FH115 Final.qxd - Winston Churchill

JOURNAL OF THE CHURCHILL CENTER
www.winstonchurchill.org

®
T H E C H U R C H I L L C E N T E R
I N T E R N A T I O N A L C H U R C H I L L S O C I E T I E S
UNITED STATES • UNITED KINGDOM • CANADA • AUSTRALIA
PATRON: THE LADY SOAMES, D.B.E. • www.winstonchurchill.org
The Churchill Center is a non-profit organization which encourages study of the life and thought of Winston Spencer
Churchill; fosters research about his speeches, writings and deeds; advances knowledge of his example as a statesman; and, by
programmes of teaching and publishing, imparts that learning to people around the world. The Center was organized in 1995 by
the International Churchill Societies, founded in 1968 to educate future generations on the works and example of Winston
Churchill. The Center and Societies jointly sponsor Finest Hour, special publications, symposia, conferences and tours.
®
JOINT HONORARY MEMBERS
The Lord Black of Crossharbour OC(C) PC
Winston S. Churchill • The Lord Deedes KBE MC PC DL
Sir Martin Gilbert CBE • Grace Hamblin OBE
Robert Hardy CBE
The Lord Jenkins of Hillhead OM PC
William Manchester • The Duke of Marlborough JP DL
Sir Anthony Montague Browne KCMG CBE DFC
Elizabeth Nel • Colin L. Powell KCB
Wendy Russell Reves • Ambassador Paul H. Robinson, Jr.
The Lady Thatcher LG OM PC FRS
The Hon. Caspar W. Weinberger GBE
THE CHURCHILL CENTER
BOARD OF GOVERNORS
Randy Barber • David Boler • Nancy H. Canary
D. Craig Horn • William C. Ives • Nigel Knocker
Richard M. Langworth • John H. Mather MD
James W. Muller • Charles D. Platt • John G. Plumpton
Douglas S. Russell
OFFICERS
John G. Plumpton, President
130 Collingsbrook Blvd., Toronto, Ontario M1W 1M7
Tel. (416) 495-9641 • Fax. (416) 502-3847
Email: savrola@winstonchurchill.org
William C. Ives, Vice President
20109 Scott, Chapel Hill NC 27517
Tel. (919) 967-9100 • Fax (919) 967-9001
Email: wives@nc.rr.com
Nancy H. Canary, Secretary
Dorchester, Apt 3 North, 200 North Ocean Blvd.
Delray Beach FL 33483
Tel. (561) 833-5900 • Email: ncanary@thf.com
D. Craig Horn, Treasurer
8016 McKenstry Drive, Laurel MD 20723
Tel. (888) WSC-1874 • Fax. (301) 483-6902
Email: dcraighorn@email.msn.com
Charles D. Platt, Endowment Director
14 Blue Heron Drive W., Greenwood Village CO 80121
Tel. (303) 721-8550 • Fax. (303) 290-0097
Email: cdp31@email.msn.com
BOARD OF TRUSTEES
Winston S. Churchill • Laurence Geller • Hon. Jack Kemp
George A. Lewis • Christopher Matthews
Amb. Paul H. Robinson, Jr. • The Hon. Celia Sandys
The Hon. Caspar W. Weinberger GBE
Richard M. Langworth CBE, Chairman
181 Burrage Road, Hopkinton NH 03229
Tel. (603) 746-4433 • Email: malakand@conknet.com
BUSINESS OFFICES
Lorraine C. Horn, Administrator
Debby Young, Membership Secretary
8016 McKenstry Drive, Laurel MD 20723
Tel. (888) WSC-1874 • Fax. (301) 483-6902
Email: wsc_1874@msn.com
CHURCHILL STORES (Back Issues & Sales Dept.)
Gail Greenly, PO Box 96, Contoocook NH 03229
Tel. (603) 746-3452 • Fax (603) 746-6963
Email: greengail@aol.com
CHURCHILL CENTER ASSOCIATES
Winston Churchill Associates:
ICS United States • The Churchill Center
The Annenberg Foundation • David & Diane Boler
Colin D. Clark • Fred Farrow
Mr. & Mrs. Parker H. Lee III
Michael & Carol McMenamin • David & Carole Noss
Ray L. & Patricia M. Orban • Wendy Russell Reves
Elizabeth Churchill Snell • Mr. & Mrs. Matthew B. Wills
Alex M. Worth Jr.
Clementine Churchill Associates
Ronald D. Abramson • Winston S. Churchill
Jeanette & Angelo Gabriel • D. Craig & Lorraine Horn
James F. Lane • Barbara & Richard Langworth
Drs. John H. & Susan H. Mather • Linda & Charles Platt
Ambassador & Mrs. Paul H. Robinson Jr.
James R. & Lucille I. Thomas
Mary Soames Associates
Solveig & Randy Barber • Gary J. Bonine
Susan & Daniel Borinsky • Nancy Bowers • Lois Brown
Nancy H. Canary • Dona & Bob Dales
Jeffrey & Karen De Haan • Gary Garrison
Ruth & Laurence Geller • Frederick & Martha Hardman
Glenn Horowitz • Mr. & Mrs. William C. Ives
J. Willis Johnson • Mr. & Mrs. Gerald Drake Kambestad
Elaine Kendall • Ruth J. Lavine
Mr. & Mrs. Richard A. Leahy • Cyril & Harriet Mazansky
Michael W. Michelson • Mr. & Mrs. James W. Muller
Bond Nichols • Earl & Charlotte Nicholson
Bob & Sandy Odell • Dr & Mrs. Malcolm Page
Ruth & John Plumpton • Hon. Douglas S. Russell
Shanin Specter • Robert M. Stephenson
Richard & Jenny Streiff • Peter J. Travers • Gabriel Urwitz
Damon Wells Jr. • Jacqueline & Malcolm Dean Witter
BOARD OF ACADEMIC ADVISERS
Prof. Paul K. Alkon, University of Southern California
Sir Martin Gilbert CBE, D. Litt., Merton College, Oxford
Prof. Barry M. Gough, Wilfrid Laurier University
Prof. Christopher C. Harmon, Marine Corps University
Col. David Jablonsky, US Army War College
Prof. Warren F. Kimball, Rutgers University
Prof. Paul A. Rahe, University of Tulsa
Prof. John A. Ramsden,
Queen Mary & Westfield College, University of London
Prof. David T. Stafford, University of Edinburgh
Dr. Jeffrey Wallin, President, The American Academy
Prof. Manfred Weidhorn, Yeshiva University
Prof. James W. Muller, Chairman,
University of Alaska Anchorage
1518 Airport Hts. Dr., Anchorage AK 99508
Tel. (907) 786-4740 • Fax. (907) 786-4647
Email: afjwm@uaa.alaska.edu
www.winstonchurchill.org
Webmaster: savrola@winstonchurchill.org
Listserv: winston@vm.marist.edu
Listserv host: jonah.triebwasser@marist.edu
AFFILIATE
Washington Society for Churchill
Caroline Hartzler, President
PO Box 2456, Merrifield VA 22116
Tel. (703) 503-9226
Members also meet regularly in Alaska, California,
Chicago, New England, North Texas and Northern Ohio.
INTERNATIONAL CHURCHILL
SOCIETY OF CANADA
Ambassador Kenneth W. Taylor, Hon. Chairman
Randy Barber, President
14 Honeybourne Crescent, Markham, Ontario L3P 1P3
Tel. (905) 201-6687
Email: randy.barber@cbs.gov.on.ca
Jeanette Webber, Membership Secretary
3256 Rymal Road, Mississauga, Ontario L4Y 3C1
Tel. (905) 279-5169 • Email: jeanette.webber@sympatico.ca
Charles Anderson, Treasurer
489 Stanfield Drive, Oakville, Ontario L6L 3R2
The Other Club of Ontario
Norman MacLeod, President
16 Glenlaura Court, Ashburn, Ontario L0B 1A0
Tel. (905) 655-4051
Winston S. Churchill Society of Vancouver (Affiliated)
Dr. Joe Siegenberg, President
15-9079 Jones Road
Richmond, British Columbia V6Y 1C7
Tel. (604) 231-0940
_____________________________________________
INTERNATIONAL CHURCHILL
SOCIETY OF THE UNITED KINGDOM
Chairman:
Nigel Knocker OBE
PO Box 1257, Melksham, Wilts. SN12 6GQ
Tel. & Fax. (01380) 828609
Email: nigel@icsuksaf.demon.co.uk
TRUSTEES
The Hon. Celia Sandys, Chairman;
The Duke of Marlborough JP DL
The Rt. Hon. Earl Jellicoe KBE DSO MC FRS
David Boler • David Porter • Geoffrey Wheeler
COMMITTEE
Nigel Knocker OBE, Chairman
Wylma Wayne, Vice Chairman
Paul H. Courtenay, Hon. Secretary
Anthony Woodhead CBE FCA, Hon. Treasurer
John Glanvill Smith, Editor ICS UK Newsletter
Eric Bingham • John Crookshank • Geoffrey Fletcher
Derek Greenwell • Michael Kelion • Fred Lockwood CBE
Ernle Money CBE • Elisabeth Sandys • Dominic Walters
NORTHERN CHAPTER
Derek Greenwell, “Farriers Cottage,” Station Road
Goldsborough, Harrogate, North Yorkshire HG5 8NT
Tel. (01432) 863225
_____________________________________________
INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL
OF CHURCHILL ORGANIZATIONS
Ambassador Paul H. Robinson, Jr., Chairman
208 S. LaSalle St., Chicago IL 60604 USA
Tel. (800) 621-1917
Email: phr661944@aol.com
________________________________________
The staff of Finest Hour, journal of
The Churchill Center, appears on page 4.

JOURNAL OF THE CHURCHILL CENTER & SOCIETIES
SUMMER 2002 • NUMBER 115
14 “The Earth is a Generous Mother”
William Bourke Cockran: Churchill’s American Mentor • Curt Zoller
Teaching the Next Generations
“Take Your Place in Life’s Fighting Line!”
20 What Churchill Should Mean to People My Age • Robert Courts
22 What If Learn by Imagining • Joseph R. Abrahamson
23 Live Long and Prosper • Manfred Weidhorn
24 Churchilliana: Those Realistic Holograph Letters
Don’t be taken in—they look genuine, but they’re reproductions • James Mack
28 English Speaking Peoples: On War Crimes
Why was Churchill so forgiving of the Germans • Lloyd W. Robertson
38: Eminent Churchillians: Patrick Kinna, Douglas Russell, Larry Kryske
46 Leading Churchill Myths (4)
“Alexander Fleming Twice Saved Churchill’s Life” • Michael Richards
BOOKS, ARTS & CURIOSITIES:
32 HBO’s “The Gathering Storm” is bloomin’ marvelous, the Editor says
... David Freeman likes Robin Brodhurst’s Dudley Pound ... Paul Courtenay
sighs over another worthless quote book ... Jari Lybeck reviews new Finnish
historiography ... Warren Kimball casts a measured eye over Spies and
Saboteurs ... Eric Kane captures a Moment in Time ... Chris Hanger looks
Inside the Journals for the last time ... Many new Churchill books are out;
Woods Corner provides a summary of all ... Paul Courtenay serves up
another ration of Question Time ... Landemare/Langworth try cheese.
Despatch Box 4 • Datelines 5 • Calendar 8 • Local & National 8 • Around & About 11
Riddles, Mysteries, Enigmas 13 • Wit & Wisdom 19 • Action This Day 26 • Eminent
Churchillians 38 • Inside the Journals 41 • Woods Corner 42 • Question Time 43
Recipes from No. Ten 44 • Leading Churchill Myths 46 • Churchilltrivia 47
Cover: Churchill, 1957: the last painting from life, an oil on canvas by Bernard Hailstone.
Reproduced by courtesy of Gregory Page-Turner and Artware Fine Art. Story on page 7.

