionary and did not want to put the clock back tobefore the 1911 Parliament Act.32 In the 1930s, andlater, he was more sympathetic to the case for electoralreform than many other Conservatives.

Churchill as InstitutionSo, it is not easy to portray Churchill in simple

terms as "radical" on constitutional issues in his Liberaldays and "conservative" when he moved back to theTories. In the 1920s and 1930s he was actively interestedin constitutional reforms of one sort or another. As partyleader and in "elder statesman" vein after 1945, he wasstill interested in certain issues (Lords reform and pro-portional representation, for instance), and in privatestill liked to try out ideas and bat about schemes whichhe was realistic enough to know stood no chance ofbeing put into practice (such as "plural voting").

By the end of his political career Churchill hadalmost become part of the constitution, he had beenaround for so long and his reputation was so high.Emanuel Shinwell called him (in 1964) "one of ourgreatest institutions: the Throne, the Church,Parliament, the Press and Sir Winston Churchill."33 He

had been actively involved in most of the big constitu-tional issues and arguments of the first half of the twen-tieth century. Through two world wars and other periodsof great political and social stress and difficulty, he hadmaintained an unwavering commitment to the institu-tions and to the values of parliamentary democracy andconstitutional government. A mixture of constitutionaltraditionalist and would-be reformer, he always under-stood—unlike some politicians and prime ministers,both in his time and later—the importance of the con-stitution, and of constitutional issues.

Endnotes1. Paul Addison, "Destiny, history and providence: the

religion of Winston Churchill" in Michael Bentley, ed., Publicand Private Doctrine: Essays in British History Presented toMaurice Cowling (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1993), 245; Robert Rhodes James, Winston S. Churchill: HisComplete Speeches 1897-1963 (8 vols., London: ChelseaHouse, 1974, hereafter cited as Complete Speeches), II, 1689;V, 4986.

2. Complete Speeches, VII, 7164, 7743.3. Complete Speeches, III, 3217; Winston S. Churchill,

Lord Randolph Churchill (2 vols., London: Macmillan, 1906),II, 180.

4. Complete Speeches, VII, 7165.5. Tony Paterson, A Seat for Life (Dundee: David

Winter & Son, 1980), 283.6. Peter Hennessy, The Hidden Wiring: Unearthing the

British Constitution (London: Indigo, 1995), 142.7. Churchill distilled his barnstorming speeches on the

"peers versus the people" battle into his 1909 book The People'sRights (republished with an introduction by CameronHazlehurst, London: Jonathan Cape, 1970).

8. Complete Speeches, V, 5430; VI, 6082.9. See Kevin Theakston, Winston Churchill and the

British Constitution (London: Politico's, 2004) ch. 3.Heptarchy is the name applied to the Anglo-Saxon kingdomsof south, east and central England, circa A.D. 500-850.

10. Martin Gilbert, Winston S. Churchill: CompanionVolume 5, Part 1 (London: Heinemann 1979), 586.

11. Lord Riddell, More Pages from My Diary 1908-1914(London: Country Life, 1934), p.51; Churchill to Ferguson ,25 April 1927, CHAR 22/183/4 (Churchill Archives Centre,Churchill College, Cambridge).

12. Winston S. Churchill, "Are Parliaments Obsolete?,"Pearson's Magazine, June 1934.

13. Complete Speeches, VII, 7566; Anthony MontagueBrowne, Long Sunset: Memoirs of Winston Churchill's LastPrivate Secretary (London: Cassell, 1995), 180.

14. Violet Bonham Carter, Winston Churchill As I KnewHim (paperback ed., London: Pan 1967), 102, 167, 205; LucyMasterman, C.F.G. Masterman: A Biography (London: Kelley,1939), 152, 165.

15. Complete Speeches, II, 1424.16. Winston S. Churchill in Closing the Ring: Second

World War, vol. V, quoted in Colin Coote, Sir Winston ChurchillA Self-Portrait (London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1954), 106; »

FINEST HOUR 136/35

WSCAND PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY...Manfred Weidhorn, A Harmony of Interests: Explorations in theMind of Sir Winston Churchill (Rutherford, N.J.: FairleighDickinson University Press, 1992), 52.

17. Complete Speeches, IV, 3850; V, 4550.18. Complete Speeches, III, 2224; VII, 7594.19. David Cannadine, Aspects of Aristocracy (London: Yale

University Press, 1995), 158; Martin Gilbert, Churchill'sPolitical Philosophy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981), 68.

20. Maurice Cowling, Religion and Public Doctrine inModern England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1980), 299.

21. Complete Speeches, VII, 7565; VIII, 8486; MartinGilbert, Winston S. Churchill vol. 8 "Never Despair"1945-1965(London: Heinemann 1988), 1327.

22. Winston S. Churchill, A History of the English-Speaking Peoples, vol. Ill The Age of Revolution (London:Cassell, 1957), 208; "What Good's a Constitution?" in KayHalle (ed.), Winston Churchill on America and Britain (NewYork: Walker, 1970), 278-287.

23. Winston S. Churchill, "Whither Britain?," TheListener, 17 January 1934.

24. House of Commons debates, 26 July 1905, cols.363-4.

25. Hansard Society, Parliamentary Reform 1933-1960(London: Cassell, 1961), 159; Kenneth W. Thompson,Winston Churchill's World View: Statesmanship and Power(Baton Rouge, Louisiana: Louisiana State University Press,1987), 32-34.

26. Churchill to Bridges, 19 October 1942, NationalArchives (PRO), PREM 4/63/2; Manfred Weidhorn,Churchill's Rhetoric and Political Discourse (Lanham, Md.:University Press of America, 1987), 48.

27. Complete Speeches, V, 5426.28. Paul Addison, Churchill on the Home Front 1900-

1955 (London: Pimlico, 1992), 271.29. Lucy Masterman, op. cit., 128.30. "Parliamentary Government and the Economic

Problem," in Winston S. Churchill, Thoughts and Adventures(London: Odhams 1947; originally published 1932), 172-183.

31. Piers Brendon, Winston Churchill: A Brief Life(London: Seeker & Warburg, 1984), 51; Ian Chambers,"Winston Churchill and Irish Home Rule, 1899-1914" inParliamentary History, vol. 19, part 3, 407.

32. Kevin Theakston, op. cit., 43-54.33. John Ramsden, Man of the Century: Winston

Churchill and his legend since 1945 (London: HarperCollins,2002), 86. $

CHURCHILLIAN ASIDES: "OH GORT OUR HOPE IN AGES PAST"

ccasionally one or two of our fighting commanders would descend on us, make some propa-ganda demand and depart in peace or in displeasure. The calmest and the kindliest was that

noble and great-hearted soldier Lord Gort who, after Dunkirk, had been rewarded with theGovernorship of Gibraltar. I had first met him in that tragic summer of 1940 when with the honour ofa back-to-the-wall and typically British retreat fresh upon him he had been persuaded by Lord Halifaxto give an address in the BBC religious service on 4 August. The incident inspired one of the beststories of the war.

Lord Halifax had taken great interest in this special service and had worried his secretariesfor weeks. He had given even his own personal time and study to the choice of a suitable hymn and,finding decision difficult, had consulted his favourite henchman, Mr. Charles Peake [Head of theBritish Foreign Office News Department, later confidential adviser to Halifax when the latter becameBritain's Ambassador to the United States].

" I am at a loss to find a suitable hymn for the Gort service," said Lord Halifax." Surely," replied the gallant Mr. Peake, "the choice is obvious: O Gort, our help in ages past."His Lordship reflected for a moment. Then a pale and watery smile lit up his face.

"Excellent, my dear Charles, but I fear that the Prime Minister might not like the second line."The remark was apposite. Lord Gort had been our shelter in the stormy blast. All that courage

could do, he always did. He had superb qualities of simplicity, of devotion to duty, of great strengthin adversity, but intellectually he could not appeal to Mr. Churchill as "Our hope in years to come."

—Robert Bruce Lockhart, Comes the Reckoning (London: Putnam, 1947)

Our thanks for this excerpt to James Lancaster. (Note: The choice of hymn [with its originaltitle] had many other applications. "Oh God, Our Help in Ages Past" was chosen by Churchill, notonly for the Sunday morning service with Roosevelt in Placentia Bay in August 1941, but also by the"Hope Not Committee" for Sir Winston's state funeral service in 1965.) $

FINEST HOUR 136 / 36

HISTORY DETECTIVES

Churchill and thePlunging Investor(OR: WHEN DID DR. MATTHIES HIT THE STREET?)

N.B.: Since PBS-TV is wont to cop ourresearch for their "History Detectives"program (see "Around & About, "page9) we thought to return the favor bycopping their title.

m egends of stock investorsjumping from buildings astheir portfolios melted inthe Wall Street Crash of1929 have been blown as far

out of proportion as Lady RandolphChurchill's love affairs. Only onejumper is recorded, and not on"Black Tuesday," October 29th.

On the evening of "BlackTuesday," 29 October 1929, whenthe stock market collapsed of its ownweight and sixteen million shareschanged hands, Churchill dined withBernard Baruch (the same friend hewould nearly be killed finding in1931: see page 24. —Ed.) The nextmorning he heard shouts below hisSavoy-Plaza apartment and lookedout, he wrote, to find that under hiswindow "a gentleman [had] cast him-self down fifteen storeys and wasdashed to pieces, causing a, wild com-motion and the arrival of the firebrigade." By WSC's account, the fallof the gentleman thus would be onthe morning of October 30th.

After consulting the archives ofThe New York Times, I've found onlyone article about a death asdescribed: Dr. Otto Matthies, achemist from Berlin, who fell to hisdeath from the Savoy. But this tookplace in the morning of October24th, i.e. "Black Thursday," the daythe big crash began. (WhetherMatthies "cast himself down" is notknown; there were no indications ofsuicide, and the poor chemist proba-

bly didn't own any stock!)My reason for examining the

quotation was to learn more aboutthe myth of the plunging investor(s).There was actually a definite suicideon Wall Street on October 21st (oneFrank Zuiger); I don't know howoften this kind of thing happened.

On 17 November 1929, a Mr.George E. Cutle also jumped to hisdeath from an office at Beaver Street(close to Wall Street). But "plunginginvestors" were old news by tiien.Since there is no report of a seconddeath in a very similar manner, andsince such an event would almost cer-tainly have been something to writeabout, should we conclude thatChurchill had the date wrong, andmaybe the circumstances?

—PETER OLAUSSON

Sir Martin Gilbert and we thinkMr. Olausson is right about the

date. And it may be that Matthies fellaccidentally. Certainly the legend ofjumping investors circulated widelythat autumn. But Churchill himselfnever gave the date; only Sir Martindid that, in the official biography,and he now believes that he may havehad the date wrong—as well as, per-haps, the circumstances.

Churchill originally wrote thewords quoted in his article, "Fever ofSpeculation in America" (London:Daily Telegraph, 9 December 1929),part IV of his series of articles, "WhatI Saw and Heard in America":

The consuming power was griev-ously weakened. In opulent FifthAvenue fur coats, already half-ac-cepted by clients, came back inscores and dozens because they did

not fit. Under my very window agentleman cast himself down fifteenstoreys and was dashed to pieces,causing a wild commotion and thearrival of the fire brigade. Quite anumber of persons seem to haveoverbalanced themselves by acci-dent in the same sort of way. Aworkman smoking his pipe on thegirder of an unfinished building400 ft above the ground blockedthe traffic of the street below,through the crowd, who thought hewas a ruined capitalist waiting in arespectful and prudently withdrawncrescent for the final act.

Only one such death wasreported at the time. For example,A to Z Investments (www.atozinvest-ments.com/1929-stock-market-crash.html) records:

There is no evidence that anyoneleapt to their death because of themarket crash, although several didshoot themselves. One man decidedto end his misery by leaving his gasstove on and then taking a longnap. [Another] had a heart attack athis broker's office watching thedropping numbers on the tickertape. The one person reported tojump from an upper floor of thePlaza Hotel in New York City didso several days before the markettumbled. Will Rogers, the great hu-morist, picked up on it and in-cluded the "jumping out of win-dows" in his routine for a numberof years, and so the legend.

"Several days before the markettumbled" obviously refers to severaldays before Black Tuesday the 29th.We know the Matthies fall occurredon Thursday the 24th. Sir MartinGilbert writes that Churchill returnedto New York on October 24th—if ona sleeper train, he would have arrivedearly—and stayed at the Savoy-Plazaflat of Percy Rockefeller. The NewYork Times reference is to die samebuilding, so it is feasible thatChurchill witnessed the event, andthe 24th was the date.

Further comments and specula-tions from Finest Hour readers aremost welcome. —EDITOR $5

FINEST HOUR 136/37

2fooks, Arts

& Curiosities

Churchill Centre Book ClubManaged for the Centre by Chartwell

Booksellers (www.churchill-books.com),which offers member discounts up to

25%. To order contact Chartwell Book-sellers, 55 East 52nd Street, New York,New York 10055, email bscb@dti.net,

telephone (212) 308-0643,facsimile (212) 838-7423.

Two Good Reasons Why You Must Buy This Book1. Because Bourke Cockran was Crucial

ANNE SEBBA

Becoming Win-ston Churchill,by Michael Mc-Menamin andCurt Zoller.Greenwood,$49.95, 274pp.,hardbound. (Nodiscount fromCBC; availablefor as low as$34.75 on Ama-zon.com.)

In 1895, a young lieutenant in a cav-alry regiment of the British army per-

suaded his superiors to allow him totravel with a friend to Havana. Thesubaltern had been asked to collect mil-itary information on Spain's attempt toput down a Cuban revolution, and hadmade an arrangement with the DailyGraphic to publish his war letters,signed with his initials: WSC.

This escapade gave Jennie, thenewly widowed officer's mother, whopaid his fare, some mild embarrass-ment. What was a junior British officerdoing with the staff of General SuarazValdes, the Spanish commander? Wheninterviewed by an American newspaper,she insisted that her son was not takingpart in the campaign and that he wasmerely on a nine-week leave of absence.

Mrs. Sebba is the author of Jennie Churchill:Winston's American Mother (John Murray)September 2007, also published as AmericanJennie (W.W. Norton) November 2007.

She refrained from saying that she hadarranged it, that he had letters of intro-duction from the British War Officeand Foreign Office to the Spanish au-thorities, which enabled him to go tothe front and watch the operations.

But Jennie was pleased about thetrip since it gave her the chance to in-troduce her son sooner to a good friendof hers in New York, where the boyswere stopping en route to Havana.Winston, deeply impressionable, wasbowled over and forever indebted tothat friend, William Bourke Cockran, acharismatic and wealthy former con-gressman. He, in turn, went out of hisway to help this unknown young Eng-lishman, meeting him at the wharf, of-fering him hospitality at his Fifth Av-enue apartment, and stimulating himwith his talk. Winston wrote to hismother that Cockran was one of themost charming hosts and interestingmen he had ever met. He told herabout their deep and wide ranging dis-cussions on every conceivable subjectfrom economics to yacht racing.

Winston recognised that Cockranwas not only a clever man, but onefrom whom much was to be learned. Itwas an introduction of magic. Winstonlistened to Bourke reading favouritespeeches aloud, telling his protege ofthe importance of timing, drama andsincerity; of giving people the simpletruth with clarity and grandeur. Theyate oysters and hominy together and af-terwards the older man sent Winstonsome speeches for his comments andwas "profoundly impressed" with his re-sponses. Without a son himself, Cock-

ran treated Winston as his own at acritical time in the young man's life. Bymoulding him, encouraging him andrecognising his potential, he becameWinston's life-long inspiration, mentorand father figure.

Until now, Cockran, the man whohelped shape Churchill's political andeconomic views on individualism andfree trade, is almost a forgotten figure.Yet, as Michael McMenamin and CurtZoller point out in this hugely readablestudy, some of Winston's most oft-quoted remarks were first uttered byCockran, a man of unrivalled eloquenceand enormous charm. The earth, hewould say, "is a generous mother. Shewill produce in plentiful abundancefood for all her children if they will butcultivate her soil in justice and peace."Winston once commented that he usedto repeat that sentence so often onBritish platforms that eventually he hadto give it a holiday.

Never, he said later, "was the choicebetween blessing and curse more vehe-mently presented to the human race."

Born in County Sligo in 1854, to alarge family of some means, BourkeCockran was a devout Catholic. Afteran education from the Christian Broth-ers in Ireland and then France, he hadbeen destined for a life in the church.With his leonine head, large frame andeven larger personality he was a manwho could not be ignored. As an oratorhe was outstanding with a musicalvoice, clear diction, wide knowledgeand the trained mind of an experiencedlawyer and politician. So impressive washe that, according to one contempo-rary, "listening to him .. .was like beingtransported to the Roman Senate in its

FINEST HOUR 136/38

best days." Others compared him toEdmund Burke, or to Charles JamesFox, to whom he bore a strong resem-blance.

Cockran came to America in 1871aged seventeen, with £150 in hispocket. While supporting himself as ateacher of French, Latin and Greek, hestudied for the bar and soon becameprominent in politics as an importantmember of the Democratic Party andof the House of Representatives. Whenhe met Jennie in 1895, thanks to an in-troduction from Moreton Frewen, he,like she, was recently widowed follow-ing the death of his second wife. Hewas also a successful lawyer with aflourishing practice and a man who hadexperienced life. When his first wifehad died in childbirth one year after themarriage Bourke briefly became a heavydrinker. But then he stopped, neverdrank again, and "in that minute mas-tered the impulses of his own passion-ate nature—a nature outraged by mis-fortune, angry against the world."

Though there is no proof, the au-thors believe (as does this writer) thatCockran and Jennie indulged in a tu-multuous but short lived physical affairin Paris in the spring of 1895. But theyparted friends, and the lasting resultwas Cockran's influence on Winston,who returned to England not merelywith coffee, cigars and guava jelly but

inspiration provided by the man whohad also fired his mother's dampenedspirits. Winston maintained it wasCockran who taught him "to use everynote of the human voice like an organ."Even so, he always wished he had avoice like Cockran's.

In 1906 Cockran married his thirdwife, Anne Ide, daughter of the Ameri-can lawyer and Chief Justice of Samoa,Henry Clay Ide. Through Anne, Cock-ran acquired an additional relationshipto the Churchills as his wife's sister,Marjorie, married Shane Leslie.

It was through this connection, notthe amatory one, that Cockran foundhimself at the bedside of JennieChurchill in her dying days twenty-sixyears after they had met. As Jennie sud-denly haemorrhaged following a fall,Marjorie produced a baby, Desmond, anephew for Cockran and a cousin forWinston.

This book brings back into theforeground with power and imagina-tion—fictional passages are interspersedwith facts where information is thin—aspell-binding rabble-rouser, a man whodeserves to be remembered as onewhose principles, faith in democracyand oratorical skills were passed on to ayoung man at a critical point in his life,helping to create Winston Churchill,the leader who in turn inspired millionsat a critical point in world history. $5

2. Because it's Full of History and Wisdom

TED HUTCHINSON

There is some rare stuff between thecovers of Becoming Winston

Churchill: material so unusual, souncommon, that Churchillians shouldtreasure it like a rare gem, or a first edi-tion of Mr. Brodrick's Army. The bookis perhaps even more uncommon thansuch rarities, because it exists in aworld of fakes, largely populated bybooks which only pretend to do whatit does.

Every year sees publication of

Mr. Hutchinson is Editor ofthe Journal ofLaw, Medicine & Ethics in Boston.

more unnecessary books about someaspect of Churchill. Most simply retellfamiliar stories and recycle old quips.McMenamin and Zoller do somethingdifferent—almost startlingly strange inthe flood of mediocrity: They tell ussomething new.

Becoming Winston Churchill tellsof the relationship between youngChurchill and the only true male men-tor he ever had, the Irish-Americanpolitician and lawyer Bourke Cockran.The story begins with Cockran andChurchill meeting in 1895 in NewYork City. When asked by Churchill'smother Jennie, Cockran readily agreedto look out for the young man during

his first visit to the United States. Theirmeeting grew into a real friendshipbetween the two men based on trust,kindness, and mutual admiration. Theywould remain friends until Cockran'sdeath in 1923.

McMenamin and Zoller, ofcourse, did not "discover" their subject,Cockran's influence remained relativelyunknown throughout Churchill's life-time—in spite of WSC's best efforts.Many of the more touching passages inthis book involves Churchill's repeatedefforts to credit Cockran as the primaryinfluence on his oratory and thought.But Cockran had faded into obscurityby the time of the Second World War;few took Churchill's claims seriously.

Cockran was first discussed seri-ously in the official biography thatbegan in 1966; later books began toexplore the man and his influence, andMartin Gilbert's Churchill and America(2006) did critical work on this impor-tant man. Readers of Finest Hour havebeen seeing article-length studies ofCockran for quite a few years now.

McMenamin and Zoller, howev-er, give us the first full scholarly studyof Cockran's life, discussing in detailhis influence in shaping Churchill.They explore Cockran's legal career andespecially his role in the U.S. House ofRepresentatives, demonstrating thattime and time again (and like WSC)Cockran made difficult political choic-es that were morally just but that tooka toll on his political career.

In spite of the fact that Cockranwas continually in and out of office formost of his adult life (he was probablytoo scrupulous to be a career politician)he was generally considered the bestpublic speaker in the nation. At thepinnacle of his career, in die 1880s and1890s, he was likely one of the mostfamous people in the United States. Topaint Cockran's portrait anew,McMenamin and Zoller relied on theold-fashioned concept of hard work,logging time in archives like the NewYork Public Library and the ChurchillArchives Centre. This is refreshing inthe age of the "quickie" biography,where an entire book can be writtenusing only the official biography andthe document volumes as sources. >>

FINEST HOUR 136 / 39

BECOMING WINSTONCHURCHILL...

The authors highlight three keyareas where Cockran's influence onChurchill was crucial. First, WSC washeavily influenced in his thinking onFree Trade, an idea that would be acornerstone political concept ofChurchill's for the rest of his life.Second, they record, Churchill bor-rowed many of his ideas on "liberty"from Cockran. While "liberty" is aword that defies easy definition, theauthors feel that both Churchill andCockran viewed "liberty" as freedom ofthe individual to rise and succeed inlife. That is why, they explain, bothCockran and Churchill supported earlyconcepts of the welfare state (as a toolthat helped ensure the liberty of all citi-zens) . Later, this grounding enabledChurchill to use the rhetoric of libertywhen he stood to face Hitler in 1940.

But the most obvious influenceCockran had on Churchill was hisspeaking style. Churchill would men-tion this all his life, particularly after

the Second World War, when there wasgreat interest in his oratory.

McMenamin and Zoller givemany examples of this influence in thebook, and Chapter 2 especially givesthe reader a nice collection of speechesdelivered by Churchill (particularly onFree Trade) that he essentially cribbedfrom Cockran. The dramatic effect ofthese side-by-side comparisons is con-siderable, and demonstrates both theinfluence Cockran had on WSC'sthought and the careful considerationand labor that McMenamin and Zollerput into their book.

The one flaw I found was a stylis-tic choice which is little more than amatter of taste. The authors chose tobegin each chapter with a "fictionalnarrative" written by McMenamin. Theidea is to give a larger context to thestory, and to pass along informationnot described in the actual material ofthe book. Most of the "fictional narra-tives" are based on fact, but in my viewthey distract the reader from materialof great value that is found within.

Much of the fictional material isunnecessary and even silly; a typicalbut ridiculous quote goes: "Like manyIrishmen, Cockran had two weakness-es: strong drink and beautiful women."(25) This sounds like something out ofa bad detective novel, and underminesthe very fine work done in the rest ofthe book. The authors should havetrusted their voices as historians to tellthe story, for when they do that theydo an excellent job.

Still, this criticism is minor. Thisis a huge and even vital book for anyChurchillian. It is important as asource of new material and new think-ing about Churchill, and as a surpris-ingly tender and gentle way of thinkingabout young people. Every person, nomatter how great, needs mentors, theauthors argue—especially in theiryouth. By mentoring the young, olderpeople can add critical dimensions ofmeaning to their lives. McMenaminand Zoller have proved it by helping toresurrect Bourke Cockran. Theirs is amessage we should all take to heart. Mi

Two Good Books for the Options ListTED HUTCHINSON

Troublesome YoungMen: The RebelsWho BroughtChurchill to Powerin 1940 and HelpedSaved Britain, byLynne Olson.Bloomsbury, 415pp., $27.50, mem-ber price $22.

Former Baltimore Sun reporter LynneOlson here tells the familiar tale of

Britain's Parliament in the 1930s, andhow a small group of conservativerebels broke from their party ranks andsupported tougher measures than thegovernment line to combat the rise ofAdolf Hitler's Germany. Knowing theirrebellion would almost certainly dam-age their political careers, tlieseConservatives acted according to con-science, and have thus won a place as"good guys" in the great morality tale

that is the rise and fall of Nazism.Olson tells the story well. Her

book is readable and moves briskly;even if there is little here that can becalled new, she makes up for it by acompelling manner. While those well-versed in the story of Churchill and theera of the 1930s (including, of course,readers of Finest Hour) will find littlethat is fresh or profound here, thisbook can serve as both a serviceableintroduction to the era and a usefulcollection of mini-biographies ofimportant and interesting Tories.

It is with these mini-biographies,told within the context of the largerstory, that Olson really shines as awriter. Her portraits of deeply flawedbut principled individuals are humanein the very best sense; without apolo-gizing or explaining away their varioustraits and peccadilloes, she describeshow each of the "troublesome youngmen" was shaped by and reacted to theworld around them. Anthony Eden'scautiousness, Bob Boothby's rough

edges, Harold Macmillan's difficultiesare all dealt with sympathetically. I gar-nered new insights into the lives ofeven the best-known, like Macmillan,Eden, Nicholson and Duff Cooper. Iwas pleased to learn more about lesser-known figures like Ronald Cartland,whom Olson highlights throughout thebook. The author should be applaudedfor her insightful and humane exami-nations of these figures.

Troublesome Young Men (thephrase was Harold Macmillan's, toChurchill in 1928) benefits from theabsence, until the last stages of thebook, of Winston Churchill. True,Churchill is usually depicted at thecenter of most anti-appeasement activi-ties in the 1930s. But Olson turns thespotlight away towards those who havebeen less vigorously studied. Most ofthem worked on their own, followingtheir own consciences, and did notsimply follow a "leader" like Churchill.Olson notes, correctly in fact, that attimes Churchill could count on few

FINEST HOUR 136/40

MPs other than Duncan Sandys andBrendan Bracken to follow his particu-lar lead.