DESPATCH BOX
Number 115 • Summer 2002
ISSN 0882-3715
www.winstonchurchill.org
____________________________
Barbara F. Langworth, Publisher
(b_langworth@conknet.com)
Richard M. Langworth, Editor
(malakand@conknet.com)
PO Box 385, Contoocook,
NH 03229 USA
Tel. (603) 746-4433
___________________________
Senior Editors:
James W. Muller
John G. Plumpton
Ron Cynewulf Robbins
Associate Editor:
Paul H. Courtenay
News Editor: John Frost
Features Editor: Douglas J. Hall
Contributors
George Richard, Australia;
Randy Barber, Chris Bell,
Barry Gough, Canada;
Inder Dan Ratnu, India;
Paul Addison, Winston S. Churchill,
Robert Courts, Sir Martin Gilbert,
Allen Packwood, Phil Reed,
United Kingdom;
David Freeman, Chris Harmon,
Warren F. Kimball,
Michael McMenamin,
Manfred Weidhorn, Curt Zoller,
United States
___________________________
• Address changes. USA, Australia,
Western Hemisphere and Pacific: send to
the The Churchill Center business office.
UK/Europe and Canada:
send to UK or Canada business offices.
All offices are listed on page 2.
__________________________________
Finest Hour is made possible in part through
the generous support of members of The
Churchill Center and Societies, and with the
assistance of an endowment created by The
Churchill Center Associates (listed on page 2).
___________________________________
Finest Hour is published quarterly by The
Churchill Center and International Churchill
Societies, which offer various levels of support
in their respective currencies. Membership
applications should be sent to the appropriate
offices on page 2. Permission to mail at nonprofit
rates in USA granted by the United
States Postal Service, Concord, NH, permit
no. 1524. Copyright 2002. All rights reserved.
Designed and edited by Dragonwyck Publishing
Inc. Production by New England Foil
Stamping Inc. Printed by Twin Press Inc.
Made in U.S.A.
BOMBS BURSTING IN AIR
If national anthems are of recurring interest
(FH 111, 114), consider The Flag, the Poet and
the Song by Irwin Molotsky (Penguin). While
not a big fan of the American anthem, he presents
a readable story of a high point in the War
of 1812, the creation and preservation of the
flag, the inspiration for creating the anthem, and
something about the author, Francis Scott Key,
who was a lawyer, and apparently a good one.
In FH 114, correcting Mr. Hitchens, you
indicated that Germany was the first country intentionally
to bomb a civilian population. Didn’t
the Japanese do it to China in the 1930s
RONALD J. BROIDA, DARIEN, ILL.
PEREGRINE SPENCER CHURCHILL
I do like what you said about Peregrine in
FH 114: “He had a burning loyalty to the
truth.” He started to write a book about his
father Jack, including his diary about the Dardanelles.
He did a lot of writing about his Uncle
Winston to “de-bunk” modern theories. He was
very annoyed about Lord Jenkins repeating the
illegitimacy canard about his father, started by
Ralph Martin. He always said, “I will write
truth, not fancy.” He admired his uncle enormously
but as you say in a balanced way. I hope
somebody we know may carry on his book.
YVONNE SPENCER-CHURCHILL,
VERNHAM DEAN, HANTS.
CHURCHILL IN HOHNE, 1956
FH 114:6 brings back a pleasant memory. I
was a young lieutenant in charge of tank gunnery
training when Churchill visited Hohne,
which had been Hitler’s tank gunnery center, as
it was NATO’s in 1956. A British family named
Prendergast invited my wife and me to stay in
their spacious quarters, while they left for a brief
visit home. The house was spacious with a batman
but few amenities. (Americans were enjoying
vacation spas like Berchtesgaden, where
drinks were 25c and rooms a dollar, but payment
had to be in U.S. scrip, not marks.)
The day after the Prendergasts left, we
heard that Churchill would be there to take the
review of his old regiment. It was a special event
for all. After the review we raced to the second
floor window which overlooked the main gate.
There came Winston, standing in his Jeep.
When he paused for a final salute all could see
the tears running down his face. Soon tears were
running down all our faces.
I was able to return my British friend’s hospitality.
When we returned to our base in Landshut
I called a captain at U.S. Army HQ, told
him how great the Prendergasts had been to us,
and asked if we could arrange a holiday for
them, if I provided the scrip It was an egregious
request. There was a pause. He said yes. The delighted
Prendergasts visited us for several days
on their way to their holiday. I wish I could now
write a personal note to that American captain—the
hero of the story.
BILL SCHULZ, SCOTTSDALE, ARIZONA
Mr. Schulz, a distinguished longtime CC
member, ran for a United States Senate seat against
the late Barry Goldwater, then also a member: a
task that testifies to his Churchillian political zest.
For more on Churchill’s visit to Hohne, see “Riddles,
Mysteries, Enigmas” in this issue. —Ed.
HAYEK
Anent “Churchill and Hayek” in #114,
Churchill’s portrait reportedly hung over
Hayek’s desk. At the outbreak of the war, many
British economists joined the civil service. According
to a 2000 New Yorker article by John
Cassidy, Austrian Hayek was snubbed (although
he became a British citizen in 1938 and supported
the Allied cause). Perhaps he was also excluded
because of a mismatch between his theories
and the central planning required by the war
effort. It’s ironic that the success of central planning
led to postwar support for more of the
same, and interest in the ideas of John Maynard
Keynes, Hayek’s intellectual nemesis.
MIKE CAMPBELL, HALIFAX, N.S.
THE ATLANTIC CHATTER
Further to “The Atlantic takes a Dive” and the
Churchill attack article by Christopher Hitchens,
Finest Hour 114: 14-15...
LUSITANIA NOT
You mention that Hitchens resurrected the
myth that Churchill abandoned the Lusitania to
her fate in the hope that this might lead America
into World War I. In my recent book, Lusitania:
Saga and Myth, I quote from historians Stephen
Roskill and David Stafford, who are at one in
rejecting any conspiracy, by Churchill or anyone
else. And Patrick Beesly was not, as Hitchens
stated, official historian of British Naval Intelligence.
He was, like me, a retired businessman
who took up writing. His interest in the sinking
originated from the loss of a cousin and his family
who went down with the ship. Beesly’s Room
40, published 1982, is non-committal on the
matter, although he had decided on a “conspiracy,”
apparently without any supporting evidence,
before he died in 1986. DAVID RAMSAY
JACKSON POLLOCK PORTRAIT
Let us agree that, with the possible exceptions
of Christ and the Buddha, all humans,
even Churchill, are made of mortal flesh, hence
fallible. Hitchens presents a Jackson Pollock portrait:
lots of paint but no clear picture. For instance:
1) The defenses of Greece and Crete, although
futile in and of themselves, delayed the
German attack on Russia. 2) If Churchill knew
about Pearl Harbor ahead of time, then he
would also have known of the assault on Singapore
and the Malay Peninsula. Hitchens correctly
observes that many contemporary com-
FINEST HOUR 115 / 4

Despatch Box...
mentators attempt to evoke Churchillian
rhetoric rather than to develop rhetoric of
their own.
DUNCAN C. KINDER
CHURCHILL IN THE DOCK
As an investigative journalist, Hitchens
should do his own research into David
Irving’s work and see how well it holds up
under close examination. A starting point
would be the biographies by Martin
Gilbert, Roy Jenkins, and Geoffrey Best.
While Hitchens apparently sees these as part
of some “Churchill cult,” theirs is serious
scholarship; they have sifted the evidence
and offered sober judgments, far from
uncritical. Hitchens should follow their example,
not air worn-out or disproven
charges. Or perhaps he should collaborate
with David Irving and write “The Trial of
Winston Churchill,” putting Churchill in
the dock for war crimes. Together, they
could imagine how Nazi prosecutors would
have built a case against Churchill if Hitler
had won. They would both seem well suited
to this task.
JOHN H. MAURER
20-20 HINDSIGHT
Hitchens certainly views history
through 21st century glasses, but fails to incorporate
any context, and if this is the best
the “revisionists” can do, they have a long
way to go. Still, The Churchill Center
might want to castigate more strongly those
who regurgitate Churchill’s bons mots in response
to September 11th. It is one thing to
admire or to be inspired by Churchill. It is
quite another when phrases are adopted out
of context, for their own purposes, by vapid
politicos trying to make up for their deficiencies
by cloaking themselves in
Churchill’s aura.
JOHN J. MORGAN
BUT HE CAN USE A THESAURUS!
At least Churchill’s “lapidary phrases”
and “rolling flourishes” served the purpose
of inspiration and were often demonstrably
spontaneous. Hitchens’s phraseology only
demonstrates his ability effectively to use a
thesaurus.
BOB ALLEN
RAPID RESPONSE
Bravo to Finest Hour. We live in an age
of gleeful and unwholesome revisionist
spirit. Letting chips fall where they may is
part of honest historical research; commingling
long exposed fallacies with truth is a
disservice. Prompt and clear refutation is
the best remedy.
FRED NIXON
Hitchens did us a favor by prompting
The Churchill Center to set up a “Rapid Response
Team” with only one assignment: refute
nonsense. The first fruits of this effort are
posted on our website under “Churchill in the
News.” —Ed.
DATELINES
QUOTATION OF THE SEASON
“It is quite certain that what is going on now in Palestine is
doing us a great deal of harm in every way. Whatever view is
taken by the partisans of the Jews or the partisans of the Arabs
—WSC, HOUSE OF COMMONS, 31 JANUARY 1947
At the Door: July
1931. We’ve met these
ghosts at Chartwell;
why shouldn’t you L-R:
Tom Mitford (CSC’s
cousin, only brother of
the Mitford sisters,
killed in Burma 1945);
Freddy Birkenhead
(F.E.’s son and biographer);
WSC, Clementine,
Diana and Randolph;
Charlie Chaplin.
Ghosts appear anytime,
but you can get in
Wednesday to Sunday, 1
April to 30 November.
Getting to Chartwell
WESTERHAM, KENT, APRIL 1ST— Chartwell
opened today, and we began to receive
queries about getting there other than
by car (a challenge to the meek or faint
hearted), and whether the Chartwell
Explorer coach from London still runs.
By road, Chartwell is two miles
south of Westerham on the A25, accessed
by M25 junctions 5 and 6. By
rail and bus: Sevenoaks station 6 1/2
miles; Oxted station 5 1/2 miles;
Metrobus 246 from Bromley station to
Edenbridge passes the gates. And yes,
the Chartwell Explorer still runs, only
£3 for unlimited travel for the day, a
pot of tea included in the fare! Special
all inclusive coach and entry tickets are
available from London and Kent stations.
The Explorer calls at Chartwell,
Emmetts Garden and Quebec House
(when open). Please call (0345) 696996
for further details. For a timetable call
(01732) 450305.
By rail, users tell us the best connection
from London is out of Victoria
Station using trains such as the “Capital
Coast Express,” marked “to East Grinstead
and calling at Oxted.”
Though only a mile closer than
Sevenoaks, Oxted is less congested,
making for a cheaper taxi fare. Talk the
cabbie into picking you up for the return
drive to Oxted at a set time. The
last person we heard from said fare was
only £5, which seems very cheap.
Packwood Heads Archives
CAMBRIDGE, MAY 16TH— Churchill College,
Cambridge, is pleased to announce
the appointment of Allen Packwood
as Director of the Churchill
Archives Centre. He succeeds Piers
Brendon and Corelli Barnett CBE, the
previous holders of the post of parttime
Keeper.
While Mr. Packwood will continue
to build on the excellent work of his
predecessors, the time has come in the
continued overleaf...
FINEST HOUR 115 / 5