One of the obvious aspects of thebook which deserves mention here, isthe author's implicit comparisonsbetween Neville Chamberlain, againstwhom the "troublesome young men"rallied, and current U.S. PresidentGeorge W. Bush:

Using tactics that have strikingresonance today, Chamberlainand his subordinates restrictedjournalists' access to governmentsources, badgered the BBC andnewspapers to follow the govern-ment line, and claimed that criticsof their policies—in both thepress and Parliament—were guiltyof damaging the national interest.(7)

Later, she quotes a contemporaryMP: "You were either for theGovernment or against; there was nohalf-way house with him." (26) Sheconcludes that "Chamberlain and hismen came to regard any opposition asa lack of patriotism approaching trea-son, and they dealt with it according-ly. . .Eventually, [a Daily Express corre-spondent remarked], the government'sintolerance developed 'undertones oftotalitarianism.'" (159)

Readers may assess these observa-tions themselves, but they lead Olsonto conclude that "After Munich,Neville Chamberlain was spoiling for afight—but not against Germany."(156)

Chamberlain is the exception tomy earlier comments about Olson'ssympathy and humanity. He comes offas vain, conceited, arrogant, and quitewilling to destroy the careers of honor-able men who stood in his way. Thefact remains, however, that NevilleChamberlain tried desperately to avoidwar, whatever his ulterior motives fordoing so might have been, which con-trasts obviously with the current U.S.president, and thus damages the centralmetaphor of Olson's book. (See alsoEditor's Essay, page 6.)

In spite of the arrogance andincompetence of the Chamberlain gov-ernment, and in spite of the quietheroics of the anti-appeasers, who

risked almost everything for a cause inwhich they believed, it should be notedthat their ultimate role in the ending ofthe Chamberlain Government isambiguous. On one hand, they did anadmirable job of speaking againstappeasement during low times like theMunich Agreement, and they proved tobe an important rallying point whenthings became particularly bad whenChamberlain led the nation into war.They later were an important base ofsupport on which Churchill wouldeventually rely as Prime Minister.

But they did not "bringChurchill to power," as the book's titleso boldly claims; that event was prom-ulgated by a complex series of forcesthat included, at its critical point, theother parties in Parliament refusing toserve under Chamberlain in a nationalgovernment. These factors do notnegate the usefulness of a well-toldstory; but they do temper, to a degree,some of the central conclusions of abook that still has much to tell usabout the anti-appeasers and Britishpolitics in the 1930s.

ONATMANF F N B Y

ALLIANCE

Alliance: The InsideStory of HowRoosevelt, Stalinand Churchill WonOne War andBegan Another, byJonathan Fenby.Simon & Schuster,464pp., $28, mem-ber price $22.40

Jonathan Fenby's account of personalrelationships among the World War

II allies is an old-fashioned book,which is not necessarily a bad thing.Fenby provides narrative history, free ofanalysis or revisionism, that still allowshim to develop a nuanced context andtelling asides which add to our overallunderstanding of pivotal moments inworld history.

It is important to explain whatthis book is not. It is not, for starters, ageneral history of the allies; neither is ita military history of the alliance, formajor battles are mentioned only inpassing. It's also not a study of how thealliance functioned on a day-to-day

level, as diplomats and generals makeonly brief appearances in the book,only to be quickly escorted offstage.

Alliance is instead the story of thepersonalities: how Franklin Roosevelt,Joseph Stalin and Winston Churchill,through the force of their natures, anddriven by interests both national andpersonal, formed this unusual alliance,how they kept it together through goodtimes and bad, and how the intereststhat drove them together eventuallychanged and drove them apart.

By focusing on the relationshipamong the three, Fenby crafts an intel-ligent story that starkly captures themore poignant moments from thewartime summits. Among them: FDR'sphysical frailty and his increasing men-tal incapacitation; Churchill's franticefforts to stay in FDR's good graces,and desperate moves as he realized hisnation's status was slipping; and per-haps most starkly, Joseph Stalin's casualcruelty to friend and foe alike.

The author argues (strictlythrough narrative; there is very little"authorial voice" in the book) that theBig Three alliance was forged throughpersonal relationships. Or, at least, theplayers themselves thought that it was.The book is filled with scenes of one ofthem (usually Churchill, sometimesRoosevelt) flying somewhere (usuallyRussia) in abhorrent conditions in dan-gerous aircraft in order to meet withone of his equals to preserve thealliance and get past the latest stum-bling block. We see how Roosevelt andChurchill had a strong relationshipearly on, and witness how it deteriorat-ed as Roosevelt turned his attention tothe Soviet Union, concerned aboutwhat he perceived as Churchill's pro-imperial agenda.

Fenby demonstrates that bothChurchill and FDR thought they had agood relationship with and "under-stood" Stalin, while Stalin himself sim-ply used any means at hand to achievehis ends. A sense of evil permeates thebook whenever Stalin appears, a tributeto Fenby's fine writing.

The alliance ends, of course, withthe close of World War Two and thebeginning of the Cold War. This, inand of itself, is not a criticism of the »

FINEST HOUR 136/41

ALLIANCE: THE INSIDE STORY...alliance or the players involved. It is,however, a rebuke to the idea that thealliance was truly a friendship betweeneither nations or men. It was instead,as virtually all political alliances are, amarriage of convenience.

Winston Churchill recognizedthat more conflict was coming wellbefore the World War ended.Historians have long debated howmuch Roosevelt understood, even as hewas becoming more and more ill. Washe naive, or simply reassured by thesecurity provided by the ManhattanProject? Fenby equivocates, largelybecause answers like that can't be easilyfound in the narratives of history.

Any review in Finest Hour mustexamine a book's depiction ofChurchill. WSC comes off reasonablywell. I think Fenby overestimates hiscapacity for drink, and incorrectlyinsinuates he was intoxicated at timeswhen many on the scene disagreed. Itis uncomfortable reading Fenby's depic-tion of die bargaining sessions betweenChurchill and Stalin over Greece,Hungry, and Bulgaria. The Poles,meanwhile, were treated shamefully byeveryone before, during, and after thewar, and Churchill had an ambiguouslegacy in regards to Poland.

Ultimately Churchill is depictedas a realist, his cold reasoning matchingthe calculating aggression of Moscow.Churchill realizes, correctly, that Stalin'sten million-man Red Army could notbe stopped without a war that couldhave dwarfed the one that had justended. So he fought instead at the fore-front of a Cold War, which ended inthe destruction of the Soviet Empire bynon-violent means, if more slowly thananyone in the West would have liked.

This readable book, then, hasvalue for the scholar of both Churchilland the Second World War. Fenby doesnot tell us much that we didn't alreadyknow, but he uses his narrative to stresstliat these were real people makingdecisions in a context of limited infor-mation and limited trust among part-ners. If the wars end also ended theneed for alliance, Fenby tells us, it alsolaid the seeds for the very differentperiod that would follow. $

Cult of the Last Great EnglishmanMARCUS FROST

AFTER THEVICTORIANS

A . N . Vi ' l ' l .SON

After the Victori-ans: the Decline ofBritain in theWorld, by A.N.Wilson. Picador,610 pp., paper-back, $18, memberprice $14.40

H:ere is a book,not specifi-

cally about Churchill, which encom-passes British society during three quar-ters of his life: a comprehensive reviewof all the forces that shaped the societyin which Churchill lived.

A fellow of the Royal Society ofLiterature, Wilson has written nineteennovels, columns for the Evening Stan-dard and Daily Telegraph, and good bi-ographies of Tolstoy, Milton, C. S.Lewis, and Saint Paul. This is Wilson'ssequel to his earlier The Victorians.

After the Victorians begins with thedeath of Queen Victoria in 1901 andends in 1945, a colorful, panoramicportrait of the era to which Sir Winstonlooked back with nostalgia. The cultureexpounded here includes entertain-ments, political movements, artistic andliterary achievements, and the everydayhappenings that shaped society. Wilsonmaps connections between military, po-litical, social, and cultural society, espe-cially during the Edwardian era.

The book considers imperialismand its discontents, and the shaping ofthe world we know today. The writingis lively, provocative, and exhilarating,an antidote to the boredom of succes-sive books on Churchill which tell thesame story over and over.

Churchill, of course, is a promi-nent player, and Wilson makes numer-ous assessments with which mostChurchillians will not agree. Yet hepaints a lively portrait of the great man.From a historical and literary stand-point, he gives us fresh perspective.

Mr. Frost s article on Churchill and the Tankappeared in the previous issue of/7//.

Few will argue with Wilson's viewof the Churchill corpus:

On the one hand, there is the bodyof accepted factual evidence...mountains of written, oral, cine-matic and other material. But thereis also the huge potency of the col-lective attitude to the hero. This en-courages some sparkier, perhaps at-tention-seeking historians to pokefun at the myth, to be iconoclastic,to suggest that Churchill was notsuch a successful war leader, or thathe could have done things differ-ently; even, if revisionism wants toattract real obloquy to itself, that thewhole war, the deaths of the count-less millions, could have been playeddifferently, or avoided altogether. Sothe revisionists have their little day,and are succeeded once more by theeven more bestselling counter-revi-sionists, asserting that, for all themistakes made, the cult of the LastGreat Englishman is still valid.

Perceptions of Churchill vary. Ialways find myself wanting to defendhim, and have written all over the mar-gins of Wilson's book. The writer Flo-rence King remarked that you can tellwhen she's read a boring book—sheleaves the margins as pristine as whenshe started. I'm sure King would scrib-ble all over this one. But most impor-tantly, Wilson gives the reader a master-ful, broadly grounded view of the de-cline of the British Empire, whichChurchill was powerless to resist.Britain, faced with world events itcouldn't or didn't control, had to actwhen faced with each crisis. Wilsonsuggests that the rise of American andSoviet power led inevitably to Britishdecline, weakness, and debt, culminat-ing in the exhaustion of Britain in a six-years-war with Nazi Germany—theonly member of the Grand Alliance inthe fight from start to finish. In that,Wilson suggests, lies a certain nobleconsolation.

This book broadens our grasp ofthe life and society in which Churchillrose to prominence. He led Britain tovictory despite all the setbacks and suf-fering the nation had to endure. $3

FINEST HOUR 136/42

Arm in Arm with the Greatest GenerationRICHARD MASTIO

Where the BirdsNever Sing, byJack Sacco. ReganBooks (imprint ofHarper Collins),316 pp., paper-back $15, memberprice $12. Auto-graphed copiesavailable fromwww.jacksacco.com.

This moving and poignant story is amust for anyone who has ever

wondered about the experience of beinga young soldier in World War II. It isalso written for those who would liketheir children and grandchildren toknow what it was like to be in midst ofthe action. Writing in the first person,Joe Sacco relates the story of the 92ndSignal Battalion, as they traveled farfrom home to fight and die for peoplethey did not know. In their simple andprofoundly selfless way, they not onlyserved their country; they saved theworld.

The story begins on a farm in ruralAlabama. The reader follows the ordealsand rigors of basic training and ofhomesickness among Joe and his bud-dies. Taken from all walks of life, theyforged lasting friendships. There is abrief pause for a few days' leave in NewYork City before boarding.the USSAnne Arundel, a troop ship headed foran unknown destination (probablyEngland) where the men join with theBritish, Canadian and Australian sol-diers in the fight against Hitlerism.One quickly gets to like Joe and hispals, as if they were your own bestfriends, ready to die for you if necessityrequired. Sacco will make you laugh,cry, and think.

Landing first in Ireland, then in

Mr. Mastio, of Carmel, California, is directorof Churchillians by the Bay, the ChurchillCentre's Northern California Chapter. Mr.Courtenay, of Andover, Hampshire, is Hon.Secretary of ICS (UK) and a FH senior editor.

pastoral rural England, and finally onthe hotly contested beaches of Nor-mandy, the reader is propelled into theaction as seen from the eyes of someonewho was there. We travel with Joethrough France to Paris, and then intothe German homeland itself. Near theend, we are stunned with descriptionsof the early moments of liberation atDachau concentration camp, feelingthe utter pain and anger of soldiers whohave finally seen the reason why theywere fighting—"Why the birds neversing." Between these stark descriptions

of battles fought, we feel the soft side ofthe war with thoughts of home, thesadness and loss of parting.

If you ever wanted to walk in theshoes of one who was part of "the great-est generation," this is the book to read.You finish the story awed by the selflesssacrifice, just one young man fightingin the war we know from our own read-ings and experience. You are particu-larly reminded of the words of WinstonChurchill, the lion-hearted statesmanwho made us all awaken to the menacewe once faced together. M>

Good Photos, Redundant TextPAUL H. COURTENAY

Churchill: An Illus-trted History, byBrenda RalphLewis. Reader's Di-gest AssociationLtd., 254 pp., $30.Member price $24.

Sorry, but wehave to report

yet another disappointing newChurchill book. Here the publisher hascommissioned an established writer toproduce a book on WSC withoutchecking whether she knew much moreabout the subject than the ordinary per-son in the street—and it shows.

The general flow of events is accu-rate enough. After all, there are endlesssources to ensure this. But the catalogueof tittle-tattle and errors seems endless.The usual repetitions of Lord Ran-dolph's syphilis and Jack's illegitimacyare trotted out without any awarenessof expert demolition, while the routineerror that WSC won the Nobel Prizefor The Second World War is blithely of-fered up once again.

Exasperating minor errors are sonumerous that they ruin whatever mer-its the book may have. Among these weare told that that Churchill was "trans-ferred" (the word is "attached") to the21st Lancers; that Omdurman was

fought against the Mahdi (it was theKhalifa—the Mahdi had died thirteenyears earlier); that 13,000 Canadianservicemen took part in the SecondWorld War (it was nearly one million).The failure to distinguish between theJoint Chiefs of Staff and the CombinedChiefs of Staff, and the standard errorthat Churchill was First Sea Lord, rein-force the apparent ignorance of eitherthe author, the publisher or both.

The best feature of the book is thephotography. I counted 187 illustra-tions, of which fifty were unfamiliar tome. These include a picture ofChurchill lunching at the Soviet Em-bassy in 1941, and a stunning photo ofWSC with his daughter Mary outside10 Downing Street in 1942. But eventhis galaxy of treasures is ruined by nu-merous misidentifications. Thus, for ex-ample, we are told that Sir KingsleyWood is Ernest Bevin; that the Presi-dent of Westminster College is HarryTruman; that the House of Commonswas destroyed on 10 May 1940 (insteadof exactly one year later); and that thewell-known VE-Day photograph of theWar Cabinet with the King was takenin August 1944. Most crass of all, the1947 photograph of Churchill receivingthe Medaille Militaire in Paris, very ob-viously in Army uniform (actually thatof Colonel, 4th Hussars), is captionedto identify him dressed as an Air Com-modore. Oh dear. $

FINEST HOUR 136/43

REVIEW REBUTTAL

The Spirit of Churchill ReconsideredDEBORAH BREZINA

s author of The Spirit ofChurchill, {FH 134: 46), Ifeel a bit like the man who,when led to the gallows,

remarked, "I might rather pass on theoccasion if it were not for the honor ofthe thing."

The Spirit of Churchill is a bookabout leadership and character thatendeavors to deliver lessons of historyto a post-9/11 world. As a historyteacher with a passion for Churchill, Iset out to capture his spirit of courage,conviction, determination, and opti-mism, to engage, inspire, and challengethe next generation with the values thatsustain Western civilization. Becausetoo few young people know of the rolehe played in the preservation of theirfreedoms, at least half the book is achronicle of World War II.

Mr. Hutchinson would havereaders believe that The Spirit ofChurchill is merely The Defense of Bush.But out of its 90,632 words, 1556(2%) are by or about President Bushand 989 (1%) are by or about PrimeMinister Blair. Yet half of Mr.Hutchinson's review is about Bush,with no mention of Blair.

I juxtaposed Bush and Blair with-in the context of the US-UK relation-ship and quoted their words on libertyand democracy. I also quote JonMeacham and the present WinstonChurchill, both of whom draw similarparallels. To be consistent, FH shouldscold these writers for committing thesame sin: comparing a conservativewartime leader in America to aConservative wartime leader in Britain.

Has George W. Bush run the IraqWar well? No. Has he inspired Americaand the world with his leadership inthe war on terrorism? No. Is he a greatwriter, orator, or military strategist?No. Is he Winston Churchill? Not inthis era or any other. Can he be com-pared to Winston Churchill in his

determination to fight evil and preserveliberty? Absolutely.

Mr. Hutchinson declares, "I havelong believed that Finest Hour is notthe place to debate current events,"then does precisely that. He lets hisideological slip show as he slides intoinnuendo about Bush trampling onprisoners' rights, stifling free debate,condoning torture, and lacking inde-pendent thought. "Churchill's belief inindependent thought...would probablyrender him unelectable to high officein America today" is insulting and silly:America elected someone so capable ofindependent thought that he is hatedby much of the world.

I do agree with one statement:"Adults should demand a story for theworld they live in." Are we to believe,then, that Churchill advocated a kinderand gentler war, scrupulously protect-ing civil rights while fighting to thedeath against Nazism? Or that he wel-comed open debate among munitionsworkers and shipbuilders charged withprotecting vital information? Or thathe never condoned tough interrogationtactics against Nazis? Really....

Here's the Adult Story: we facean enemy who routinely bombs andmurders; an enemy who puts little boysand girls in a car at a military check-point, knowing that British orAmerican soldiers would never dreamanyone would blow up children inorder to slay those they hate. Mostadults understand that what is at stakein the world today is bigger than Bushor Blair—as it was six decades ago forRoosevelt and Churchill. Who is naive,Mr. Hutchinson?

The Spirit of Churchill celebratesa leader who personified the resolve ofa nation, forever a model of courageand perseverance. America understandsthis, for it was not an American leaderto whom the country looked for inspi-ration after 9/11; it was to Britain'sgreatest wartime Prime Minister. Thatis why I wrote this book.

Mr. Hutchinson RespondsMy review conveyed two fairly

simple observations. The first and moreimportant was that The Spirit ofChurchill is poorly done regardless ofwhether its intent is history, biographyor inspiration. It covers the mostheavily trodden ground in Churchill lit-erature (1930s to 1946), presenting nonew ideas or concepts. Bereft of originalthought or research, it is simply anotherrehash of the Churchill saga, focusingon WSC s admirable qualities at theexpense of the complexities and diffi-culties of this very real man's life.

The field of what we now accu-rately call "Churchill Studies" is self-evidently littered with books aboutChurchill's "Heroic Years." A few havebeen valuable; a great many, like thisone, have not. We will always needgreat thinkers to reinterpret our pastand to reconsider critical moments inhistory. We do not need yet anotherrecitation of the Churchill story in thesame manner it has been recounted forfifty years. Interestingly, Ms. Brezinadoes not address this first and moreimportant criticism in my review.

My second observation, whichthe author does address, is that TheSpirit of Churchill is an overtly politicalbook that does a poor job of making itscase. Ms. Brezina implicitly (and attimes explicitly) searches for echoes ofChurchill and his policies in theadministrations of George Bush andTony Blair, comparisons I foundunconvincing and poorly argued. Hercomments herein do nothing to changemy view. I specifically discussed twopolicies of Churchill that could be con-sidered in our present day, prisonerrights and coalition building, notbecause I wanted to engage in the"what would Churchill do?" game, butbecause they were discussed in theother book I was reviewing in my arti-cle, Gilbert's The Will of the People. Thelatter, as I wrote, makes no explicitcomment about the present day; but itdoes help us to understand the worldwe live in. The Spirit of Churchill doesnot. $

FINEST HOUR 136/44

EDUCATION

Answering Students' Questions......without doing their homework

e like to put students on theright track, but not writetheir papers for them. WhenZachary Chan, JessicaSuhardjo and Morgan

Stewart, ninth graders at Upland,California High School, asked for anemail interview for their History Dayproject, I tried to cite references Ihoped they would follow up. See if youthink my answers encouraged but didnot "give the game away"....

1. Did Churchill's earlier govern-ment offices contribute to his success asPrime Minister?

Yes. By being First Lord of theAdmiralty in World War I, for exam-ple, he learned a crucial lesson: nevertry to carry out a major operation (theDardanelles campaign in WW1) with-out the authority to see it through. In1940 when he became PM, heappointed himself "Minister ofDefense," an entirely new position,which gave him authority to direct themilitary. However, he never wentagainst the advice of his military chiefs.

As Home Secretary, he urgedmore enlightened treatment of peoplejailed for trivial offenses. As PM, hewas against severe treatment of securityrisks in Britain, and wished to elimi-nate wartime restrictions on* civil liber-ties as soon as the war ended. (Hewould probably be doubtful about ourPatriot Act, though he might approve itif war had actually been declared.)

Use our website search feature tolook up articles on Home Secretary,Admiralty, Exchequer, Colonies, etc.

2. Do you think all of Churchill'sdecisions as Prime Minister were reason-able to defeat the Germans? If not, whatwere the bad ones, and their results?

Yes, given what was known at thetime. Later, even Churchill admittedmistakes. For example, he greatlyunderestimated the effectiveness of theGerman Blitzkrieg tactics in France,

and the power of hostile aircraft overcapital ships (resulting in the sinking ofPrince of Wales and Repulse by Japaneseaircraft off Singapore. Please readhttp://xrl.us/wdch for "Churchill'sFlaws and Mistakes."

Read the "Second Front" debate,Finest Hour 124:31. It gives the reasonswhy Churchill was cautious aboutlaunching a second front in Europeuntil 1944. His experience in WW1most influenced this decision.

3. In the 1945 election, Churchillbased his campaign on his record as awartime leader and criticism ofAttlee'sLabour Party. Do you think Churchill'sviews caused him to lose the election?

His views had little to do withit—he was himself easily re-elected.But his party was turned out of office.Remember, this was the first generalelection in ten years. The voters heldthe Conservatives responsible for theappeasement that led to war, and wereweary after six years' fighting. Labourpromised a brave new world. The losswas very natural. Churchill himself saidof the British people, "They have had avery hard time."

4. If Churchill had not become thePrime Minister during the war againstGermany, what would you think wouldhave happened?

Churchill proved that individualsdo matter in history. It is difficult toimagine another likely leader—Halifaxwas the leading alternative—whowould not have tried to reach an"accommodation" with Hitler that leftall of Europe in Nazi hands and Britaindisarmed. The genius of Churchill isthat he convinced his colleagues tofight on, when things looked about asbad as they could be. There is much onthis on our website. Read our review ofJohn Lukacs' book, Five Days inLondon at http://xrl.us/wdcj, or betteryet, read the book itself.

5. Do you find Churchill a strongor weak political leader, even though hewas successful in the war?

This sounds like an essay ques-tion and I hope you are not asking meto help you write an essay. Churchillwas a strong leader during the war.Afterward, many think he was too oldand tired to roll back the damage doneby the postwar Labour government.On the international stage after thewar, he sought accommodation withthe Soviets during the Cold War. ButBritain was too insignificant to matter,so the problem was more Britain'sweakness than Churchill's. WhyBritain's power and influenced wanedafter the war is a subject on whichwhole books have been written.

6. Before becoming PrimeMinister, some say Churchill lost manysupporters because he criticized otherswith loud outbursts, and he lost thefriendship of many Conservatives. Whatdo you think of this?

Not much. He made strongspeeches, yes, but few outbursts. Onethat did do him great harm, albeittemporary, was when he pleaded formore time for King Edward VIII toreconsider before abdicating in1936—use our website search andlook up "Abdication."

To understand why he was notfully supported, http://xrl.us/d2hz"Churchill the Great? Why the VoteWill Not Be Unanimous" by DouglasHall, explains much of this.

Remember that in the 1930s,Churchill was urging rearmament at atime when the slaughter of World War Iwas as recent in people's minds as the1991 Gulf War is today. As thefamous broadcaster Alistair Cookeremarked, every village in England hadits war memorial, and its long list ofdead: "The British people would doanything to stop Hitler—except fighthim." Most leaders who deliver badnews are unpopular. The ones who areproved right often end up heroes—butonly time and history can judge them.

If you want a feel for howBritish people viewed WinstonChurchill in the period from 1910-39,read Alistair Cooke's speech which isat http://xrl.us/wdcn. —Ed. $

FINEST HOUR 136 / 45

COHEN CORNER

A BIBLIOGRAPHICALODYSSEYBY RONALD I. COHEN

THOUGHTS AND ADVENTURES

WHILE SURVEYING THE WRITINGS

OF WINSTON SPENCER CHURCHILL

our Excellencies, my Lords and Ladies,Parliamentarians past and current,guests of the Canadian HighCommissioner, this is indeed anextraordinary honour for me, an honour

both of time and place.As to the first, while I was certain that my

Churchill Bibliography would appear, there were,shall I say, moments when that optimism wastempered with high doses of reality, particularlywhen one of my close friends in Ottawa askedregularly for the last decade whether we wereactually going to see this book in our lifetime.Some here this evening have followed the slowprogress of the three volumes and 2183 pagesover the last twenty years, and may have hadsimilar doubts. Permit me to say immediatelydiat the Bibliography would not have come to fruitionwithout the help of the many individuals in myacknowledgments, and Wendy and I are so very pleasedto have the opportunity of celebrating the work here atCanada House.

As to the second—the place—not only is CanadaHouse at the top of the street where Parliament sits, thebuilding in which the distinguished career of Britain'slongest-serving Parliamentarian began, and in which heleft his oratorical shadow; but it is also where this biblio-graphical odyssey began.

London is where I lived and worked as the life ofSir Winston Churchill ebbed and the nation and worldsent him to his rest in the country churchyard at Bladon.And it was to London and England that I frequently

Mr. Cohen has been a contributor to Finest Hour, since the mid-1980s. His 2006 Bibliography of the Writings of Sir WinstonChurchill, (see "Total Immersion in the Cohen Bibliography," FH133) was celebrated at a reception at Canada House, London, lastFebruary, from which his remarks are derived. Along with his fol-lowing notes on states, editions and issues, Ron now renews ourbibliography column, formerly known as "Woods Corner."

PHOTOGRAPH BY WALTER STONEMAN, CABINET ROOM, DOWNING STREET, 1940

returned to build this work. In this great nation, theBritish Library and its Newspaper Division at Colindale(for a time I had a reserved seat on the Northern Line),the Local Studies Libraries at Oldham, Dundee andIlford, other great public and institutional collections,and private collections of rarities such as that of LordBath at Longleat, yielded bibliographical artifacts andsecrets: none more than the greatest Churchillianarchival resource, namely, the Churchill Archives Centreat Churchill College, Cambridge.

And nowhere has there been a more significantpublished resource for Churchillian information thanthe magisterial and monumental official biography of SirWinston, carried forward since 1968 by the indomitableand prolific Sir Martin Gilbert. Once long out of print,it is even now being relaunched by the Hillsdale CollegePress in the United States.

Returning to the Bibliography, one might ask, whyso long? That was Churchill's doing. He wrote so muchand so well! This led inexorably to more writings andmore editions of his works. Of the former, sadly, there

FINEST HOUR 136/46

are no more; of the latter, happily, an unending stream. AsLady Soames wrote in her introduction to the Bibliogra-phy, "I, of course, did not understand till later—when mymother impressed it upon me—that my father earned hisliving, indeed our family's living, by his pen, and that ourdomestic economy at certain periods survived precariouslyfrom article to article and book to book."

Depending on how you count, Sir Winston wrotefifty-four volumes between 1898 and 1958; of these,thirty remain in print in 2007. And new translationsinto Czech, Italian, Polish, Portuguese, Russian, Spanishand even Catalan have been published since 2000.