Allen
Packwood
history of
the Centre
for it to be
led by a
full time
a r c h i v a l
p r o f e s -
s i o n a l .
Allen has worked within the Centre for
six years, serving as Acting Keeper for
the last sixteen months. The post was
advertised nationally, and Allen
emerged successfully from an open
competition.
In recent years the Churchill
Archives Centre has grown to become
one of the most significant repositories
for the preservation of modern political,
diplomatic, military and scientific papers.
It houses the private collections of
prominent individuals, including Sir
Winston Churchill, Baroness Thatcher,
the Rt. Hon. Neil Kinnock, Admiral
Lord Fisher, Field Marshal Lord Slim,
Sir Frank Whittle and Rosalind
Franklin. The Centre is currently expanding
physically, with the building of
a new wing of purpose-built strongroom
accommodation.
The College has been able to create
the Directorship thanks to the generous
support of a large philanthropic trust.
The appointment will enable the Centre
to build upon its excellent record
and establish itself as a truly national
centre for the safekeeping and study of
a key part of Britain’s archival legacy.
Mr. Packwood said, “The motto of
Churchill College is ‘Forward.’ I am delighted
to be given this opportunity to
move the Archives Centre forward in
the spirit of Sir Winston Churchill. The
collections are among the most exciting
in this country, and the challenge is to
make them more accessible for this and
future generations.”
Allen Packwood may be reached by
telephone at Cambridge 336175 or
email: allen.packwood@chu.cam.ac.uk
The Churchill Archives Centre website
is www.chu.cam.ac.uk/archives/
—Sue Foster, Archives Administrator
DATELINES
Attention to Detail
LONDON, JUNE 18TH (REUTERS)— Even in
the middle of World War II, Winston
Churchill still had time to worry about
rubbish in the streets, the finer points
of English grammar and whether his
troops had enough beer, secret files released
today showed.
Even as German bombs rained
down on London during the Blitz, or
in planning the June 1944 invasion of
Normandy, the Prime Minister did not
neglect the environment. Churchill’s
thoughts came to light when Britain’s
Public Records Office opened dossiers
of Churchill’s personal minutes and
telegrams, some never seen before.
In March 1944 he wrote: “Just
below the Foreign Office on the grass
opposite St. James’s Park there is a very
untidy sack with holes in it and sand
leaking out.…Such a conspicuous place
ought not to look untidy, unless there is
some real need which can be satisfied in
no other way.”
Later in May, the doughty PM
railed at his Director of Military Intelligence
for sloppy English: “Why must
you write ‘intensive’ here ‘Intense’ is
the right word. You should read Fowler’s
Modern English Usage on the use of the
two words,” he fumed.
But the Premier showed more
clemency in considering the plight of
thirsty British soldiers abroad: “A serious
appeal was made to me by General
Alexander for more beer for the troops
in Italy. The Americans are said to have
four bottles a week, and the British
rarely get one,” he complained.
The documents also show
Churchill in candid form on the subject
of friends and enemies, including
French leader General Charles de
Gaulle, with whom he enjoyed a tempestuous
relationship. “I...find the
greatest difficulty in working with de
Gaulle, and that his personality and
conduct constitute the biggest obstacle
to the relations between Britain and the
United States on the one hand, and the
France whom we all wish to help on the
other,” he wrote to Foreign Secretary
Anthony Eden.
The Soviets did not get off lightly
either. “Never forget that Bolsheviks are
FINEST HOUR 115 / 6
crocodiles,” he wrote Eden. And in another
letter: “I cannot feel the slightest
trust or confidence in them. Force and
facts are their only realities.”
The cigar-smoking PM wrote Eden
about raising the status of some of its
foreign legations to embassies: “I must
say I think Cuba has as good a claim as
some of the other places... Great offence
will be given if all the others have it and
this large, rich, beautiful island, the
home of the cigar, is denied.”
Cheered to the echo: Ordinary Britons felt
that their aristocratic PM really cared, and he did.
Center: Inspector Thompson, WSC’s bodyguard.
Inspector Thompson
LONDON, MAY 15TH— A reader recently
asked when Churchill’s longtime detective
(1920s-1945) died. We heard from
his niece, who tells us Thompson died in
1978 of cancer of the lung and brain. He
was 88: “He married Bunny, one of
Churchill’s secretaries, after divorcing my
Aunt Kate. She was forced to leave
Churchill’s service by Mrs. Hill, the head
secretary.” We have been unable to learn
more about this tantalizing factoid.
Film Help Wanted
LONDON, MAY 25TH— TWI, makers of the
internationally acclaimed television series
The Second World War in Color, is
about to embark on a new series, Winston
Churchill, to be aired worldwide,
including the USA. They have asked us
to print the following request:
“Exploring the man behind the legend,
this three part series will uncover

the real Winston Churchill for the very
first time. The series will offer a startling
new approach, taking the viewers
on a journey inside the mind, words
and actions of the great man. It will explore
his childhood insecurities, his motivations,
his desires and his greatest
fears. It will discover what drove
Churchill to become the man he was,
what made him think that he could
alter the course of history and, above
all, what created his overwhelming
sense of destiny.”
Celia Sandys is the official consultant
for the series. The programmemakers
are looking for home movie
footage, photographs and letters relating
to any era of Winston Churchill’s
life. They are also looking for personal
stories and anecdotes from anyone who
may have met or known Churchill. If
you can help, please contact:
Rebecca John, TWI, McCormack
House, Burlington Lane, London W4
2TH England, telephone (01144) 208-
233-5977, fax 208-233-5301, email
rjohn@imgworld.com. TWI guarantee
all material will be treated with utmost
care and returned as quickly as possible.
Robert Hardy and Lady Soames in Celia
Sandys’s garden, 1996 Churchill Center Tour.
Wilderness Years on DVD
LONDON, JULY 4TH— The best television
documentary ever, “The Wilderness
Years” starring Robert Hardy as
Churchill, is now available on DVD as
well as videotape ($69.95 from Churchill
Stores). Produced by, and originally
broadcast on, Southern TV in 1981,
this series chronicled Churchill’s years
between the wars in a more detailed
way than the excellent HBO “Gathering
Storm.” Robert Hardy puts in a
DATELINES
sterling performance as the great man,
though Sian Phillips is an unconvincing
Clemmie (FH 38). With a superb supporting
cast including Nigel Havers as
Randolph, David Swift as “The Prof,”
Edward Woodward as Sam Hoare, Peter
Barkworth as Baldwin, Eric Porter as
Chamberlain and Tim Pigott-Smith as
a memorable Bracken, this series is
compulsory viewing. Though there are
no out-takes or extra material, the fourvolume
DVD is reasonably priced. The
disk producer is Delta Home Entertainment
(www.deltamusic.co.uk). They
state no price but recommend a retail
outlet: Choices Direct, PO Box 190,
Peterborough PE2 6UW, England,
(order@choicesdirect.co.uk) telephone
(01733) 232800. Thanks for this intelligence
to Thad Adams.
Churchill Apartment Opens
MONTECARLO, SEPTEMBER 2001— The famous
Hotel de Paris has unveiled the
Churchill Apartment, blending classic
style with modern luxury. They call the
two-bedroom apartment “a study in relaxation,
style and convenience with a
dramatic Montecarlo backdrop.”
The hotel commissioned French
interior design consultants Berthet
Pochy, whose previous projects include
the Montecarlo Sporting d´Eté and the
Paris Town Hall. The brief was to create
a luxurious suite that combined history
amidst contemporary surroundings.
“The resulting 210 square meter
apartment offers views of the Monaco
harbour and the Mediterranean. The
wood-panelled library and numerous
objects of art paying tribute to the great
man are a part of the distinctly English
feel of the apartment,” the hotel states.
“Walls are adorned with copies of his
paintings and photographs, and in one
corner his easel, complete with palette
and paints, is displayed to further illustrate
Churchill’s universe.”
Access is via a private lift that
opens directly into the apartment. The
grand salon comprises a fireplace, a library
containing Churchill volumes,
and white leather sofas contrasting with
the dark wood paneling. Large windows
and mirrored ceilings provide abundant
continued overleaf
Cover: Last Portrait from Life
Bernard Hailstone (1910-1987)
was known for his portraits of
royalty, the military, musicians and
personalities of stage and screen; less
well known, but among his best
work, are his paintings of the Blitz,
during which he served as a fireman.
An official artist to the wartime
Ministry of Transport, he recorded
the life of the Atlantic and Mediterranean
convoys. In 1944 he was sent
to South East Asia Command to
paint Lord Mountbatten and members
of his staff. Much of his work
hangs in the Imperial War Museum.
Generous and warm-hearted, Hailstone
was very good company, and
never so happy as when dining in
the Chelsea Arts Club. His elder
brother Harold was a well known
Punch artist and illustrator.
This is the second Hailstone
portrait to adorn a FH cover, the
first being a 1955 work on issue 47
in Spring 1985. At that time we
thought it was the last painting of
Churchill from life; but this 1957
work came later.
This fine oil is offered by Artware
Fine Art (www.artwarefineart.com),
18 La Gare, 51 Surrey Row, London
SE1 OBZ. Please contact Greg Page-
Turner, tel. (44+207) 921-9704, fax
(44+207) 921-9709 or email to:
greg@commissionaportrait.com.
Please mention Finest Hour. ,
FINEST HOUR 115 / 7

DATELINES
C H U R C H I L L C A L E N D A R
Local events organizers: please send upcoming event notices to the editor for posting here.
If address and email is not stated below, look for it on inside front cover.
Local & National
19-22 September: 19th International Churchill Conference, “Churchill and
the Intelligence World,” Lansdowne Resort, Leesburg, Va.
Contact: Nigel Knocker, Chairman, ICS/UK (see page 2).
30 November: Sir Winston Churchill’s 128th birthday will be celebrated
with black tie dinners in Boston, Mass. and Anchorage, Alaska. Contacts:
Boston, Suzanne Sigman (ssigman@attbi.com), tel. (617) 696-1833;
Alaska, James Muller (afjwm@uaa.alaska.com), tel. (907) 786-4740.
November 2003: 20th International Churchill Conference, Hamilton,
Bermuda, commemorating the 50th anniversary of the Bermuda Conference.
Contacts: David Boler (david.boler@ukgateway.net), tel. (0207) 558-3522;
and Randy Barber (randy.barber@cbs.gov.on.ca), tel. (905) 881-8550.
Churchill Apartment...
light. Underlying the furnishings, designed
by Jean-Louis Berthet, is a state
of the art television and hi-fi system,
and sophisticated lighting control.
In contrast with the décor, the architecture
of the apartment is resolutely
contemporary. The entire suite can be
divided into two suites if required, the
second of which features a carpet representing
a field of wheat, coquelicots and
the sky, themes which Churchill often
liked to paint.
Built in 1864, the Hotel de Paris is
today one of the world’s last great luxury
hotels to offer not only the most
modern services but also a guarantee of
a spectacular and splendid setting. The
hotel has 135 rooms, forty-three apartments
and nineteen junior suites, with
views over Casino Square and Gardens,
the port and the Prince’s Palace or the
bay and sea beyond, and provides direct
access to the Thermes Marins Spa.
For further information please contact:
Linda Petrie, Nicola Waskett or
Lindsey Dupler in England, telephone
(0207) 471-1000, fax (0207) 471-
1001, email zfl.uk@prco.orh. The hotel
website is: www.montecarloresort.com.
Member Adverts
Personal advertisements are free to members.
Send to the Editor.
WANTED. Issues 14-23, 26-28, 32, of
Finest Hour (originals only, please).
Richard D. Batchelder, Jr. Tel: (617)
951-7515, Fax: (617) 951-7050.
FOR SALE: Winston Churchill’s
teapot, bearing the arms and monogram
of Lord Randolph Churchill,
from whom he inherited it after his father’s
death in 1895. A unique, one-ofa-kind
piece of Churchilliana.
Winston Churchill presented the
teapot to his valet, William Walden,
who had previously served Lord Randolph.
Walden and the teapot accompanied
Churchill everywhere until
Walden’s death in 1921. The artifact
was acquired directly from Walden’s
heirs by Churchill Center Associate
Jeanette Gabriel, who was curator to Sir
Arthur Gilbert, one of the greatest collectors
of silver of the 20th century.
Made of silver plate rather than
sterling, this teapot would have been
more appropriate for travel than for domestic
use. It probably accompanied
Lord Randolph on his travels, and then
Winston to India, the Sudan and South
Africa. Provenance supplied.
One-third of the proceeds of this
sale will be donated to The Churchill
Center. Please contact Jeanette Gabriel
(email Gilbertcurator@aol.com), 1341
Stanford Street, Santa Monica, Calif.
90404, tel. (310) 829-5779.
Chapman University: Curt and Gert Zoller with
Secretary James Baker. Photograph by Brent Varela.
California
ORANGE, CALIF., MAY 1ST-4TH— Curt Zoller
represented The Churchill Center at
the Margaret Thatcher Symposium on
the Cold War, part of the University’s
Center for Cold War Studies. The
Churchill material he provided was exhibited
in the University library
throughout the event. Mr. Zoller’s collection
included original Churchill letters,
signed first editions, a letter from
Mrs. Churchill to Sir William Nicholson
on Churchill’s illness and recovery
at Marrakesh, and World War II leaflets
containing Churchill speeches. Curt
also distributed Center material to interested
parties. Copies of Finest Hour
went fast. Randy Barber also provided
material. “We had several inquiries concerning
membership,” Curt reports. He
was asked to give a talk on “Churchill,
the First Cold War Prime Minister”
which went over very well. The symposium
was mainly panel sessions.
Part of the symposium was an exhibition
entitled, “The Cold War Prime
Ministers: Churchill to Thatcher.” The
exhibit featured a timeline of each PM,
with original photographs, letters, and
rare books from the period.
After Mr. Zoller’s remarks on
Churchill and the postwar international
situation, Andrew Riley, a member of
the Churchill Archives Centre and
Archivist for Margaret Thatcher, spoke
on “Building the Churchill and
Thatcher Archives.” Christopher
Collins, from Lincoln College, Oxford,
who worked for Lady Thatcher as researcher
and archivist on her two vol-
FINEST HOUR 115 / 8