Speaking of the rest of the world, my research hastaken me all around it. In the National Library in Seoul,a patient English-speaking librarian tried to explain to aWestern-trained lawyer sensitive to copyright issues howtwo different contemporaneous Korean translations, onein eight volumes and one in twelve, could co-exist. InTaipei, chief birthplace of "pirated" Churchillian works,I was challenged for trying to take a photograph of thefront cover of a volume I knew I would not see again.

In the National Library in Budapest, I was takeninto a back room that included raw and other materialunsuitable for the proletariat in order to consult the1971 Hungarian abridged edition of The Second WorldWar. In Prague, although Churchill's speech volumeswere in the Czech National Bibliography for the 1940s,they had become verboten in the card catalogue pre-1989. Eventually, when I returned to Prague followingGlasnost, all of those works came out ofhiding and were spread on aprivate table for me to consult.

In Dundee, Temperancecandidate Edwin Scrymgeour'sarchives yielded bibliographi-cally significant rarities, as wellas an eight-page pamphlet enti-tled What Mr Winston ChurchillWill Do for Dundee, in whichthe seven pages following the title areblank!

The pursuit of Churchill's writings was invigorat-ing. Here after all was the winner of a Nobel Prize forLiterature: a deft, bright, sparkling writer of history, andone who knew of what he wrote, among other things, asthe only holder of high Cabinet office in the greatdemocracies in both world conflagrations, and a son ofan American mother and an English father. The Nobelcitation included the following words:

Churchill's political and literary achievements are of suchmagnitude that one is tempted to resort to portray him asa Caesar who also has the gift of Cicero's pen. Never be-fore has one of history's leading figures been so close to usby virtue of such an outstanding combination.

My responsibility as a bibliographer was to bethorough. To do my job properly, I needed to locate allpublished material written by Churchill, whether in hisown works, in newspapers, magazines and journals, andin volume works of other authors. I was committed toidentify all editions, issues, states, printings and transla-tions of each of his works and, of course, to describethese bibliographically. And then I must tell the story ofthe circumstances of publication of as many of these as Icould, so that users could dip into, say, the entry for TheStory of the Malakand Field Force and learn of Churchill'sdetermination to write his first book (on the NorthwestIndian frontier campaign) in order, at the tender age of23, to secure some political advantage. It includes thestory of the headlong (and ultimately unnecessary) rushto beat Lord Fincastle's book on the same subject tomarket, and the disastrous proofreading of the work byhis uncle, Moreton Frewen (described by some as"Mortal Ruin"), while the author was in India.

Under the annotations for all of the early works,we learn of Churchill's enthusiasm for his own writing.Of his only novel, Savrola, for example, he wrote onApril 25, 1898:

It is a wild and daring book tilting recklessly here andthere and written with no purpose whatever, but toamuse. This I believe it will do. I have faith in my pen. Ibelieve the thoughts I can put on paper will interest & bepopular with the public.

And then, in his autobiographical work,My Early Life, published in 1930, he

contradicted that view ofSavrola, claiming therethat he had "consistent-ly urged [his] friends toabstain from readingit." In theBibliography, the

annotations includeChurchill's own views on

the 1956 teleplay that ran onAmerican television, and starred his daughter Sarah.

The story of Lord Randolph Churchill is there, andthe huge amount of the advance Churchill received fromMacmillan, £8,000 (the equivalent of more than£570,000 today), as well as the process of letting downCharlie Longman, Churchill's publisher until then.There is the Ian Fleming link to The Second World War.And so on.

The coverage is extensive, more than twice asmany works by Churchill in volume, pamphlet or leafletform as had previously been noted, more than quadruplethe number of periodical appearances.

The truth is that the work needed the time it took.I am reminded, though, of the tale of the exemplary >>

FINEST HOUR 136/47

COHEN CORNER

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ODYSSEY...Bibliography ofBertrand Russell, authored by CanadianKen Blackwell of McMaster University and the lateHarry Ruja of San Diego State University. A couple ofyears before Routledge published the three-volume work(in 1994), when Ken and Harry had already been work-ing on the bibliography for over twenty-five years, andHarry was already over eighty years old, Ken said, "Ithink we have been at this for long enough, Harry. Let'spublish it."

Harry's reply was classic and laconic: "What's therush?"

Now that it is done, I am reminded of WinstonChurchill's telling observation on receiving the SundayTimes Literary Award in 1949:

As an author, I can speak about the difficulties and dan-gers of writing a book. I have written a great many, andwhen I was 25 years old, I had, I believe, written as manybooks as Moses. I have almost kept up that pace since.Writing a book is an adventure. To begin with, it is a toy,and an amusement; then it becomes a mistress, and thenit becomes a master, and then a tyrant. The last phase isthat just as you are about to become reconciled to yourservitude, you kill the monster and fling him about tothe public.

I am now ready personally to fling theBibliography about to the public and I am grateful toyou for sharing this moment with Wendy and me and tothe High Commissioner for the opportunity to do so inyour presence. M>

Bibliographic Definitions:Editions, Issues, States, Printings

n describing the 333 Section A mainentries in my Bibliography of theWritings of Sir Winston Churchill, Ifrequently use the terms edition,issue, state or printing, from time to

time in combined form.Thus, for example, Al . l .a is the "First

edition, home issue, only printing, first state"of The Story of the Malakand Field Force (fig.1). What, you may ask, is the differencebetween each of the terms?

EditionAn edition consists of all the copies of a

book printed from one setting of type(whether from printing plates, offsetting orother more modern techniques). All the print-ings from a particular typesetting are a part ofthat edition, whether the first, second or nthprinting, even if they occur twenty years later.

What collectors are thinking of whenthey refer to a "first edition" is technically thefirst printing of the first edition. There mayalso be more than one issue of a single edi-tion, as the American (Houghton Mifflin),Canadian (Thomas Allen) and Book-of-the-Month Club issues of the first edition of TheSecond World War (Cohen A240). More onthe subject of issues anon...

Although publishers frequently refer toa second, third or nth edition on the titlepage verso, their calling the volume a newedition does not make it that. A new editionrequires significant new typesetting to "earn"that designation. Minor corrections, even tenor twenty of them in a 300-page work, do notconstitute sufficient new typesetting toamount to a new edition.

Thornton Butterworth's The WorldCrisis (Cohen A69.2), which received nomore than incidental editorial changes, is aclassic example of an exaggerated—and incor-rect (bibliographically speaking)—designationby the publisher. The so-called new "editions"are nothing more than new printings, andthey are so designated in my bibliography.Thus, the last printing of Volume I (1911-1914), styled by the publisher "Third edition,fifth printing" (fig. 2) is only the "First Britishedition, Volume I, eighth printing" (Cohen

On the other hand, although the text ofThe Gathering Storm was not significantlychanged from its notorious 1948 small type-face (Cohen A240.4(I).a) to the more legible1949 typeface (Cohen A240.4(I).d), it wasentirely reset. Consequently, the 1949 incar-nation (fig. 3) was truly a new edition.

FINEST HOUR 136/48

Printing (Impression)A printing or impression—the terms

are interchangeable—consists of all the copiesprinted at one time, i.e., without removingthe type or plates (or equivalent) from thepress. The first printing is usually the collec-tor's desideratum of a first edition, althoughit may not be the author's definitive text.Consider, for example, the Malakand SilverLibrary edition (fig. 4)—technically the"Second edition, Silver Library issue," sincethere was also a Colonial Library issue of thatwork— (Cohen A1.3.a, fig. 5), in which themany egregious and minor proofreadingerrors of the first edition were corrected; orthe Cassell edition of The Second World War(Cohen A240.4), which reflected all of theChurchillian overtakes of final revises, etc.,that had not been reflected in the HoughtonMifflin first edition (Cohen A240.1).

States and IssuesThe most misunderstood and most

abused bibliographical terms are "issue" and"state." In inaccurate hands, "first issue" and"first state" are used interchangeably to desig-nate something "early" (and, therefore, fre-quently worthy of a high price). Correctlyapplied, "issue" and "state" occur only withina single printing.

States result when the printed pages ofsome copies of a single printing are altered,either during the course of printing or swiftlythereafter. A stop-press correction of, say, oneor more words creates a new state: the firststate with the original reading, and the sec-ond state with the emended reading. Thecorrection may be accomplished by a cancel-lation, that is, by removing a leaf and insert-ing an amended replacement leaf, which iscalled a "tip-in" or cancellans.

There can be no second state unlessthere is a first state. And there can be no firststate unless there is a second state.

Issues are created by an alteration of thepages—affecting the conditions of publica-tion or sale—of some copies of a printing.Usually, issues result from title-page alter-ations. The Colonial Library Savrola (fig. 6)was published both with the LongmansGreen title page for general colonial distribu-tion (Cohen A3.3.a) and separately with aCopp Clark title page for sale in Canada(Cohen A3.4).

WINSTON S.CHURCIIILL

SPEECHES1951«. 1952

In designating priority, there can be nosecond issue without a first issue.—and nofirst issue without a second issue. That beingsaid, there may be simultaneous, but separateissues, as in the case of the American andCanadian issues of The Second World War(Cohen A240.1 and A240.2 respectively),both published on 21 June 1948.

In an unusual example, one finds bothstates and issues resulting from textual correc-tion. Hugh Martin's Battle (Cohen ¥40),which required the replacement of page 12, isfound in a first state (F40.1.a), with the legal-ly offensive text on page 12; in a second state(F40.1.b), that saw the offensive text replacedby a cancellans (which is replacement leaf11/12); and in a new issue (F40.2), in whichthe reset leaf is integral.

Binding VariantsDifferent cloths or cloth colors, or

changes in the stamping, have no bearing onedition, printing, state or issue. Binding vari-ants are simply that—variants. It may be pos-sible to determine the priority of a particularbinding variant used for part of printing, butbindings have no necessary connection withtext. Binding issues are possible: for example,parts of a printing may be bound in paperand cloth (fig. 7) to create binding issues, asin the case of The People's Rights (CohenA31). But this term is potentially treacherousand should be applied with care.

Dust JacketsA dust jacket—which may be more

valuable than the book it accompanies—hasno bearing on the edition, printing, state, orissue. Note, though, that there may be newissues of jackets themselves, even where therehas been but a single printing of the volume(but where sales have perhaps trickled over aperiod of time).

See, for example, the case of the dustjackets wrapping the second (one-volume)edition of Lord Randolph Churchill (CohenA17.4) or the British issue of the first editionof Stemming the Tide (fig. 8, Cohen A264.1).What is particularly troublesome is that thereis no way to determine that the dust jacketnow on a volume was always on that volume.Jackets should not be, but are occasionally,swapped. The description of a book and itsdust jacket are independent of each other. M>

FINEST HOUR 136 / 49

COHEN CORNER

Playing with Words: Whenis an Error Not an Error?

QUEEN ANNE IS ALLEGED TO HAVE SAID TO CHRISTOPHER WREN ABOUT ST. PAUL'S

CATHEDRAL: "I FIND YOUR WORK AWFUL, TERRIBLE AND AMUSING." AT THE TIME, THE

QUEEN MEANT "POWERFUL, STRONG AND AMAZING." A SIMILAR JUXTAPOSITION OF

MEANINGS OCCURRED IN THE EARLY PAGES OF CHURCHILL'S WW1 MEMOIRS...

rofessor David Fromkin, whodelivered the third ChurchillLecture on the Making of theModern Middle East in 2003,wrote us after reviewing the

recent 2005 Free Press edition of TheWorld Crisis, which appears to contain aserious "howler" on page 17.

Writing of the January 1906British election, Churchill states thatthe outcome was "a Conservative land-slide." Of course, the election was reallya Liberal landslide: the Tories werereduced from about 400 to a mere 100 seats.

Professor Fromkin, who found the same "error"in his 1923 first edition, sensibly asked, "Is it really pos-sible that in the long publishing history of The WorldCrisis, and in many editions from many publishers,nobody caught this error before?"

Along with Churchill Centre Executive DirectorDan Myers and the editor, I found this extraordinary,particularly since the rest of the paragraph in Churchill'saccount deals at length with the actual details of theLiberal landslide. A good copy editor would not havemissed that! I can also confirm that the first edition(Scribner) includes the same "error" on page 24, as doesthe Thornton Butterworth edition, as reported by DavidFromkin. If it has made it all the way through to therecent Free Press edition, I thought, it's safe to expectthat we will find it everywhere else.

And so, I thought to myself, Major HughAlexander Pollock, who edited The Great War forNewnes (the illustrated, abridged edition first issues inserial magazine form) must have caught the phrase. TheGreat War was the only occasion, other than the 1931abridgment, when a wholesale, detailed look at the workoccurred. But no, he missed it as well (see page 7, vol. I).

As one would expect, in the abridged edition,

which was, after all, a ThorntonButterworth work and required no fur-ther substantive editing by the Britishpublisher, the statement remains. (ItsU.S. counterpart is at left.)

Finally the light dawned:Churchill had it right! Today, the polit-ical meaning of a "landslide" is the pre-cise opposite of what it was duringelections a century ago—or even in1923, when Churchill published thefirst volumes of The World Crisis.

After realizing all this, Ithought that I should look to see if any of the foreignpublishers tried to correct the word "landslide." They allseemed to get it right, in the sense of a Conservative dis-aster and an overwhelming Liberal victory.

For example, the Spanish La Crisis Mundial usesthe word "derrumbamiento" to describe what happenedto the Conservatives, while the French La Crise Mondialeused the equivalent "ecroulement," both of which implycollapse or crushing disaster. At the same time, theItalian La Crisi Mondiale looked at the result from theother side and wrote of the 1906 election that it "fu unsuccesso liberale di cui non si ricordava l'uguale." Clearlythey all knew what Churchill meant to convey by his useof "Conservative landslide." Churchill wins again!

That led me to wonder whether there wasanother meaning of "landslide" in English. The OxfordEnglish Dictionary 1933 edition—closest to Churchill'spublication date—provides not even a separate entry for"landslide." Under "land" the OED mentions "landslip,"meaning "the sliding down of a mass of land on a moun-tain or cliff side."

Putting a book away a few moments ago led meto a neighbouring volume, published in 1973, which Ihave owned since 2004. It is entitled—wait for it—Liberal Landslide: The General Election of 1906. —RIC M>

FINEST HOUR 136/50

GLIMPSES

99

"Some KewpieGermans at Dunkirk

MARGARET SUCKLEY • ANDRE DE STAERKE

rofessor Warren Kimball relat-ed this account to us at theChurchill Centre andRoosevelt Institute Hyde Parkconference in June (Chartivell

Bulletin 13). Since it includes anotheralcohol reference (per his article, "LikeGoldfish in a Bowl," FH 135: 31), wereproduce it here.

The source is a book we highlyrecommend for an understanding ofthe "real Roosevelt": Geoffrey C. Ward(ed.), Closest Companion: The UnknownStory of the Intimate Friendship betweenFranklin Roosevelt and Margaret Suckley(Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1995),pages 229-30.

Margaret "Daisy" Suckley (pro-nounced "Sou-kly") was one of FDR'smost trusted and intimate confidantsfrom the early 1930s to his death. Inthis passage she describes a luncheon

on 14 August 1943, at Mrs. Roosevelt'scottage Val Kill, with the President, thePrime Minister, Mary Churchill, HarryHopkins and others...

"Mr. C. ate 1 & 1/2 [hot dogs]and had a special little ice pail for hisscotch. He is a strange looking man.Fat & round, his clothes bunched upon him. Practically no hair on his head,he wore a huge 10-gallon hat....[Laterthey went to the swimming pool.] Mrs.R came & made a dive and a splash ortwo. The P.M. decided to go in, too. Ina pair of shorts, he looked exactly like akewpie. He made a good dive in, sooncame out, wrapped a large wool blan-ket around himself & sat down to talkto FDR."

"Right," adds Warren Kimball, "ascotch-drinking kewpie doll. Or to par-aphrase Franklin Roosevelt: Some kew-pie; some doll!" —WFK/RML

ear Mr. Harper,It was a pleasure meeting

you at the Churchill semi-nar in Seattle last year.Thank you very much for

sharing with me your study of theDunkirk evacuation and the partplayed by "The Little Ships," which Iwas most interested to see. Here is apostscript:

Some ten years ago I gave lunchin Brussels to an elderly friend, Andrede Staercke (the former BelgianAmbassador to NATO), who has sadlysince died. As a young man in his earlytwenties, he was Private Secretary tothe Prince Regent of Belgium, living inexile in war-torn London.

After the liberation of Belgium inthe summer of 1944, Andre accompa-nied my grandfather in a military trans-port to Belgium. As they flew overDunkirk, the Prime Minister ordered

the pilot to descend to 1000 feet andcircle over the harbour and the beaches.According to de Staerke, my grandfathergot down on his knees in front of one ofthe portholes to study the network oftrenches dug by the British defenders in1940. Then he turned back to Andreand said: "I shall never understand whythe German Army did not finish theBritish Army at Dunkirk."

Andre de Staercke replied: "Wehave the German General [vonRunstedt?] in the bag in Brussels—youcan ask him when we get there!" DeStaercke went on to tell me: "Thequestion was put to the German com-mander on the Prime Minister's behalfand his reply spoke volumes for thedifferent mentality of the Germans andthe British. The General replied: "I hadno orders!" Even the most senior com-manders were terrified of Hitler, anddidn't dare act without specific ordersfrom the Fuehrer.

I am copying this, for their infor-mation, to Sir Martin Gilbert; RichardLangworth and Dan Myers of TheChurchill Centre, and to AllenPackwood of the Churchill ArchivesCentre at Cambridge.

•—WINSTON S. CHURCHILL $

FINEST HOUR 136/51

MEDIA MATTERS

St Margaret's ChurchWestminster Abbey s-

<Q

"Keeping the Memory Greenand the Record Accurate"Or: 'There They Go Again"

n a story on the dedication ofthe new Nelson Mandela stat-ue in Parliament Square(Times Online, 29 August2007 http://xrl.us/5es9), Mr.

Richard Dowden offered these remarkson Churchill and Jan Smuts, whosestatues already stand there:

"...I wonder what the statues willsay to each other when the crowds havegone and the square is deserted. NelsonMandela's most interesting conversa-tions would be with Winston Churchilland Jan Smuts, who stand close togeth-er near the northeast end of thesquare...We remember these two men,contemporaries and friends, for otherreasons. In South Africa Smuts and

Churchill laid the foundations of whatwas to become the Apartheid state, thestate Mandela dedicated his life todestroying.

"Churchill had been a journalistduring the Boer War. He was captured,then escaped from the Afrikaners. Buthe became convinced of the justice oftheir cause and after die war, arguedferociously in favour of self-rule forSouth Africa. The man who shouldhave spoken up for the non-racial fran-chise was Churchill. Instead Churchillsupported the aspirations of theAfrikaners. He described South Africaas a 'war-torn country, still red-hotfrom race hatred.' In 1906 Smuts cameto London and proposed self-rule

CHURCHILL, MANDELA AND

SMUTS: A PERFECTLY

APPROPRIATE TRIO TO

SHARE PARLIAMENT SQUARE

RICHARD M. LANGWORTH

based on a white population. Churchillaccepted this. In a House of Commonsspeech in 1906 he said: '...it isundoubted that the Boers would regardit as a breach of that treaty if the fran-chise were...extended to any personswho are not white.'

"Only the Indians in SouthAfrica managed to keep some of theirrights. But not thanks to Churchill orSmuts. Proposed restrictions on Indianimmigrants in South Africa were onlyblocked when Gandhi—then a younglawyer there—launched a mass protestmovement. Although not the PrimeMinister, Smuts was the most influen-tial man in the new Union of SouthAfrica. Under his direction SouthAfrica became a race-based state."

To quote Churchill, "I should thinkit was hardly possible to state the

opposite of the truth with more preci-sion." Times Online restricts readercomments to 1000 characters, and ourswere duly published. But here there areno limits on words in defense ofWinston Churchill—or for that matterhis old friend Jan Smuts...

As Undersecretary for theColonies in 1906, Churchill fought forIndian rights in South Africa. It wasone of the reasons he and Gandhi part-ed friends (yes, friends). In 1935, afterlosing his campaign against the IndiaBill, Churchill sent Gandhi a messageof encouragement through a mutualfriend. Gandhi replied: "I have got agood recollection of Mr. Churchillwhen he was in the Colonial Officeand somehow or other since then Ihave held the opinion that I can alwaysrely on his sympathy and goodwill."(Gilbert, Winston S. Churchill, vol. V,617-19; Finest Hour 130, posted at:http://xrl.us/5g47.)

Smuts ran for President of theUnion of South Africa opposing

FINEST HOUR 136/52

Apartheid—and lost: "As PrimeMinister, he opposed a majority ofAfrikaners who wished to continue andfurther the de facto Apartheid of theinter-war years. After the SecondWorld War, he established and sup-ported the Fagan Commission, whichadvocated the abandonment of all seg-regation in South Africa. However,Smuts lost the 1948 general electionbefore he could implement the sugges-tion, and died in 1950, just as de jureApartheid was being implemented."(http://xrl.us/5nda)

By arguing that Churchill in theearly 1900s should have "stood up forthe non-racial franchise" (thus blowingapart the fragile peace that Britain hadjust negotiated with the Boers, whostill ran the country), Mr. Dowdencommitted what William Manchestercalled "generational chauvinism": judg-ing the actions of our forebears by thestandards in place today.

What is perhaps more interestingthan the facts Mr. Dowden reveals arethose he ignores: that Churchillengaged in arguments on behalf ofnative Africans as early as 1899, whenhe was taken prisoner by the Boers fol-lowing the famous attack on thearmoured train, in which Churchill wastraveling and tried to defend. The fol-lowing is from Churchill's book,London to Ladysmith via Pretoria(1900), reprinted in The Boer War(New York: Norton, 1990, 60-61):

[Boer captor:] "Well, is it right thata dirty Kaffir should walk on thepavement—without a pass too?That's what they do in your BritishColonies. Brother! Equal! Ugh!Free! Not a bit. We know how totreat Kaffirs in this country. Fancyletting the black filth walk on thepavement!....Educate a Kaffir! Ah,that's you English all over. No, no,old chappie. We educate 'em with astick. Treat 'em with humanity andconsideration—I like that. Theywere put here by the God Almightyto work for us. We'll stand nodamned nonsense from them. We'llkeep them in their proper places."

[Churchill:] "Probing at random Ihad touched a very sensitive nerve.We had got down from underneath

the political and reached the social.What is the true and original rootof Dutch aversion to British rule? Itis not Slagter's Nek, nor Broom-platz, nor Majuba, nor the JamesonRaid. Those incidents only fosteredits growth. It is the abiding fear andhatred of the movement that seeksto place the native on a level withthe white man. British governmentis associated in the Boer farmersmind with violent social revolution.Black is to be proclaimed the sameas white. The servant is to be raisedagainst the master; the Kaffir is tobe declared the brother of the Euro-pean, to be constituted his legalequal, to be armed with politicalrights. The dominant race is to bedeprived of their superiority; nor isa tigress robbed of her cubs morefurious than is the Boer at thisprospect."

Such a remark by a VictorianEnglishman 108 years ago is an aston-ishing commentary on Churchill'senlightened views about race at a timewhen few of his society shared them.Perhaps this is why, when NelsonMandela was about to address theUnited States Congress, he asked us fora copy of a Churchill speech to thatbody—for Mandela, you see, is a also aChurchillophile. You can look it up!(http://xrl.us/5g49)

None of the foregoing is towhitewash the record, or to deny, forinstance, that Churchill's Victorian atti-tudes toward native Africans were otherthan paternalistic, typical of the mostenlightened thinkers of his own time.But the key to understanding Churchillis the single word "Liberty"—of whichhe remained a consistent advocate.

In early World War II Eric Seal,one of the Prime Minister's private sec-retaries, remarked that he "intenselydisliked, and reacted violently against,all attempts to regiment and dictateopinion....He demanded for himselffreedom to follow his own star, and hestood out for a like liberty for allmen...."

In that respect at least Mr.Dowden is correct. Mandela's statuewill indeed have a lot to say toChurchill's. continued»

FINEST HOUR 136 / 53

MEDIA MATTERS

More on Jan Smutsand the Apartheid QuestionJAMES LANCASTER

Jan Christian Smuts, who had firstmet Churchill in South Africa in

1899, rapidly rose through the ministe-rial ranks when the Union of SouthAfrica was formed in 1910.

When Smuts arrived in Londonon 17 March 1917, Churchill wrotethis memorable welcome: "At thismoment there arrives in England fromthe outer marches of the Empire a newand altogether extraordinaryman....The stormy and hazardous roadshe travelled by would fill all the actsand scenes of a drama."

In 1919 Smuts became PrimeMinister and also Minister for NativeAffairs. In 1924 he was defeated by theNationalists. Out of office, he watchedwith dismay the rise of the RadicalNationalist Party under Hertzog. Stillin the wilderness, he came to Englandin 1929 to give the Rhodes memoriallectures at Oxford. Here is an extract

from one of those lectures, from JanChristian Smuts, a biography by his sonof the same name (Cassell, 1952):

We are concerned to-day with theseracial reactions in so far as they af-fect Europe and Africa—a smallquestion, but still a very largehuman question, fraught with im-mense possibilities for the future ofour civilisation as well as that ofAfrica. What is wanted in Africa to-day is a wise, far-sighted native pol-icy. If we could evolve and pursue apolicy which will promote the causeof civilisation in Africa without in-justice to the African, without in-jury to what is typical and specificin the African, we shall render agreat service to the cause of human-ity. For there is much that is good inthe African which ought to be pre-served and developed.

For a thorough account ofChurchill and Smuts see PaulCourtenay, "The Smuts Dimension,"Churchill Proceedings 1998-2000.

Get it Right!Max's Dad is Not WSC;WSC is Misquoted Again

ATLANTA, AUGUST 29TH— In a recent col-umn, we attributed a quote about win-ning and losing to Max Cleland'sfather. We withdraw the attribution.The former U.S. Senator left us a voicemail message informing us that thequote we heard him utter during ashort speech in Norcross roughly twen-ty years ago actually belonged toWinston Churchill. Here's the quote:"Defeat is never fatal. Victory is neverfinal. It's courage that counts."

Oh well, 20 years is a long time.At least we didn't credit the quote toChairman Mao.

—BEN SMITH

ATLANTA JOURNAL-CONSTITUTION

• Unfortunately, Mr. Smith, weregret to advise that this is a doublemisquote. Not only did Churchillnever say those words—he never saidthe similar words more usually attrib-uted to him, which are: "Success is notfinal, failure is not fatal: it is thecourage to continue that counts." Webase this on careful research in thecanon of fifty million words by andabout Churchill, including all of hisbooks, articles, speeches and papers.

Churchill did say: "No one canguarantee success in war, but onlydeserve it." (Their Finest Hour,London: Cassell, 1949, 434). And hedid say: "Success always demands agreater effort." (Note to RobertMenzies, same volume, page 541).

Max Cleland is a friend ofours...so we are sure he will by happyto learn this!