ume biography, spoke on “Archiving
Politics in the Broadcasting Age.”
Chapman University was presenting
its 2002 “Global Citizen Medal” to
Lady Thatcher in absentia, and former
Secretary of State James Baker spoke on
her accomplishments: reducing the
highest tax rate from 98% to 40%, following
a radical program of privatization
and deregulation, reforming the
unions and strengthening the free market.
Baker also touched on the
Thatcher-Reagan relationship and Lady
Thatcher’s early recognition of Gorbachev
as someone with whom “we can
do business.”
b b b
JUNE 8TH— On a roll, Curt Zoller was
again the speaker at a Champagne
brunch held today by Southern California
Churchillians, who asked for an encore
after his appearance at Chapman
University.
Many historians identify the beginning
of the Cold War with the failure of
the Yalta Agreement. Mr. Zoller developed
interesting themes which concluded
that Churchill had actually been
fighting the Cold Was since 1918. He
quoted from Churchill’s writings and
speeches to illustrated WSC’s continuing
concerns about the Soviet Union
and his attempt, after Stalin’s death, to
reach a final understanding that would
end the confrontation. Curt Zoller’s
new Bibliography of Works Concerning
Winston Spencer Churchill is due momentarily
from M.E. Sharpe. (See
“About Books.”)
Virginia
LANSDOWNE, VA., MAY 4TH— Celia Sandys,
granddaughter of Sir Winston and one
of his newest biographers, discussed her
grandfather’s love of horses and horseracing
at a special event sponsored by
Lansdowne Resort on behalf of The
Churchill Center. Ticket buyers, who
each provided a $25 contribution to the
Center, received an autographed copy
of Ms. Sandys’s book, Churchill Wanted
Dead or Alive, and a photograph of
Churchill on horseback.
Participants enjoyed a live broadcast
of the Kentucky Derby, with
Churchill Downs’s traditional beverage,
DATELINES
mint juleps, and wines from Breaux
Vineyards. Lansdowne Resort Executive
Chef Konrad Meier prepared a tantalizing
array of food to celebrate the 128th
“Run for the Roses.”
The day began gloriously: sunny,
calm, warm, and pleasant. But like the
race itself it did not end up as anticipated.
As race time approached, it became
clear that neither the good
weather nor the favorite, Harlan’s Holiday,
were going to prevail. Still, the end
was exciting and worth the wait, and
The Churchill Center received a handsome
donation of $850.
The extraordinary efforts of Jerry
Dumont and his staff were a prelude to
the International Conference at Lansdowne
on September 19-22nd. We are
grateful to Jerry as well as Governors
John Plumpton, Nancy Canary and
John Mather, who joined the festivities.
A particular thanks to Celia Sandys
for her fine presentation. Celia not only
spoke well but surrounded herself with
the youngest guests, bringing them
closer to the Churchill message: study
history, learn leadership, practice responsibility.
—Craig Horn
FINEST HOUR 115 / 9
Derby Party:
Celia Sandys,
center, with Lansdowne’s
Jerry
Dumont and
family, mark the
128th Kentucky
Derby. We regret
to record that
Craig Horn’s
horse didn’t win.
And we are the
poorer for it.
Chicago
OAK BROOK, ILL., APRIL 19TH— The Winston
S. Churchill Chicago Friends met
tonight at the Wyndam Drake Hotel.
Forty gathered to hear Churchill Center
President John Plumpton speak on
“Churchill and 9/11.”
Mr. Plumpton charged all present
with the responsibility of carrying the
Churchill message to our contemporaries
and generations to come. Guests
from other organizations included the
president of the Britannia Club of
Chicago and members of the English-
Speaking Union. An excellent dinner
was enjoyed along with spirited fraternity
and conversation.
Many brought items from their
collections, including a letter signed by
WSC and a framed picture, “Trustees
of the Empire,” featuring the King and
Cabinet of 1916. The next meeting is
scheduled for early December, and CC
members will automatically receive notices.
If you are interested in Chicago
events please contact Susan and Philip
Larson (parker-fox@msn.com), 22
Scotdale Road, La Grange Park, Ill.
60526, telephone (708) 352-6825.
Trustees of the
Empire: John
and Ruth Plumpton,
with Susan
and Phil Larson,
who have done
much to keep activity
hopping for
Chicago members,
April 19th.
continued overleaf

Flying Saucers
LONDON, OCTOBER 21ST— “What does all
this stuff about flying saucers amount
to What can it mean What is the
truth Let me have a report at your convenience.”
Thus WSC to his advisers,
who produced a six-page UFO Report,
hitherto denied by the Ministry of Defence
but recently unearthed by UFO
historians Andy Roberts and David
Clarke. The “Working Party on Flying
Saucers” was the idea of Sir Henry
Tizard, WSC’s trusted scientific adviser
during the war. The report played down
the phenomenon and insisted there was
no threat to Britain. But a few months
later an order went out expressly banning
all RAF personnel from discussing
sightings with anyone not from the military.
—The Observer
Winstony Blair
LONDON, OCTOBER 13TH— A Daily Express
analysis of recent photos of the Prime
Minister concludes “similarity in body
language” to Winston Churchill. “Take
for instance the shot of him in an easy
DATELINES
chair, hands gripping the arms, defiant
in the face of the threat from terrorists....Although
Mr. Blair plumps for a
wave rather than a V-sign, the similarity
in the confident smile and slightly
raised arm is uncanny.” Former Keeper
of the Churchill Archives Piers Brendon
asks, “Is it accidental or intentional I
suspect it is a combination of the two.”
The Typist-Censor
LONDON, NOVEMBER 22ND— Throughout
World War II, the woman who stood
between Churchill and Nazi intelligence
was Ruth Ive, now 84, a shorthand
typist whose task was to listen in
on the PM’s telephone conversations
and cut the line if he veered from the
strict agenda. Her story was published
at length in History Today, and copies
are available from the editor.
In the underground War Rooms, a
tiny alcove disguised as Churchill’s private
WC was in fact the transatlantic
telephone, which provided a crucial
link with Roosevelt. Though a large
scrambler was used, British intelligence
rightly believed that German engineers
would be able to tap into the signal. So
Mrs. Ive “was told I should use my initiative
and if I thought they were being
indiscreet, I
should cut
them off at
once. I was
the censor.”
Bombing location,
officers’
names
or troop
morale were
among the
Ruth Ive in 1945
Errata, FH 114
HAROLD NICOLSON, AS WE VERY WELL KNOW
Not only have you misspelled Harold Nicolson’s name in
“Who Really Put Churchill in Office,” but you fail to mention
that he became a member of the Watching Committee
(see HN’s Diaries and Letters, vol. 2, 1939-1945, bottom of
page 72). But these are trifling flaws noted by a persnickety
old man of 89 who is always delighted when a new number
comes in the mail and 114 was one of the best ever.
DEREK LUKIN JOHNSTON, VANCOUVER, B.C.
RODGER (WITH A “D”) YOUNG
The correct name of the patriotic Army song (page 12)
is Rodger Young with a “d.” We used to sing the song many
years ago, and I remember it well.
AL LURIE, NEW YORK CITY
In “Rodger Young,” you left out a verse:
“Caught in ambush lay a company of riflemen
Hand grenades against machine guns in the gloom
Fought in Ambush till this one of twenty riflemen
Volunteered, volunteered to meet his doom.”
And then, “It was he who drew the fire of the enemy…” and
so on as you have it. I’m afraid Gerald Lechter was right, but
you did get most of the words!
JONATHAN HAYES, SEATTLE, WASH.
CHURCHILL’S POLITICAL OFFICES
On page 46, Churchill left the Board of Trade 14Feb10,
not “25Oct11.” Postwar, Churchill remained Minister of Defence
only through 1Mar52, when the office went to General
Alexander, who returned from being Governor-General of
Canada. thanks to John Ramsden and David Ramsay.
LORD LLOYD AND LORD MOYNE
On page 49 we confused Lords Lloyd and Moyne.
George Lloyd, Churchill’s first Secretary of State for the
Colonies, died suddenly in office in February 1941. He was
succeeded by Lord Moyne, formerly Walter Guinness, an old
friend who had hosted both Winston and Clementine on his
yacht Rosaura at various times in the 1930s. (The Second
World War, vol. III, English edition, 784.) Churchill’s tribute
to Lloyd appears in The Unrelenting Struggle, 50-53. Moyne
was replaced by Lord Cranborne at the Colonial Office in a
reshuffle of the Government in February 1942 (The Second
World War, vol. IV, English edition, 70-71) but Churchill
later appointed him Minister of State in the Middle East. It
was Moyne, not Lloyd, who was murdered by Jewish extremists,
and the assassination was in Cairo in November 1944 —
not in Jerusalem at the King David Hotel, which was blown
up in 1946. Churchill’s tribute to Moyne and his statement
on the assassination are in The Dawn of Liberation, 235-36
and 251-52. Thanks for this to David Ramsay.
Now: we are really going to have to get a grip… ,
FINEST HOUR 115 / 10

DATELINES
banned subjects.
The job wasn’t always easy—as
when Mrs. Ive heard Churchill refer to
someone called “Jughay.” He was referring
to U.J., Uncle Joe (Stalin). “I probably
should have broken the line, but
by the time I worked out what he was
saying it was too late.”
In March 1945 a German bomb
landed near Holborn Circus. Churchill,
deeply affected by the carnage, picked
up the transatlantic telephone to speak
to Eden, his foreign secretary, who was
in Canada. Mrs. Ive was listening in.
“I thought, ‘My God, he’s going to
talk about the bomb.’ I cut him off and
picked up the telephone and rang
through and said, ‘Sir, no mention of
damage by enemy aircraft!’ He grunted.
He knew me by that time.” But she had
to cut him off a second time: “Sir, you
can’t say that.” WSC rang off.
“He was going through one of his
awful days of desolation,” Mrs. Ive recalls.
“It was just such a dreadful incident,
he wanted to tell Eden about it.”
Deeply moved, she thought to herself,
“When will this terrible war ever end”
But she also knew that, in silencing
Winston Churchill, she had done the
right thing. After the war she learnt
that, as feared, whatever was said on
that line “ended up on Hitler’s desk the
next morning.” But thanks in part to
Mrs. Ive, it made no sense at all.
The Book, 1954
Ever wonder about the book which
each member of the Commons signed
for Churchill on his eightieth birthday
John Frost sent us the photo: green morocco
inlaid with chocolate and pink
(his horseracing colours), tooled in gilt.
With the signatures
is an
illuminated
address from
the House,
and symbolic
representations
of
his many interests.
continued on
page 12
John Updike’s “Remember
the Lusitania” in the
AROUND & ABOUT
July 1st New Yorker reminded us of what Churchill said during the
1897 Malakand expedition: Everybody was shot at without result:
“To what extent was Winston Churchill, First Lord of the Admiralty,
distracted from his duties in the U-boat war by his cherished,
though ill-advised, campaign to seize the Dardanelles He
was off in Paris concluding an agreement on the use of the Italian
Navy in the Mediterranean when the Lusitania sank.…
Churchill’s commitment to the safety of noncombatant shipping was
less than keen: three months before the sinking he wrote to the President of the Board
of Trade that it was ‘most important to attract neutral shipping to our shores in the
hope especially of embroiling the USA with Germany...For our part, we want the traffic—the
more the better; if some of it gets into trouble, better still.’”
Numerous historians have recorded that the Dardanelles campaign was not so
much ill-advised as ill-managed; and it does not seem to have occurred to Mr. Updike
that RMS Lusitania was not “noncombatant shipping.” We are left with an indiscreet
remark in a private letter—testifying mainly to Churchill’s curious determination to
win wars—which letter Mr. Updike wouldn’t even know about, had the Churchill
family kept the papers locked up. We could do with more of Churchill’s indiscretion
and determination at the moment. —EDITOR
b b b
The Atlantic Monthly for July/August published a few weak criticisms of Christopher
Hitchens’s April article (FH 114:12-13), then allowed Hitchens a half page to respond.
As Churchill said, “Just K.B.O.” So we responded again:
Mr. Hitchens continues to insist that Norman Shelley delivered Churchill’s 4
June 1940 “Fight on the Beaches” speech over the BBC. Now he bases his claim on a
1990 sound analysis by a Cambridge, Massachusetts firm, Sensimetrics. But what
they were analyzing could not be Churchill’s speech!
Why not Because Churchill—contrary to James Humes in this same letters column—never
delivered his “Beaches” speech on the radio. Countless witnesses and
memoirists have stated that a BBC announcer read only excerpts. Churchill did broadcast
later speeches—personally. Private Secretary John Colville, who was present at
each, said: “If anyone else had delivered them, I would have known it.”
What then was Sensimetrics analyzing According to scholar Stephen Bungay,
writing in FH 112, the British Council asked Churchill to record the “Beaches” speech
after the war: “Churchill suggested they use an actor instead. Shelley did the recording,
Churchill heard it, was much amused, and gave his approval....It is not known for
sure when, if at all, his recording was used.”
Mr. Hitchens’s reply to our point that Germany, not Britain, first bombed civilians
in World War II is that he meant “between London and Berlin.” (So Britain
should have tolerated the flattening of Rotterdam and Warsaw as long as the Nazis
didn’t bomb London) He adds that the Germans bombed Madrid in 1936, at a time
“when Churchill was still on their side in Spain.” (Churchill had taken no side, believing
the Spanish Civil War a distraction from the real danger, Germany.) Instead of admitting
he had Norman Shelley’s “Children’s Hour” role wrong, Hitchens says that
Shelley played another role in another program.
To Professor Paul Kennedy of Yale, who wrote in to cite the Royal Navy’s heroic
pursuit and sinking of the Graf Spee under Churchill as First Lord of the Admiralty,
Hitchens replied that this was not a “premeditated fleet action” like the attack on the
French fleet in Oran in July 1941. (If not, what was it)
The Atlantic continues to publish falsehoods about Winston Churchill. Why It is
clear to one and all that Mr. Hitchens hasn’t done his homework, and tries to cover
himself by dissembling. But here we deal with facts‚—and facts are stubborn things.
—THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE CHURCHILL CENTER ,
FINEST HOUR 115 / 11

DATELINES
INDIA: MAKING HEADWAY WITH THE CRITICS
INDER DAN RATNU
VAISHALI NAGAR, JAIPUR, MAY 10TH—
In Finest Hour 110 (“Churchill and
the Indians”) I mentioned my friendship
with Chaudhary Daulat Ramji
Saran, a senior former federal minister
who in his youth had been a colleague
of Gandhi: Although our views of
Churchill were utterly opposed, we became
good friends, and meet almost
daily at an informal club gathering.
Among this group are senior or retired
government officials, teachers, scientists,
military and police officers; he is
the only politician, though a highly respected
one.
Since Mr. Saran learned of my appreciation
for Churchill he has tried
hard to convince me that WSC was in
fact a great enemy of India, and that my
“Churchill and Freedom” lectures at
schools around the country are nothing
short of “brainwashing.” He has found
my opinions unshakable, but our liking
for each other has only grown. His typical
greeting is, “Hello, how are you,
Churchill”
Recently he surprised me by appointing
me secretary of a committee to
mark the birth centenary of Chaudhary
Charan Singh,* the first farmer to become
Prime Minister of India. We organized
seminars, processions and rallies.
I didn’t intend to talk about Sir Winston
on these occasions, but recently,
when Mr. Saran referred to me as a poet
and writer of “international standing,” I
could not stop myself. After discussing
the Centenary celebrations I picked up
an international thread: “We Indians
must know that we are not an isolated
nation but part of a broad-based international
community. Our lives are affected
by distant events.
“A war between India and Pakistan
would certainly affect us—but so would
____________________________________
Mr. Ratnu’s books, Alternative to Churchill:
The Eternal Bondage and Layman’s Questions
about Churchill, are available from the
Churchill Center Book Club (PO Box 385,
Contoocook NH 03229) at $35 and $15 respectively.
Add $5 for postage for both, and
make checks payable to Churchill Center.
a war between Israel and the Arabs,
through the disruption in oil supply,
transportation, and prices.
“In much the same way, World
War II had similar repercussions. In far
off battlefields, autocracy was defeated;
democracy took root in many new
places, including India.
“All this was made possible by the
vision and extraordinary determination
of British Prime Minister Winston
Churchill—and this is what I have written
about. If he had not defended the
Any Churchill lecturer
would envy Mr. Ratnu’s
ability to pull in a
crowd of kids this size—
and not to hear about
Mahatma Gandhi!
Around the speaker are
the Headmaster and
teachers, themselves former
students, and the
local inspector of schools.
precepts of liberal democracy, we as a
nation would not have been able to
adopt a system of governance patterned
on his own. Indeed our parliamentary
system originated in England. Without
it, the son of a poor farmer, like Charan
Singh, could never have become the
highest governing executive of the
world’s largest democracy.”
My old Gandhian friend seemed
impressed, and radiated a mischievous
smile—rather quickly suppressed—as I
spoke. ,
The author, right, is
thanked by Mohan
Dan Ratnu (a distant
cousin), Headmaster of
his old village school in
Barath Ka Gaon,
where he returned to
lecture to new generations
of students about
an unlikely Indian
hero who insured the
survival of democracy.
*Chaudhary Charan Singh, born 23 December 1902 to a rural peasant family in Noorpur, western
Uttar Pradesh. He became a lawyer, promoting the concept of a united rural community,
and attacking the exploitative nature of the Brahman-Bania combine: a situation that also concerned
Churchill. In 1929 he joined the Indian National Congress and was jailed several times
in the struggle for Indian independence. Serving in the United Provinces (now Uttar Pradesh)
state assembly from 1937 on, he became an architect of India’s national system of agrarian alliances.
He brought about the Jat-Muslim political alliance as a chief minister in late 1960s. In
1977 he allied his peasant-based Indian Revolutionary Party with Moraji Desai’s Janata Party
and served as home minister (1977-78) and deputy prime minister (1979) in Desai’s coalition
government. In July 1979, with Congress support, he became Prime Minister of India. He resigned
shortly afterwards, without facing a vote of confidence, when Indira Gandhi withdrew
her support. Though Singh was seen by the Jats of western Uttar Pradesh as their benefactor, it
would be unfair to call him merely a Jat leader. He is much better described as a rural leader,
whose support base transcended all rural communities. Chaudhary Charan Singh died on 29
May 1987 in New Delhi, where he was cremated at Kisan Ghat. —EDITOR
FINEST HOUR 115 / 12

RIDDLES,
MYSTERIES,
ENIGMAS
Send your questions
to the editor
Visit to Hohne: Addendum
In this space last issue, a reader
asked for the details of Churchill’s visit
to Hohne, Germany in May 1956.
Gregory Smith noted that the sources
were not conclusive.
What happened was that
Churchill flew to the RAF airfield at
Celle on 18th May 1956 following visits
to Aachen and Bonn; he then
motored to Hohne where he spent
twenty-four hours with the 4th
Hussars, in which he had served as a
young officer, and of which he had
been Colonel since 1941. (See Bill
Schulz’s letter on page 4.)
There was a dinner in the officers’
mess that night; the next day there was
an inspection and parade followed by a
big lunch party at which a number of
local German dignitaries were among
the guests. In the final volume of the
official biography, photo no. 29 is stated
to be “Churchill with British
Officers at HQ Northern Army Group
at Celle.” This is incorrect (and Celle
was nowhere near that headquarters).
What it actually shows is Churchill at
Hohne, visiting the sergeants’ mess of
the 4th Hussars during a break in the
officers’ dinner. The Regimental
Sergeant Major and Bandmaster are
prominent, while two young officers
are in the background, having probably
escorted him from the officers’
mess. –Paul Courtenay
Q
: How many assassination
attempts did Churchill survive
A
: The niece of Churchill’s bodyguard,
Inspector W. H.
Thompson (LindaChurchill@aol.com)
thinks it was four: Sinn Fein in Hyde
Park, London, 1921; Indian extremists
in Chicago, 1931; Germans at the
Duke of Windsor’s house in France,
1939; Germans in Cairo, 1943 (he
kept a newspaper account of the execution
of nine Axis spies). Allen
Packwood at the Churchill Archives
Centre writes: “Although I would suspect
any substantial official files on
wartime assassination plots will have
passed to the Public Record Office, I
found one piece of interesting correspondence
from Ian Colvin, who
wrote to Churchill on 28Feb51 about
his book Chief of Intelligence, on
Admiral Canaris (Churchill Papers,
CHUR 2/168A/136). Colvin wrote: ‘I
have it on the authority of General
Erwin Lahousen, Deputy Chief of
German Intelligence, that Hitler gave
orders for an attempt to be made on
your life while you were at Casablanca.
Arab agents from Spanish Morocco
were thought to be able to carry out
these orders. Admiral Canaris did not
pass them on.’ In his reply, Churchill
writes, ‘I had not previously heard
about the alleged plan by the Germans
to assassinate me. Let me know if you
glean any more information’ (Churchill
Papers, CHUR 2/168A/135).”
Q
: In the television documentary
“Bertie and Elizabeth,” when
King George VI asks Churchill (David
Ryall) to form a government but to
exclude Beaverbrook, Churchill’s
response is that he’d prefer to have
Beaverbrook “inside the tent p—ing
out than outside the tent p—ing in.”
Did WSC say that —Mike Campbell
A
: According to historian Andrew
Roberts, that remark was made by
President Lyndon Johnson, and not by
Churchill—certainly not to his
Sovereign. But the film was right to
illustrate the King’s aversion to
Beaverbrook, according to Roberts’s
Eminent Churchillians (London:
Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1994, p.40):
FINEST HOUR 115 / 13
“The first letter the King sent
Churchill after he had formed his government,
far from sounding a note of
encouragement and support, warned
him ‘of the repercussions, which I am
sure will occur, especially in Canada, at
the inclusion of the name of Lord
Beaverbrook for air production....You
are no doubt aware that the Canadians
do not appreciate him’....George VI
asked his new Prime Minister to
‘reconsider...as I fear that this appointment
may be misconstrued’....But
Churchill shrugged off the suggestion
that the best man for this vital job
should not be chosen for it because, as
the King pointed out, ‘the air training
scheme for pilots and aircraft is in
Canada’ and ‘respectable Canadian
opinion’ was running against its most
famous, if least favourite, son.” —Ed.
Q
: Am I right that Churchill held a
territorial (reserves) commission
in the Oxfordshire Yeomanry for a
long time —Robert Courts
A
: He held a commission in the
Territorial Army (TA). In 1902
he joined a yeomanry (cavalry) regiment,
The Queen’s Own Oxfordshire
Hussars, which conveniently held
annual training camps near Blenheim.
Under this TA commission in
1915-16, he served with the Grenadier
Guards and Royal Scots Fusiliers. In
late 1916 he left the QOOH and
became a member of the TA reserve.
In 1920 he rejoined the QOOH and
remained a member until reorganisation
of the TA in 1923, when the
QOOH and another regiment were
redesignated 100th Royal Field
Artillery Brigade (no longer cavalry).
Churchill resigned from the TA in
1924. He would not have received a
pension, but his over eighteen years of
service entitled him to the Territorial
Decoration (TD). In those days the
TD required twenty years’ service but
war service counted as double. (Today
the TD is awarded for twelve years’ TA
service.)
Churchill is often credited with
the remark, “To be a reservist is to be
twice a citizen.” This is a well-known
TA slogan, but I don’t think it was
coined by WSC. —Paul Courtenay ,

“THE EARTH IS A
GENEROUS MOTHER”
William Bourke Cockran:
Churchill’s American Mentor
CURT J. ZOLLER

When young Winston Churchill traveled to New
York in 1895 on his way to Cuba, he was
greeted by William Bourke Cockran 1 , a New
York lawyer, U.S. congressman, friend of his mother’s and
of his American relatives. Clara Jerome, 2 Jennie’s sister,
was married to Moreton Frewen, the peripatetic “Mortal
Ruin” who would commit all those typos in the editing of
Churchill’s first book, The Story of the Malakand Field
Force. For many years Frewen had been a friend of Cockran,
who would grow to become one of Winston
Churchill’s lifelong inspirations.
Churchill later wrote of “the strong impression
which this remarkable man made upon my untutored
mind. I have never seen his like, or in some respects his
equal. With his enormous head, gleaming eyes, flexible
countenance, he looked uncommonly like a portrait of
Charles James Fox. It was not my fortune to hear any of
his orations but his conversations, in point, in pith, in rotundity,
in antithesis, and in comprehension, exceeded
anything I have ever heard.” 3
William Bourke Cockran was born on 28 February
1854 in County Sligo, Connaught Province, Ireland. The
family name was derived from the old Irish Corcoran or
O’Corcorain. 4 Bourke’s father Martin owned a large farm
and had other business interests. His mother, Harriet, was
from a distinguished and well-to-do family, descendants
of John Bourke of Cahirmayle, County Limerick, who
had lost all his property during the reign of William III.
The Cockrans had five children; Bourke was the
third son. He attended the local school until the age of
nine, when he was sent to France to study at the Institut
des Petits Frères de Marie at Beauchamps, near Lille. A
brilliant student, he had (like Churchill), an amazing gift
to memorize and retain facts, and became (unlike
Churchill) fluent in French. After five years at
Beauchamps, Bourke returned home and was sent to St.
Jarlath’s College in Athlone, Ireland where he won highest
honors in Latin and Greek.
Having completed College, he went to Dublin and
became interested in Law and Irish politics. Isaac Butt, a
famous orator and advocate, who later founded the Home
Rule Movement and was active in Irish politics in Britain,
inspired Bourke to study law.
In 1871 at the age of 17, Cockran traveled to America.
The United States was recovering from its Civil War,
and Bourke, enjoying the excitement of New York City,
decided to remain there permanently. New York in those
days was run by the political machine of “Boss” Tweed
and the Democratic Party.
For a while Bourke supported himself by teaching
French, Latin and Greek at a private school where wealthy
Mr. Zoller (zcurt@sbcglobal.net) is author of A Bibliography of Works
Concerning Winston Spencer Churchill and editor of FH’s “Churchilltrivia”
department. Illustrations courtesy of the Library of Congress.
New York Catholics sent their daughters. Later he became
principal at a public school at Tuckahoe, in Westchester
County.
A famous justice of the New York Supreme Court,
Abraham B. Tappan, further encouraged him to study
law, and in 1876 Cockran was admitted to the Bar. He
opened an office in Mount Vernon, New York, where he
married Mary Jackson, a 22-year-old former student of
his. Unfortunately she died in childbirth within a year. In
1888 Cockran married Rhoda Mack, the daughter of a
prominent financier. But she died ten years later at the
age of 31. His final marriage in 1906, was to Anne Ide,
daughter of Judge Henry Clay Ide of Vermont.
Friends started a movement to send Cockran to Congress,
and in October 1887 he was nominated for
New York’s 12th Congressional District. Two
months later he was elected by a large majority. When
Cockran realized he could not simultaneously serve both
his new business and his constituents he decided not to
run for re-election, and during 1889-90 he concentrated
on enlarging his law firm. That accomplished, he returned
to Congress in 1891 for the 10th District, where he served
in various capacities until March 1895.
In the spring of 1878 Bourke had moved back to
New York City and had opened an office on lower Broadway.
Gradually he developed a reputation as an outstanding
orator, and was much in demand at political rallies. In
1880 he was sent by the Democratic National Committee
to help deliver speeches supporting its candidates for New
York governor and for Congress. He even spoke for Democrats
in the Middle West. His famous saying was
“Democracy is a faith; Republicanism an appetite.” 5
In the autumn of 1883 Cockran had become a
member of Tammany Hall, the key Democratic organization
in New York. He continued to express independent
opinions, however, and in 1884 had left Tammany over
policy disagreements: the first of three separations.
Cockran’s reputation in the party grew through his
support of causes like Free Trade and Irish Home Rule.
But, as Richard Stovall comments, he “was above all else
an orator. He chose the public platform as his communication
channel and he used this channel to expound his
views of those issues to which he was committed or believed
important.” 6 He was compared to Edmund Burke,
the great English orator of the eighteenth century.
In his speeches Cockran demonstrated deep understanding
of complex subjects and presented his material
with emotion, deploying brilliant retorts, particularly
when addressing hostile audiences. Audiences loved his
tall, commanding figure, expressive features and authoritative
voice. According to his biographer James McGurrin,
“His skill in construction, in antithesis, in balancing
periods, in leading up to the lofty climax which crowned
the whole, was that of a finished literary craftsman.” 7
FINEST HOUR 115 / 15