Iraq's Dad was WSC;in a Manner of Speaking...

PORTLAND, MAINE, AUGUST 30TH— In an

Iraq editorial in the Portland PressHerald (http://xrl.us/5g8t), one BobHarrison wrote: "The political entity ofIraq dates only from the early 20thcentury decisions by Winston

FINEST HOUR 136/54

Churchill and colleagues to impose awestern solution on the very old prob-lem of Mesopotamia. The ancientSunni-Shiite enmity, familiar to evencasual students of history, is rooteddeeply enough to doom vastly moreaggressive nation-building projects thanBush's feeble effort."

• Mr. Harrison, you need to be aless casual student, by immersing your-self briefly in Churchill Proceedings andFinest Hour, for example.

The imposing of King Feisal onIraq by Churchill in 1922 was not somuch a "western solution" as a productof its time. Asked by Chris Matthewsat our 2003 Churchill Lecture whyChurchill believed a foreign monarchwas the solution for Iraq, ProfessorDavid Fromkin, author of A Peace toEnd All Peace: The Fall of the OttomanEmpire and the Creation of the ModernMiddle East, replied:

"While Churchill himself was amonarchist, in the world in which hegrew up, that is what you did. When itwas decided, just before the First WorldWar, to create an independent state ofAlbania, an intrinsic part of the thingwas to find it a king....As for Feisal,there was a general feeling at the timethat when you brought in a king for anew country, it ought to be somebodywho is not from that country—notinvolved in its feuds. You look for anoutsider and a unifier." [ChurchillProceedings 2000-2003.)

Attempts to draw lessons fortoday in Churchill's Iraq experience aredoomed to failure, Professor DavidFreeman suggested in Finest Hour 132,because the situations are entirely dif-ferent. "For example, everything aboutBritain's Middle Eastern policy [in1922] was based on one paramountand, as it turned out, erroneousassumption: that Britain would indefi-nitely control India...Thus the shape ofthe modern Middle East was largelydetermined by an assumption thatbecame false almost as soon as the1922 settlement had been reached."

While the character of the inhab-itants still offers food for thought,Freeman said, the judgments of 1922are not valid eighty-five years later. $

Churchill and India:Again & Again & Again & AgRICHARD M. LANGWORTH

"I hate Indians"...All right, he said it!

TORONTO, JULY HTH— Canadian readerswere pained to report a Churchill quo-tation, "I hate Indians," in a Globe andMail article blaming Churchill (andGandhi) for the bloodbath followingIndia's 1947 partition. That again!

Churchill's remark, reported inBarnes-Nicholson, ed., The Leo AmeryDiaries (London: Hutchinson, 1980),vol. II, 833 is well known—and oftendredged up by careless writers to sug-gest WSC's inherent racism. We preferto regard this as William F. Buckley, Jr.did, speaking at the 1995 Churchillconference in Boston:

" [He was] working his waythrough disputatious bureaucracy fromseparatists in New Delhi....I don'tdoubt that the famous gleam came tohis eyes when he said this, with mis-chievous glee—an offense, in modernconvention, of genocidal magnitude."

Churchill's attitudes to India areingrained in the public mind, and reg-ularly come to our attention—oftenfrom Indians, whom we find remark-ably more open-minded and interestedin the truth than westerners.

We refer all to articles on ourwebsite, and our Indian correspondent,Inder Dan Ratnu, who wrote several ofthem; and our website search engine tofind such subjects as "India Act" or"Churchill and India."

Churchill and the Indians(http://xrl.us/5nfz)

In this interesting piece, Mr.Ratnu mentions the little-known con-tact of Churchill with Gandhi after theIndia Act had passed, showing that nei-ther harbored the bitterness commonlyascribed to them. Gandhi told WSC,through a mutual friend, that he hadheld Churchill in high regard since

1905, when Churchill had defendedthe rights of the Indian community inSouth Africa (get that feeling of dejavu?—see page 52, column 3!)

More articles include Ratnu's"Exploding Freedom: An Indian'sPerspective" (http://xrl.us/5nf9) andLarry P. Arnn's "Churchill's Greatness:the Gandhi Factor" (http://xrl.us/5ewe).

Always, to demonstrate that weare not hopeless hagiographers, we refercritics to my own "Eighteen ofChurchill's Flaws and Mistakes,"(http://xrl.us/wdch), particularly num-ber 6: "Wasting political capital oppos-ing the India Bill."

This in turn refers to ProfessorManfred Weidhorn's foreword to therepublished American edition ofChurchill's India (Hopkinton, NewHampshire: Dragonwyck, 1990).

Alas a lifetime supply of Indiawas destroyed in a fire some years ago,so we laboriously copy out the historyof it, along with a long quotation byProfessor Weidhorn.

India was proposed by Churchillto Thornton Butterworth, his currentEnglish publisher, on 21 March 1931,when the author offered a package ofseven "very good speeches...! have »

FINEST HOUR 136/55

taken much more trouble with themthan any book."

Churchill's object was to gainsupport for his campaign against theIndia Bill, over which he had brokenwith his party leadership, believingthese relatively modest reforms wouldlead to the loss of India to the Empire.

Thornton Butterworth respondedenthusiastically, saying he supportedChurchill's cause. But he was possiblymore interested in recementing a rela-tionship that had only just survivedChurchill's threat to drop him in a dis-pute about World Crisis royalties. Tothe initial seven speeches Churchilladded three earlier addresses and apithy introduction, and India was pub-lished in cloth and paperback twomonths later.

Eminendy a product of its time,India was fast overtaken by whatChurchill called the "Gathering Storm"of World War II. Although our authorusually favored republication of his ear-lier books, he saw no reason to reviveIndia. After all, his cause had been lostwhen the India Bill had passedParliament in 1935. Churchill evensent Gandhi his best wishes for success,and lent tacit approval to Attlee's planto grant India Dominion status (thusde facto independence) in 1948.

What he did not approve was thesudden rush to quit India underAttlee's Viceroy, Lord Mountbatten,who arbitrarily moved Britain's depar-ture date up to August 1947. Britishauthority dius ended before boundariescould be worked out betweenMoslems, Hindus and Sikhs—a vastshift of population, with bloody attacksby the various sides against each other.Later Churchill would exclaim toMountbatten, "What you did in Indiawas like striking me across the facewith a riding crop."

India remained largely forgottenexcept to collectors, inaccessible to stu-dents of rhetoric and political science.In 1990, we were able to publish a newAmerican Edition with an introductionby Manfred Weidhorn, and enough ofthe production run got into circulationthat copies can still be found on theused book market. For a search, go towww.bookfinder.com.

Weidhorn on India—from the 1990 edition

Setting aside the merits of the sub-stance of these speeches, one must

admit that as rhetorical exercises theyare impressive. They were made whenChurchill was at the height of his ora-torical powers and one of the bestspeakers in the House of Commons.

Stanley Baldwin has much toanswer for at the bar of history, but inthis matter he was right. Churchill car-ried on about how the facts wereagainst Indian independence. Baldwinurged people to face up to the truth.The principal fact "today," he conclud-ed, was that "the unchanging East haschanged." With that one nugget, theusually pedestrian Baldwin shoots theusually eloquent Churchill, with hisromantic, Victorian, imperial rhetoric,right out of the water.

Churchill's prophecies were notso erratic. What would happen to therest of the Empire, he asked rhetorical-ly, if it lost its centerpiece? That loss, hewent on, "would mark and consum-mate the downfall of the BritishEmpire....[It would be] final and fatal[and] reduce us to the scale of a minorPower." He was also right in warningabout sectarian strife and Hindu domi-nation in the wake of the British depar-ture; up to to two million lives werelost in fighting between Hindus andMoslems during the weeks and monthsfollowing independence. The Sikhseven today resort to violence againstwhat they consider Hindu oppression.He warned also about balkanization ofthe sub-continent masquerading as anation; in fact, Moslem Pakistan brokeaway from a mainly Hindu India onlyto have Bangladesh in turn break awayfrom it, and tensions and clashes havelong reigned in places like Kashmir.

Most Pakistanis and Indians,would, of course, say that all this wasthe price necessary for independenceand dignity and that it was well worthpaying. A Tory in 1776 might have rea-sonably argued that Britain's holdingon to the American colonies wouldspare them the fate of undergoingeither balkanization or a brutal civilwar, and he would have been correct.

Yet how many Americans wish to undothe Revolution for that reason?

We would like genius to be dis-cerning and moderate, to be a little bitmore like the rest of us. Few geniuseshave been so. Churchill had the vicesof his virtues. In judging him we err byunconsciously depending on the wis-dom of hindsight. No one could tell atthe time how the campaigns of 1931and 1940 would turn out. If responsi-ble voices across the political spectrumin 1931 told Churchill that the imperi-al age in India was over, just as manyresponsible voices in 1940 said thatHitler could not be beaten and shouldbe negotiated with.

If Churchill had been amenableto prudence in 1931, he would havespared everyone embarrassment, butthat same prudence would have dictat-ed in 1940 negotiations with Hitler.Only the pugnacious mule of 1931could see his way through the impossi-bilities of 1940. A more civilized, com-mon-sensical soul like Halifax didnegotiate with Gandhi. And, hadHalifax rather than Churchill beenmade Prime Minister in May 1940, hewould have negotiated with Hitler.

Genius exacts its high price. If welike the way 1940 turned out, we haveto comprehend 1931. &

REMEMBER WINSTONCHURCHILL

Will future generationsremember?

Will the ideas you cherish nowbe sustained therii

There is an answer.

The Churchill Centre Associates(page 2) have each committed

$10,000 or more, over five years,all tax-deductible, to

The Churchill Centre Endowment.Its earnings guarantee that

The Churchill Centre will endureas a powerful voice, sustainingbeliefs Sir Winston held dear.

Now. And for future generations.To join us please contactRichard M. Langworth,

Chairman, Board of Trustees(888) 454-2275

malakand@langworth.name

FINEST HOUR 136 / 56

JAMES LANCASTER'S

CHURCHILL QUIZMr. Lancaster welcomesreader input and comments:jimlancaster@wanadoo.fr

ach quiz includes four ques-tions in each of six categories:Churchill contemporaries (C),literary matters (L), miscella-neous (M), personal details

(P), statesmanship (S) and war (W),with the easier questions first. Can youreach Level 1 ?

Level 4:1. To whom was Herbert Asquith refer-ring when he told his daughter in 1900"He derives from no-one...an original andmost extraordinary phenomenon"? (C)

2. Who worked with WSC in 1941-45and later became U.S. President? (C)

3. List three flowers or trees named forWinston Churchill. (M)

4. What led Churchill to write: "I wentto bed and slept the sleep of the savedand thankful."? (W)

5. Mes Aventures de Jeunesse is theFrench title of which of his books? (L)

6. A Moral of the Work in The SecondWorld War is In Defeat: (S)

Level 3:7. When Germany invaded Russia inJune 1941 many thought Russia wouldbe overrun. What was WSC's view? (S)

8. In Cuba, 1895, Churchill wrote forthe Daily Graphic. Which member ofhis family also wrote for this paper? (L)

9. Of whom did WSC write "...to herthat I poured out my many troubles"? (P)

10. To whom did WSC say: "I mean tobe Prime Minister...It would be a greatlark if you were President of the UnitedStates at the same time"? (C)

11. Churchill once said, "- wordsare the best, and the old words when

are the best of all" Fill in theblanks; it is the same word. (L)

12. In his Preliminary Examination forSandhurst, WSC had a choice of threeessay subjects: Rowing versus Riding,Advertisements, or The American CivilWar. Which did he choose? (P)

Level 2:13. What region did Churchill describeto his wife in 1929 as "...twentySwitzerlands rolled into one...betweenus and the...Pacific Coast"? (M)

14. Like Churchill, this soldier-politi-cian changed parties, won a Nobelprize, and wrote many books.Churchill met him in America inDecember 1900. Who was he? (C)

15. In 1874, what were the three bigevents in Randolph Churchill's life? (P)

16. In March 1900 one of WSC's sen-ior officers wrote to him: "...I shallsomeday shake hands with you asPrime Minister of England, you possessthe two necessaiy qualifications geniusand ." Fill in the short word. (S)

17. In which of his books are the words"You cannot hurt the world or evenseriously distress her. She was made tobe wooed and won by youth."? (L)

18. In January 1935 WSC wrote toClemmie "All the are mating,not only the father and the mother, butboth brothers and both sisters havepaired off. The Ptolemys always didthis and Cleopatra was the result." Fillin the blanks. (P)

Level 1:19. "I had hoped we were hurling awildcat on the shore, but all we got wasa stranded whale." WSC wrote thisabout which campaign? (W)

20. In Ottawa on 31Dec4l, to whatdid WSC refer when he said: "It fitsbeautifully, and is large enough for anyswelling which may take place"? (M)

21. Who was the Churchill friend whodirected Lady Hamilton (in AmericaThat Hamilton Woman), Sir Winston'sfavourite film? (M)

22. "One strokes the nose of the alliga-tor and the ensuing gurgle may be apurr of affection, a grunt of stimulatedappetite, or a snarl of enraged animosi-ty." Who was WSC referring to? (S)

23. "Sancti Spiritus—its name notwithstanding—is a forsaken place."Where is Sancti Spiritus? (W)

24. Which small South African townawarded Churchill the freedom of theborough on 10 October 1964? (W)

Answers

C,\ uo UIBJJ

•sjaog atp Xq sjmdro sitjoi §uipB3| '6681pajnouuB ire uo ijajUJOJJ 'JWN ui pEatjjrej ijsnug atp

dvi^) iC]tPQ atp JOJJEAY B pUB 'J3AJ3SqO B S

£Z uo ajaqj SBAV•BUBAB]_J UIOJJ S3JIUI Q0£ '^qrQ UI (£Z)