By 1885 Cockran had achieved great success as a
lawyer; his practice was growing. Among his clients
were the American Tobacco Company, the International
Steam Company, the New York Central Railroad,
and Joseph Pulitzer, publisher of The World. He was considered
an authority on public utility law and was retained
at various times by nearly every important gas and electric
company in New York City.
In 1895 Cockran greeted Churchill in New York
and put him up at his house. On November 2nd
Churchill wrote to him from Havana:
We had a very comfortable journey which was entirely
due to your kindness in getting us a state room. The food
all along was execrable but the passage was good and the
weather perfect. Early this morning a violent rain storm
woke me up and I went on deck as soon as it cleared up.
There, on our port under towering and stormy clouds,
lay the shores of Cuba. We got into the harbour without
incident and live in a convenient hotel....
We start tomorrow for Santa Clara where are rumours of
great things doing. The route is by rail and an additional
interest will be lent to it - by the fact that the insurgents
do all they can to wreck the trains and occasionally succeed.
As to our return, we propose to leave the island on
Monday 16th prox. (three fronts a week in December).
Can you get us a state room from here to New York If
you can - will you I cannot tell you what a difference it
made on our journey here and we shall be quite spoiled
going back by the ordinary method.
I must reiterate my thanks to you for your kindness and
courtesy in putting us up all the time we were in New
York. We had many delightful conversations - and I
learned much from you in a pleasant and interesting way.
I hope in England to renew our discussions and though I
can never repay you for your kindness I trust you will
take the hospitality of the 4th Hussars ‘on account.’ 8
After returning to England Churchill had further
observations on Cuba for his American friend:
I hope the United States will not force Spain to give
up Cuba - unless you are prepared to accept responsibility
for the results of such action. If the States
care to take Cuba - though this would be very hard
on Spain - it would be the best and most expedient
course for both the island and the world in general.
But I hold it a monstrous thing if you are going
merely to procure the establishment of another
South American Republic - which however degraded
and irresponsible is to be backed in its action
by the American people - without their maintaining
any sort of control over its behaviour...I commend
rather a good book to your notice, The Red Badge of
Courage, a story of the Civil War. Believe me it is
worth reading. 9
Cockran frequently spoke out on behalf of the
Cuban patriots struggling to free their country. In 1896,
he spoke in commemoration of Cuban medical students
who had been arrested, court-martialed and executed for
allegedly picking a rose from a Spanish grave in 1871. The
New York Times commented: “....when Mr. Cockran told
the story of the murdered students many wept until they
became almost hysterical....” 10
When war broke out between the British and the
Boers in 1899, a wave of anti-British fervor swept republican
America. Cockran addressed pro-Boer meetings in
New York, Chicago and Boston, receiving great publicity
for his speech in Carnegie Hall on 12 October 1900,
blaming Joseph Chamberlain, the British Colonial Secretary,
and the Salisbury Government. He appealed to President
William McKinley to intervene and stop the war. In
a speech in Boston he blamed the English aristocracy, stating
that the war was “a renewal of the old attempt by the
governing class to undermine the institutions to which the
English people have always been attached.” 11
After attending a lecture by the pro-British
Churchill, Cockran was accused of deserting the Boer
cause. He put out a statement saying
I cannot understand how anybody can regard my attendance
at Mr. Churchill’s lecture as an evidence of sympathy
with the British invasion of the Transvaal. I certainly
have not changed in the slightest degree my belief that
the South African war is the greatest violation of justice....
12
Bourke Cockran would today be called a “maverick
politician” because of his devotion to principle over
party. In 1896 he bolted the Democrats for Republican
presidential candidate William McKinley, in support
of the Gold Standard. In July 1900 he rejoined the Democrats,
only to bolt again, for Bull Moose insurgent
Theodore Roosevelt in 1912. Tammany Hall evicted him
twice. If Churchill later mastered the practice of “re-ratting,”
Cockran set the standard by re-re-ratting!
His native Ireland was one of Cockran’s great passions,
and he was a strong advocate of Irish Home Rule.
Speaking as an American, he considered it an international
issue affecting the peace of the world. He endorsed
Gladstone’s 1893 Home Rule Bill, speaking in words
which Churchill undoubtedly filed away for future use:
“Never before in the history of the English speaking people
has there been a victory which was so great a triumph
as that attained by Mr. Gladstone.” 13
In London, the Irish Parliamentary Party praised
Cockran’s efforts, and held a banquet in his honor in the
Members’ Dining Room in June 1903. A well-known
M.P., author and journalist T. P. O’Connor, claimed that
it was Cockran who kept after Churchill to support
Home Rule. 14 The two corresponded regularly on the
subject. From Churchill’s letter of 12 April 1896:
FINEST HOUR 115 / 16

“Bourke Cockran would today be called a ‘maverick politician’
because of his devotion to principle over party....
Tammany Hall evicted him twice.
If Churchill later mastered the practice of ‘re-ratting,’
Cockran set the standard by re-re-ratting!”
Now to turn to your speech.
It is one of the finest I have
ever read. You are indeed an
orator. And of all the gifts
there is none so rare or so
precious as that. Of course -
my dear Cockran - you will
understand that we approach
the subject from different
points of view and
that your views on Ireland
could never coincide with
mine. Finally, let me say that
when I read your speech I
thought that Ireland had not
suffered in vain - since her
woes have provided a subject
for your eloquence. 15
Cockran responded: “I was
so profoundly impressed
with the vigor of your language
and the breadth of
your views as I read your criticisms
of my speech that I
conceived a very high opinion
of your future career, and
what I have said here is
largely based on my own experience.” 16
By 1903 Churchill and his American mentor were
heavily engaged over Free Trade, an issue close to
both their hearts. But in his letter of 12 December
1903, Churchill showed he was not quite ready to follow
Cockran’s lead and switch parties:
I was glad to get your letter and also to read in the Democratic
Campaign Guide of Massachusetts your excellent
Free Trade speech. We are fighting very hard here, but I
think on the whole, the outlook is encouraging. I believe
that Chamberlain will be defeated at the General Election
by an overwhelming majority. What will happen to
the Free Trade Unionists by whose exertions this result
will have been largely attained is quite another matter,
for I regret to say that the Liberal party think a great deal
more of winning a seat here and there by destroying a
Unionist Free Trader than for the principles for which
we are fighting in common.
I do not think people like
Lord Hugh Cecil and myself
will be shut out of Parliament.
The freedom which
we possess here, of standing
in any constituency, enables
those who are well known
and looked upon as permanent
politicians to find another
road back [to] the
House of Commons when
one particular constituency
rejects them. But I fear the
rank and file of our small
party will suffer terribly -
many of them being altogether
extinguished and
ending their public life once
and for all....It is rather an
inspiring reflection to think
that so many of us on both
sides of the Atlantic are
fighting in a common cause
- you to attack protection,
we to defend Free Trade. I
think what the double victory
would mean for the
wealth and welfare of the world. 17
On 22 April 1904 Churchill spoke on the Trade
Union and Trade Disputes Bill. Towards the end “he hesitated,
having lost the thread of his argument, and stopped
speaking. He seemed confused and began to fumble for
notes which might have prompted him. Having not
found what he wanted he abruptly sat down and covered
his face with his hands, muttering, ‘I thank the honourable
members for having listened to me.’” 18
In a letter to Cockran five weeks later Churchill explained
what had occurred—and provided Cockran with
a great compliment:
You need not be worried by my losing my thread in a
speech some weeks ago. The slip was purely mechanical,
and was due to my style of preparation, which as you
know, is very elaborate. I had reached the very last sen-
FINEST HOUR 115 / 17

tence in my speech, and as the concluding phrases were
not in the nature of argument but of rhetoric, when my
memory failed me....I shall look forward immensley [sic]
to having some long talks with you. You are in some measure
responsible for the mould in which my political
thought has been largely cast, and for the course which I
have adopted on these great questions of Free
Trade....Whether American competition would not become
much more formidable...I do not now examine....” 19
Churchill had hoped to come to America for the
1904 Democratic Convention. He was forced to cancel in
July, but in a rare declaration to a citizen of another country
he told Cockran he considered himself a “Democrat as
far as American politics are concerned. I beg you to send
me as much of your political literature as you can.” 20
Through his cousin, Shane Leslie, Churchill wrote
to Cockran in 1906: “Tell him that while our political
views on the Irish question differ, I regard his as the
biggest and most original mind I have ever met. When I
was a young man he instantly gained my confidence and I
feel that I owe the best things in my career to him.” 21
Ahighlight of Bourke Cockran’s later years was his
defense of labor leader Tom Mooney, who was accused
of participation in a bomb plot during a Preparedness
Day Parade in July 1906. Mooney was convicted
of first-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison.
Since the others accused were acquitted, President Wilson
appointed an investigatory commission which in 1918 reported
that the trial had been unfair owing to perjured testimony.
Cockran spoke all over the country in support of a
new trial, even carried his plea to the White House; yet
Mooney remained in prison. Five California governors refused
to review the decision, as did the Supreme Court of
the United States. Mooney was not released until Governor
Olsen gave him an unconditional pardon in 1939.
In 1919 Cockran returned to Tammany for good.
He supported Al Smith at the Presidential Convention of
1920, was nominated to represent New York’s 16th Congressional
District, and again took his seat in the House of
Representatives on 4 March 1921. Two years later on
March 1st, 1923, he spoke in the House against the Rural
Credit Bill, and then went to dinner with friends to celebrate
his 69th birthday. Two hours after the dinner he
died of a brain hemorrhage.
Churchill often used Bourke Cockran’s phrases in
his own speeches, and in his famous “Iron Curtain”
speech at Fulton, Missouri in 1946, Churchill paid his
American mentor due credit:
I have often used words which I learned fifty years ago
from a great Irish-American orator, a friend of mine, Mr.
Bourke Cockran. “There is enough for all. 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 peace.” 22 ,
Bibliography
The indicated Churchill and Cockran letters are
courtesy of the New York Public Library (citation below).
Other letters are courtesy of the Churchill Archives Centre,
Churchill College, Cambridge, England.
Churchill, Randolph S., Winston S. Churchill, vol. I
Youth, 1874-1900; vol. II, Young Statesman, 1901-1914
and the relevant Companion Volumes, London: Heinemann,
1966, 1967.
Churchill, Winston S., Thoughts and Adventures,
London: Thornton Butterworth Ltd., 1932.
Cockran, William Bourke, In the Name of Liberty.
Selected addresses by William Bourke Cockran, William
Bourke Cockran Papers, The New York Public Library,
Astor, Lenox and Tilden Foundation, New York City.
Hofstadter, Richard, The Age of Reform, New York:
Vantage Books, 1955.
Kennedy, Ambrose, American Orator/Bourke Cockran/His
Life and Politics, Boston: Humphries, 1948.
McGurrin, James, Bourke Cockran/A Free Lance in
American Politics, New York: Charles Scribners Sons,
1948.
Martin, Ralph G., Jennie: The Life of Lady Randolph
Churchill, vol. 2, The Dramatic Years, 1895-1921,
New York: Signet, 1971.
Rhodes James, Robert, Winston Churchill. His
Complete Speeches, 1897-1963, 8 vols., New York:
Chelsea House Publishers, 1974.
Stovall, Richard Lee, “The Rhetoric of Bourke
Cockran: A Contextual Analysis.” Ph.D. Dissertation,
Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, 1975.
Endnotes
1. Martin, Jennie, vol. 2, 37-38.
2. Stovall, “The Rhetoric of Bourke Cockran,” xxvi.
3. Churchill, Thoughts and Adventures, 52.
4. McGurrin, Bourke Cockran, 3.
5. Ibid., 47.
6. Stovall, 47.
7. McGurrin, 74
8. William Bourke Cockran Papers. (Letter not in
the Churchill official biography.)
9. Ibid.
10. The New York Times, 28 November 1896.
11. McGurrin, 199-200.
12. The New York Times, 15 December 1900.
13. The New York Times, 27 March 1893.
14. McGurrin, 232.
15. WSC to Cockran, 12 April 1896, William
Bourke Cockran Papers.
16. Cockran to WSC, 27 April 1896, Churchill
Archives Centre, Cambridge.
17. WSC to Cockran, 12 December 1903, William
Bourke Cockran Papers.
18. Randolph S. Churchill, Winston S. Churchill,
vol. I, Young Statesman 1901-191, 79.
19. WSC to Cockran, 31 May 1904, Cockran Papers.
(Letter not in the Churchill official biography.)
20. WSC to Cockran, 16 July 1904, Cockran Papers.
(Letter not in the Churchill official biography.)
21. McGurrin, 232.
22. Rhodes James, Complete Speeches, VII, 7288.
FINEST HOUR 115 / 18