61 UO J3UUJP B IB

mnj sip 'uospfsj pjoq pire uo}jitirej_jBuiurj jo XJOJS sqj^ •prrejSug UT SUTAIJ33§r tp j UBIJBSun]^ B 'BpjO^J JSpUBXSjy

i\Z) "Eiqumio^ qsnijg Xq pajuasajdd g (0Z) ^F>I 'oizuy

•Brrexisny UIOJJ yi§ B 'SUBMS 5joBjg (§i)ou (9T) -moq

UOS SIIJ pUB 'SUOUIUIO[])

jo 3snoj_[ a tp p s j s j u a 'paujBUi

•JU3ptS3jd-3DIA JOJ 33UIUIOU

SBA\

3UIIJ 3tp, IB

(H) •suT

(6)

(cl) '"OHS (II) "-AOU uBDuauiy atp '(01) JS3J3A3 -Sjp\J XUUBU•jnoa BDixjy ujnog SIIJ uoatp JOJ 3JOJA\ jjiipjniQ

(g) -psTOjsp aq iou pjnoA\H (Z)

/3DUEIJ3QJU (9) •

S3M0tU3J/\[ 3J3A\

% (Q 'If61 -wquisDSQ Z '|JB3J (|?) -UOjpU3popOt|J '3§EJJTXES

'snsspjBU '3SOJ 'Bad jaarns

(3)(g) -j3Mot[uasigUOJSUT^ (T)

FINEST HOUR 136/57

AMPERSAND

"Mr.Churchill'sSecretary"

The followingwas received byCC PresidentLaurenceGeller, in

response to bis recent letter to members,from former Churchill secretary and hon-orary member Elizabeth Nel. Any readerwho does not have a copy of Mr.Churchill's Secretary (London: Hodder& Stoughton, 1958), and cannot wait

for the new edition (see below) should getone from www. bookfinder.com. See alsoher article, "Loyalty: A ChurchillianCharacteristic," Finest Hour 52,Summer 1986, on our website at:http://xrl.us/5mt9.

Thank you very much for havingincluded me in your most interest-

ing and important programme for TheChurchill Centre. I must apologise thatit has taken me so long to react. I haverecently celebrated my ninetieth birth-day, and there has been considerableactivity, both for me and by me, whichconsumed my failing energies, and wasaffected by my failing eyesight.

I am fully in agreement with theplans and ideals you have set out inyour letter of 16 May, and hope I may,through thought and study, be able tosuggest some areas of value. As youmay know, I have done a great deal ofpublic speaking on the subject of mywartime experience, and while much ofwhat I shall have to say may be alreadyon record, I will think. Please do notexpect too much—nor frequent corre-spondence. My physical problemsmake letter-writing something of achore nowadays.

In assessing my former boss'sachievements I have asked myself, andhave frequently passed the thought onwhen speaking: "What did WSC actual-ly do—what did he achieve?" I was inLondon before the war, though I grewup in British Columbia, and I remem-ber well the attitude of Londoners atthat time: "We mustn't have anotherwar; we're still suffering from the painsand losses of the last one. Let's rather

go along with Hitler—let's try to workwith him to avoid war. He's probablynot nearly as bad as he's portrayed. Wejust want to live in peace."

And what was my boss's reaction?He who knew what Hitler had inmind? He raised a clenched fist andanswered in powerful tones, "Get upand fight." He reminded them ofBritain's beginnings, her past struggles,her establishment of Freedom andJustice. His words appealed to thelatent spirit which lies deep in Britishhearts. And they did get up and fight,by land, sea and in the air.

No one can take that away fromWinston Churchill. The British peoplereacted to his courage, his determina-tion, and his absolute loyalty to Britainand all she stood for. It was that inspi-ration which enabled us to win thewar: not money, or clever inventions,or bombs, or guns. I know. I was there.(Thump on the table with fist.)

I warn you that I know nothingwhatever of the Internet or Emails. Ijust have this old Olympia typewriter,and worsening eyesight. I still give talksif asked, but most organisations herehave already heard my story. I will tryto answer any questions you may have,but please don't expect too much.Ninety is not the best age for memory.And please excuse any errors, cross-outsor overtypes in this quite long letter.

That will be all for this occasion,but I will try to pass on some thoughtsabout what could be done to make surehe is not forgotten. Mr. Charles Mullerof Diadem Books, Ocean Surf,Clashnessie, by Lochinver, Sutherland,Scotland IV27 4JF, is to produce areprint of Mr. Churchill's Secretary.Readers may wish to be in touch withhim for copies.

Every good wish to you,Laurence. I will certainly do my best tobe cooperative and helpful.

—ELIZABETH NEL,

PORT ELIZABETH, SOUTH AFRICA

Poet's CornerFrom Finest Hour 32, Spring 1975

One and one are two,Two and Two are four.I only wish to goodness

There wasn't any moreAdding and subtracting,Really, what's the use?When Churchill was at schoolThey say he was a goose.Yet he became Prime MinisterAnd help'd us win the war.Because he didn't waste his timeTwo and two are four.

—SPIKE MILLIGAN

AT THE FUNERAL PROCESSIONOF SIR WINSTON CHURCHILL

Who was this knight whom we salutewith pride

Wiping our tears,As he sets out upon his last long ride?He was the chosen voice, the lion's

roar,Roll'd down the years,That roused the Nation in the grip of

war,Inspired and strengthened by that

unseen Power,Blessed by his God.He was the emblem of our finest hour.He was the sword that smote upon the

rock(Like Aaron's rod)Of numb'd bewilderment and reeling

shock.As with unerring strokes he cleft the

stone,Surg'd forth the floodOf England's greatness as she stood

alone."Blood, sweat and tears," he warned us

to foreseeTears, sweat and bloodWe shared, 'fore final victory.Alike to humble home and lonely post,

Scorning retreat,His trumpet call went out from coast

to coast.Now, to that greatest 'venture of them

all,Mission complete,He rides obedient to God's clarion call.

—BARBARA BURTON

Mrs. G. W.S. Burton composed thispoetic eulogy to Sir Winston just beforehis State Funeral. FH 32 was the firsttime it was published.

FINEST HOUR 136/58

Churchill Centre Regional and Local Contacts

Local Affairs Coordinator:Gary Garrison (ccsgary@bellsouth.net)

2364 Beechwood Drive, Marietta GA 30062tel. (770) 378-8389; fax (770) 565-5925

Deputy Coordinator:Paul Courtenay (ndege@tiscali.co.uk)

Park Lane Lodge, Quarley, Andover, Hants.SP11 8QB UK; tel. (01264) 889627

AFFILIATES ARE IN BOLD FACE(For affiliate requirements contact G. Garrison)

Rt. Hon. Sir Winston S. ChurchillSociety of Alaska

Judith & Jim Muller (afjwm@uaa.alaska.edu)2410 Galewood St., Anchorage AK 99508tel. (907) 786-4740; fax (907) 786-4647

Churchill Centre ArizonaLarry Pike (lvpike@Chartwellgrp.com)

4927 E. Crestview Dr.,Paradise Valley AZ 85253

bus. tel. (602) 445-7719; cell (602) 622-0566

California: Churchillians of the DesertDavid Ramsay (rambo85@aol.com)

74857 S. Cove Drive, Indian Wells CA 92210tel. (760) 837-1095

Churchillians by the BayRichard Mastio (rcmastio@earthlink.net)

2996 Franciscan Way, Carmel CA 93923-9216tel. (831) 625-6164

Churchillians of Southern CaliforniaLeon J. Waszak (leonwaszak@aol.com)

235 South Ave. #66, Los Angeles CA 90042tel. (323) 257-9279

bus. tel. (818) 240-1000x5844

Churchill Friends of Greater ChicagoPhil & Susan Larson (parker-fox@msn.com)

22 Scottdale Road, LaGrange IL 60526tel. (708) 352-6825

Colorado: Rocky Mountain ChurchilliansLew House, President

(Ihouse2cti@earthlink.net)2034 Eisenhower Drive, Louisville CO 80027

tel. (303) 661-9856; fax (303) 661-0589

England: ICS (UK) Woodford/Epping BranchTony Woodhead, Old Orchard,

32 Albion Hill, Loughton, Essex 1G10 4RDtel. (0208) 508-4562

England: ICS (UK) Northern BranchDerek Greenwell, "Farriers Cottage"

Station Road, GoldsboroughKnaresborough, North Yorkshire HG5 8NT

tel. (01432) 863225

Churchill Centre North FloridaRichard StreifF (streiffr@bellsouth.net)

81 N.W. 44th Street, Gainesville FL 32607tel. (352) 378-8985

Winston Churchill Society of GeorgiaWilliam L. Fisher (fishl947@bellsouth.net)

5299 Brooke Farm Rd., Dunwoody GA 30338tel. (770) 399-9774

Winston Churchill Society of Michigan:Michael P. Malley (michael@malleylaw.com)

3135 South State St., Ste. 203,Ann Arbor MI 48108

tel. (734) 996-1083; fax (734) 327-2973

Churchill Round Table of NebraskaJohn Meeks (jmeeks@wrldhstry.com)

7720 Howard Street #3, Omaha NE 68114tel. (402) 968-2773

New England ChurchilliansJoseph L. Hern (jhern@fhmboston.com)

340 Beale Street, Quincy MA 02170tel. (617) 773-1907; bus. tel. (617) 248-1919

Churchill Society of New OrleansEdward F. Martin (tmartin@joneswalker.com)2328 Coliseum St., New Orleans LA 70130

tel. (504) 582-8152

Churchill Society of Greater New York CityGregg Berman (gberman@fulbright.com)

c/o Fulbright & Jaworski, 666 Fifth AvenueNew York NY 10103 • tel. (212) 318-3388

North Carolina ChurchilliansA. Wendell Musser MD (amusser@nc.rr.com)

1214 Champions Pointe DriveDurham NC 27712; tel. (919) 477-1325

Churchill Centre Northern OhioMichael McMenamin (mtm@walterhav.com)

1301 East 9th St. #3500, Cleveland OH 44114tel. (216) 781-1212

Churchill Society of PhiladelphiaBernard Wojciechowski

(bwojciechowski@borough. ambler, pa. us)1966 Lafayette Rd., Lansdale PA 19446

tel. (323) 661-9856South Carolina: Bernard Baruch Chapter

Kenneth Childs (kchilds@childs-halligan.net)P.O. Box 11367, Columbia SC 29111-1367

tel. (803) 254-4035

Tennessee: Vanderbilt UniversityYoung Churchill Club; Prof. John English

(john.h.english@vanderbilt.edu)Box 1616, Station B, Vanderbilt University,

Nashville TN 37235

North Texas: Emery Reves ChurchilliansJeffWeesner (jweesner@centurytel.net)

2101 Knoll Ridge Court, Corinth TX 76210tel. (940) 321-0757; cell (940) 300-6237

Churchill Centre South TexasJames T. Slattery (slattery@fed-med.com)

2803 Red River CreekSan Antonio TX 78259-3542

cell (210) 601-2143; fax (210) 497-0904

Washington Society for ChurchillDr. John H. Mather, Pres.

(Johnmather@aol.com)PO Box 73, Vienna VA 22182-0073

tel. (240) 353-6782

THE RT HONSIR WINSTON S.

CHURCHILL SOCIETY, CANADA

Calgary: Dr. Francis LeBlanc, Pres.(neuron@platinum.ca)

126 Pinetree Dr. SW, Calgary AB T3Z 3K4tel. (403) 685-5836; fax (403) 217-5632

Edmonton: Dr. Edward Hutson, Pres.(j ehutson@shaw. ca)

98 Rehwinkel Road, Edmonton AB T6R 1Z8tel. (780) 430-7178

British Columbia: Christopher Hebb, Pres.(cavell_capital@telus.net)

1806-1111 W Georgia Street, Vancouver BCV6E 4M3; tel. (604) 209-6400

Vancouver Island: Barry Gough, Pres.(bgough@wlu.ca)

3000 Dean Ave., P.O. Box 5037,Victoria, B.C. V8R 6N3; tel. (250) 592-0800

FINEST HOUR 136/59

CHURCHILLIANA

B R I T A I N

"IN DEFEAT,DEFIANCE"

At the National MemorialArboretum in Tamworth,

Staffordshire, is a "Far East Prisonersof War building." In it is a copy ofthe Royal Arms that will tickle yourChurchillian and heraldic fancy.

One day in World War II,British prisoners at TrandjongPriok camp in Java opted to paintthe Union Flag and Royal Arms ontheir chapel window. This was allowedby the Japanese commander, butwhat he did not know was thatLt. Cdr. Herbert Upton, the artist,managed to work a picture ofChurchill's face on the lion's body.The size of a thumbnail and completewith trademark cigar, it was knownonly to a few, as discovery would haveled to retribution.

The device was found severalyears ago during a project to produce areplica of the window at theArboretum's Memorial Building. Thecopy was painted by David Hillhouse,who said, "It shows the spirit and deter-mination of the prisoners. Had theJapanese discovered it, I hate to thinkwhat they would have done. The conse-quences could have been horrendous."

The original chapel, built byAllied POWs, no longer stands, but thewindows were removed and are nowapparently at the British Church inJakarta. The replica painting was theidea of Meg Parkes, whose father, Capt.Andrew Atholl Duncan, was a prisonerat the camp. The £8000 required forthe painting was donated by the publicafter an appeal in The Times.

—Our thanks to Paul Courtenay,Nigel Knocker and James Lancaster. M>