Wit &
Wisdom
Nothing for Me, But...
From South Africa, Louis
Duvenage (fast@idhweb.com) writes:
“I have been trying for a long time to
obtain the text of the speech that
WSC made to the U.S. Congress in
which he said, ‘I have not come to ask
you for money…for myself!’”
There is a question about the
punch line. The quotation is from the
second paragraph of Churchill’s third
address to the U.S. Congress on 17
January 1952. According to some
accounts, after he said, “I have not
come here to ask you for money,” he
paused and said, “...for myself...” and
got a laugh. But we would need a tape
of the speech to prove it, because it
was edited out of the transcript.
Interesting sidelight: the New York
PR firm handling Nelson Mandela’s
speech to Congress some years ago
asked us for a transcript of this speech.
They explained that Mr. Mandela, a
longtime admirer of Churchill, wanted
this specific speech, not the much better
known 1941 or 1943 Congress speeches.
We gathered that he was interested
in how Churchill had asked for
money. The alleged punch line certainly
must have amused him.
The speech is in Stemming the Tide
/ Speeches 1951-1952, edited by
Randolph Churchill (London: Cassell,
1953; Boston: Houghton Mifflin,
1954), starting at page 220 of both
editions; and in Winston S. Churchill:
His Complete Speeches, edited by
Robert Rhodes James (London:
Chelsea House, NY: Bowker, 1974).
The Clattering Train
John Colligan (jcollig1@nycap.rr.com)
writes: “The HBO production of ‘The
Gathering Storm’ [see review this
issue] had Churchill reciting a poem in
which the last line was, ‘For death is in
charge of the clattering train.’ Is this
something he wrote”
No, but Churchill reached into his
phenomenal memory for the poem
(but did not repeat it) during a speech
to the Commons criticizing the government’s
inadequate Air Estimates on
19 March 1935. He probably repeated
it verbally several times, as the HBO
film suggests. It suited the moment.
For the reference, see Churchill’s
first volume of war memoirs, The
Gathering Storm, page 97 (London:
Cassell, 1948), or in the chapter, “Air
Parity Lost 1935-1935” if you have the
American edition. Because this led to a
key denoument—Baldwin’s confession
on the 22nd that he had been utterly
wrong about the pace of German rearmament—we
excerpt the surrounding
material.
Churchill writes:
Although the House listened to me
with close attention, I felt a sensation
of despair. To be so entirely convinced
and vindicated in a matter of life
and death to one’s country, and not to
be able to make Parliament and the
nation heed the warning, or bow to the
proof by taking action, was an experience
most painful. I went on:
“I confess that words fail me. In the
year 1708 Mr. Secretary St. John, by a
calculated Ministerial indiscretion,
revealed to the House the fact that the
Battle of Almanza had been lost in the
previous summer because only 8,000
English troops were actually in Spain out
of the 29,000 that had been voted by the
House of Commons for this service….
the House sat in silence for half an hour,
no Member caring to speak or wishing
to make a comment upon so staggering
an announcement. And yet how incomparably
small that event was to what we
have now to face….”
There lay in my memory at this
time some lines from an unknown writer
about a railway accident. I had learnt
them from a volume of Punch cartoons
which I used to pore over when I was
FINEST HOUR 115 / 19
eight or nine years old at school at
Brighton.
Who is in charge of the clattering train
The axles creak and the couplings strain,
And the pace is hot, and the points are near,
And Sleep has deadened the driver’s ear;
And the signals flash through the night in vain,
For Death is in charge of the clattering train.
However, I did not repeat them.
It was not until May 22 that Mr.
Baldwin made his celebrated confession.
I am forced to cite it:
“First of all, with regard to the figure
I gave in November of German aeroplanes,
nothing has come to my knowledge
since that makes me think that figure
was wrong. I believed at that time it
was right. Where I was wrong was in my
estimate of the future. There I was completely
wrong. We were completely misled
on that subject. [Italics Churchill’s.]
“I would repeat here that there is no
occasion, in my view, in what we are
doing, for panic. But I will say this
deliberately, with all the knowledge I
have of the situation, that I would not
remain for one moment in any
Government which took less determined
steps than we are taking to-day. I think
it is only due to say that there has been a
great deal of criticism, both in the Press
and verbally, about the Air Ministry, as
though they were responsible for possibly
an inadequate programme, for not
having gone ahead faster, and for many
other things. I only want to repeat that
whatever responsibility there may be—
and we are perfectly ready to meet criticism—that
responsibility is not that of any
single Minister; it is the responsibility of
the Government as a whole, and we are all
responsible, and we are all to blame.”
I hoped that this shocking confession
would be a decisive event, and that at the
least a Parliamentary Committee of all
parties would be set up to report upon
the facts and upon our safety. The House
of Commons had a different reaction.
The Labour and Liberal Oppositions,
having nine months earlier moved or supported
a Vote of Censure even upon the
modest steps the Government had taken,
were ineffectual and undecided. They
were looking forward to an election
against “Tory armaments.” Neither the
Labour nor the Liberal spokesmen had
prepared themselves for Mr. Baldwin’s disclosures
and admission, and they did not
attempt to adapt their speeches to this
outstanding episode. ,

TEACHING THE NEXT GENERATIONS
“TAKE YOUR PLACE IN LIFE’S FIGHTING LINE!”
What Churchill Should Mean to People My Age
ROBERT COURTS
Iam always asked why at my age I’ve become interested
in Winston Churchill. People look at me with
bemused indulgence when I talk about him, or whenever
my enthusiasm surfaces, which it does often. How
can such a young man be so interested in a historical figure—great,
certainly, but as far removed from me, and as
irrelevant, as King Henry V
I cannot give a precise time when my interest took
hold, or say precisely why it did. I can give a very good
explanation of why Churchill’s life and legacy are of
striking relevance and utility to young people today, if
they take the trouble to learn about him.
My earliest contact with Churchill must have been
1980s World War II documentaries. I remember,
through the veil of time, a gruff, defiant, vaguely angry
man growling streams of liquid words that struck me
more powerfully than anything I had ever heard. In
school I wrote an admiring essay about Churchill and a
kindly teacher lent me his copy of William Manchester’s
The Last Lion. I devoured this weighty tome in days. My
class was later presented with a copy of Churchill’s own
paean to youth, My Early Life—for no other reason, I
think, than because my teacher wanted us to read it. We
certainly didn’t study it in any formal way. But reading
that book at the age of fourteen set me off.
I have since read My Early Life at least ten times,
and am still astounded by its wit and charm, its breadth
of thinking, and above all by how much Churchill managed
to pack into his life—the early years in particular.
As he says: “Twenty to twenty-five, those are the years.
Don’t be content with things as they are.” There can be
no better example and inspiration to young people of
how to go out and get what you want.
Churchill shows better than anyone, historical or
contemporary, that if you want something badly enough,
you can get it. He wanted to join the Army: it took him
three tries and a near-fatal accident en route, but he
made it. He wanted to fight in active operations, and left
no stone unturned until he did. People will say, even
today, that he was a pressuring medal-hunter. But it was
his single-minded drive, determination, and perseverance
that made him succeed.
______________________________________________________
Mr. Courts, 23, training to work as a barrister, is a member of ICS
(UK) living in Balsall Common, near Coventry, Warwickshire.
He stepped up—
what about you
He packed
so many
things into
his life: he
did all the
things he
wanted to
do and was
never held
back by anything,
neither
by convention
nor accepted possibility.
He was a brave
soldier, an outstanding
politician, a writer of the first degree,
a respected historian, a painter of talent, and to top
it all, a loving family man. Who says it is not possible to
do all these things
His lesson—focus and succeed—can be applied to
whatever path one takes in life: military, politics, writing,
law, business, teaching. How admirably stands the example
of Churchill against those of all the micro-celebrities
who tower over today’s society.
Churchill is the prime example of someone who, in
Tennyson’s words “[drank] life to the lees,” and thoroughly
enjoyed it. As he says himself, “I cannot but return
my sincere thanks to the high gods for the gift of existence.
All the days were good and each day better than
the other.” There was a man who knew how to wring the
most from his allotted span.
Churchill is rightly famed for his “never give in” attitude,
and I always come back to this inspiring
philosophy. His attitude can be applied far outside
the circumstances in which he spoke, in 1941, to the
boys of Harrow School: “Never give in, never give in,
never, never, never, never—in nothing, great or small,
large or petty—never give in except to convictions of honour
and good sense.” It was sound advice. Young people
all over the world would do well to follow this advice:
persevere, persevere, always keep trying.
Much other advice can be found in Churchill’s
FINEST HOUR 115 / 20

writings and speeches. I remember as a young boy being
particularly moved by a sentence in My Early Life: “Let
me counsel my younger readers to beware of dislocated
shoulders.” I was astounded that this towering individual
should actually care about what happened to the likes of
me. But youth, its predicament and its fate, were subjects
close to his heart.
At Harrow he said, “Sometimes imagination makes
things out far worse than they are; yet without imagination
not much can be done. Those people who are imaginative
see many more dangers than perhaps exist—but
then they must also pray to be given that extra courage to
carry this far-reaching imagination.” What better exhortation,
encouragement and reassurance can there be to
people who are facing the daunting decisions of life
Similarly, in My Early Life, there is much sound advice
for those on the beginning of the road: “Don’t take
No for an answer. Never submit to failure. You will make
all kinds of mistakes, but as long as you are generous and
true, and also fierce, you cannot hurt the world or even
seriously distress her.” It is advice, both reassuring and
inspiring, that I have tried to follow.
I admire Sir Winston’s independence of thought
and action. As a schoolboy, he refused to turn to the East
whilst in Church because he deemed it a Popish practice.*
As a Member of Parliament, he followed his personal
convictions, even to the extent of changing parties.
Young politicians of the future would do well to add a
pinch of independence to their strategies. Again in the
1930s, Churchill pursued the deeply unpopular cause of
responding to the Hitler threat. It is difficult so many
years later to understand just how unpopular his message
was. It kept him out of office for ten years.
Admittedly his independent and controversial
stand over India and the Abdication did him harm, along
with the enmity felt towards him by Conservatives for his
move to the Liberals years before. That however was beside
the point: the issues on which one chooses to make a
stand are up to the individual’s conscience.
______________________________________________________
*See My Early Life, at the end of the chapter entitled “Childhood.”
I am not sure of the origin of this practise, nor have I ever observed
it. It is definitely not Church of England, but may have been
practised by one of the High Church groups, which are almost
Catholic in their form and services. (WSC writes that he shared a
Low Church preference with his nanny, Mrs. Everest, and was sure
Everest would regard facing east as “Popish.”)
“Churchill shows better
than anyone, historical or
contemporary, that if you
want something badly
enough, you can get it.”
The trendy argument among too many of my peers
is that Churchill was an old reactionary who
clung to ideas past their time, and resisted the future.
In fact he embraced the future.
He practically invented the tank, diverting naval
funds to its development because the Army felt that the
future lay with the horse. He personally sponsored naval
aviation, taking so great an interest as to learn to fly himself.
One could easily imagine his enthusiastic support of
the fax machine, which Alistair Cooke once reminded a
Churchill conference sparked the fall of Communism.
(“A spark coming from God knows where,” as Churchill
had predicted forty years beforehand.) Surely he would
endorse the Internet, though undoubtedly he’d have
trouble with its technicalities.
Churchill set up Labour Exchanges, forerunners of
the Job Centre for the unemployed, and secured labour
concessions still in force today. With astonishing prescience
he foretold the German advance in 1914 and the
atomic age nine years before Einstein warned President
Roosevelt of its implications. Churchill urged the creation
of a United Europe in eminently rational terms: “Sane
and instructed people should find no difficulty in reconciling
national and international duties, just as a good citizen
can reconcile his duty to his family and to his town,
to his country, and to the state. All men are necessary to
one another. The only limits to human progress are those
that are made by our own shortcomings.”
One could quite easily put those words into the
mouth of a modern politician and not find them out of
place. Yet they were spoken in the 1920s, and in the interconnected
digital age of today, we are still struggling to
put them into practice.
Young people today can draw much from the skills
Churchill possessed. “Study history, study history,” he famously
urged. “In history lie all the lessons of statecraft.”
He was a living example of the importance of learning
properly to speak and write English . At no disadvantage
by his lack of university training, he went on to make his
living by writing, won the Nobel Prize for Literature, became
a master of his craft, and saved civilisation by his
use of words. Could there be a greater example of the importance
of learning English and history
Churchill was a fine leader, and no one should be
deluded into thinking that leadership is a skill required
only in politics, or on a battlefield. Whilst those are the
most obvious venues, exactly the same principles—the
need to earn respect, to inspire and to motivate your followers—are
applicable in other walks of life.
continued overleaf
FINEST HOUR 115 / 21

Robert Courts...
Any organizer or leader must provide direction and
guidance. In teaching, one needs to gain the respect of
one’s class and to inspire students to learn. The situation
may be different, the skills may be called something
else—but it all comes down to leadership. And here
Churchill was sublime.
Above all, the greatest lessons young people can
learn from Winston Churchill were his belief in the
benevolent force of fate, that in the end, “all will come
right”; and in the importance of being true to oneself. He
knew that he could not remain in a party with which he
did not agree. He knew he could not hold office while simultaneously
warning of the Hitler war to come. He
could not tolerate being in a situation where he did not
belong. He was determined and industrious, forward—
looking and innovative, independent and brave. What
better role model could there be ,
TEACHING THE NEXT GENERATIONS
WHAT IF
Learn by Imagining...
JOSEPH R. ABRAHAMSON
Readers too young cogently to remember Winston
Churchill are far more numerous today than those
of us who do. What can we teach them Learn by
imagining!
On May 10th, 1940, Churchill became Prime
Minister of Great Britain. The appointment was a vindication
of the wisdom he had demonstrated, almost alone,
in opposition to the appeasement of Hitler.
On that same day the Germans attacked the Low
Countries and France. Within two weeks France collapsed,
and the British army was cornered at Dunkirk. It
seemed to many that Germany had won the war.
Churchill declared otherwise.
Powerful forces opposed him, even within his own
cabinet. Lord Halifax wanted to broker the best peace
Hitler would offer, cut Britain’s losses and avoid destruction.
Halifax had actually contacted Swedish diplomats
who were prepared to approach Hitler to learn his terms.
Realizing that once such contact with the Germans
was made, the game would be truly over, Churchill
fought to prevent that approach. In the end—with support
from Chamberlain, whom he had treated well—
Churchill prevailed. Five years later Germany was defeated.
This is our history.
______________________________________________________
Dr. Abrahamson is a retired M.D. living in San Diego, California.
But what if Churchill had not prevailed
Only those who were alive and sentient in 1940
can appreciate how different public opinion was then.
Today we value democracy and the free market. Sixty
years ago there was much less confidence in both. People
had lost faith in democratic forms of government. Many
admired Mussolini who, after all, had reduced the Italian
crime rate, made the trains run on time, and brought
order to a chaotic society. The murders of his political
opponents were casually overlooked.
Nazi Germany was also admired; an early form of
Political Corrrectness even held that she should not be
antagonized. Had not Hitler ended Germany’s earlier,
rampant anarchy Had he not put a stop to inflation,
built Autobahns and Volkswagens, ended unemployment,
and brought pride to a defeated people Even his
anti-Semitism found wide acceptance.
The desire for political and economic stability in
the depression-plagued West was so great that people actually
wanted more authoritarian government. Walter
Lippmann, in his widely read newspaper column, “Today
and Tomorrow,” wrote on 17 February 1933: “The danger
we have to fear is not that Congress will give Franklin
D. Roosevelt too much power, but that it will deny him
the power he needs.”
Writing in 1934, Reinhold Niebuhr, in his book
Reflections on the End of an Era, stated: “Next to the futility
of liberalism we may set down the inevitability of fascism
as a practical certainty in every Western nation....the
drift is inevitable.”
Many other influential Britons and Americans
agreed that democratic forms of government were effete,
and that the efficiency of fascist government was the future.
Joseph P. Kennedy, United States Ambassador to the
Court of St. James’s, expressed his view publicly in his famous
interview with Louis Lyons of The Boston Globe in
November 1940: “Democracy is done.... Democracy is
finished in England. It may be here.”
In the context of this reality, let us try to imagine
the results of a British surrender.
Hitler’s terms for Britain are known today. They
were not punitive. He did not look upon the Anglo-
Saxon as his inferior, or even his enemy. Britain would be
allowed to keep her Empire, and her navy. Germany was
to be given a free hand in Europe, but abroad all she
wanted was the African colonies that had been taken
away after World War I. How reasonable, after all!
From this point we can only speculate, using information
that has since come to light.
With support for fascism waxing, Britain elects a
fascist government headed by Sir Oswald Mosley, leader
of the British Union of Fascists. With Hitler’s approval,
Edward VIII is returned to the throne, with Wallis Simpson
his queen. Hated by Hitler, Churchill is in danger for
his life. He seeks asylum in America. Thus Britain is re-
FINEST HOUR 115 / 22

moved as a platform for any possible future assault on
Hitler’s Europe.
Without Britain at his back, Hitler is free to attack
the Soviet Union, much earlier than he had planned.
(Even with Britain in the war and despite a late start on
June 22nd, his troops pushed to within fifteen miles of
the Kremlin before winter set in.)
With an early start, Hitler takes Moscow and Stalin
signs a peace. (It is now known that an armistice was discussed
within the Soviet government as the Germans
were advancing.) Once the Volga is reached and the oil of
the Caucasus secured, Hitler has no further territorial demands
on the Soviets.
The United States, just beginning to rearm, has an
ill-equipped army of 100,000 men, antiquated tanks and
obsolete aircraft. Politically she is divided between supporters
of Britain and “America Firsters” led by Charles
Lindbergh. Many are just Americans who don’t want to
die. Others are members of the German-American Bund,
or admirers of Hitler or his policies.
While appreciating the danger of Japan, the U.S.
government cannot be concerned with Japan’s hegemony
over far-off China. Rearmament is perceived neither as
necessary nor universally desirable. (In early 1941 a bill
to extend the military draft for one year passed the
House of Representatives by one vote. The leading Republican
conservative of his day, Senator Robert Taft of
Ohio, opposed the draft and rearmament because, as he
said, “I do not want to offend the Japanese.”)
The United States has several choices. She can simply
go fascist, like the rest of the world. But Americans
decide to keep their democratic traditions and, as competition
mounts in the Pacific, America goes to war with
Japan. Hitler, free of serious challenge, aids his Japanese
ally but does not declare war himself. Germany develops
formidable rocketry and jet aircraft; America develops
the bomb. In time, Japan is defeated.
But the U.S. does not turn on Germany. Worn out
by war with Japan, America brings her troops home. In
view of Hitler she remains armed, but has no wish for a
European war. (Without the base that Britain provided,
from where could it begin) In time the Germans develop
their own atomic bomb, and a nuclear stalemate
ushers in the “new Dark Age” Churchill had imagined in
his speech of 18 June 1940.
This scenario is as sanguine as one could envision,
since it leaves the United States democratic. Far worse
scenarios are entirely possible.
To our great good fortune, none of this happened.
It did not happen because Churchill was in command.
He did win his struggle with Halifax in those fateful
days of May 1940. For this we owe him our freedom.
Let each of us young and old raise a glass to Winston
Leonard Spencer Churchill. Never was so much owed, by
so many, to one man. ,
TEACHING THE NEXT GENERATIONS
LIVE LONG
AND PROSPER
Make Maximum Use of the Time
Fate Has Assigned You
MANFRED WEIDHORN
In the late discussions about the “Person of the Century”
observers noted the staggering list of achievements
in different disciplines by this latter-day Renaissance
man, Winston Churchill. One achievement,
noted only in passing, helped make his record possible,
yet was partly a matter of good fortune rather than talent:
longevity.
In itself, longevity is nothing to brag about. Quite
a few people these days are living into their nineties.
What is at issue rather is fame: a concept debased in our
media-saturated celebrity culture. Andy Warhol’s remark
that everyone will get their fifteen minutes of fame is apposite;
many a person much spoken about one day is unknown
a year later.
Even among achievers, staying power is rare.
Alexander and Caesar, Byron and Mozart—they made
lasting impact but were soon gone. Rare is the person
who can stay in the public eye for as much as two
decades, whether it be an athlete like Babe Ruth or a general-diplomat-politician
like Napoleon.
Think, then, of the achievement of Churchill, who
was the subject of political cartoons for a period three
times as long!
From his first appearance on the world stage as the
hero-adventurer escapee from a Boer prison in 1899 to
the publication of the last volume of his History of the
English Speaking Peoples in 1958, Churchill was a headline
maker—a man to be reckoned with in one capacity
or another.
Who else comes close Louis XIV and Queen Victoria,
perhaps, but they were monarchs who needed only
to be. Churchill had to do. What other doers persisted so
long Picasso, Einstein, a few others. The list soon ends.
Put another way, one of the best things young people
can learn from Churchill is to make maximum use of
the time which fate has assigned you. ,
______________________________________________________
Dr. Weidhorn, of Fair Lawn, New Jersey, is Guterman Professor of
English Literature at Yeshiva University, a CC academic adviser, and
the preeminent scholar of Winston Churchill’s literary work.
FINEST HOUR 115 / 23

CHURCHILLIANA
THOSE REALISTIC HOLOGRAPH LETTERS
Don’t be taken in—they look genuine, but they’re reproductions.
JAMES MACK • SPECIMENS FROM THE MARK WEBER COLLECTION
The first-known facsimile, dated 1945, was
written to acknowledge congratulations following
V-E Day and sympathy after Churchill’s party’s
defeat in the 1945 General Election.
utograph Letter Signed by Winston S.
“AChurchill, British Prime Minister, on debossed
House of Commons Notepaper, thanking a well-wisher for a
kind message on his birthday, 1947. Folded once, slightly yellowed
from age, otherwise a fine copy. $1200.” (This was an
actual offer on the Internet, but the honest seller, alerted by
an observer, conscientiously withdrew the item.)
More than one seller or collector has been taken in by
these remarkable facsimile holograph notes, produced by
Churchill’s Private Office from 1945 through at least 1959—
some of them so convincing that casual observers swear they
are originals. But distinguishing one is easy: if there is no salutation,
it’s a facsimile.
The Private Office acted in self-defense. From the time
Winston Churchill was thrown out of office in the July 1945
General Election almost until the end of his days, letters,
cards, and gifts flowed to Hyde Park Gate, Downing Street
and Chartwell, attesting to the esteem in which he was held
by ordinary people all over the world.
So from time to time, his Private Office made him sit
down with his big black pen and ink a note—sans salutation,
Churchill’s birthday was always the signal for
well-wishers around the world to send cards, letters
and gifts. This 1947 facsimile has been personalized
for the sender by the Private Office.
This 1948 facsimile without embossment or return
address probably accompanied books people
sent to be autographed; after the war he became
careful about the books he actually inscribed.
sometimes dated, sometimes not—which they then reproduced
by the thousands, thrust into envelopes and popped
into the post. Write to Mr. Churchill, and chances were good
you would get a “handwritten” reply!
The reproductions, especially in the early days, were
remarkably lifelike, the intensity of the dark blue ink varying
with nib pressure, as it does normally. Churchill’s signature
often bears his characteristic flourish, and looks as genuine as
all get-out. Clearly these early examples were color separations,
not simply black-printed reproductions.
In the beginning, secretaries would often type the
name and sometimes the address of the recipient (“Mr. A.
Withers” in one example here) at the bottom of each note.
But soon the workload prevented even this modest individualization.
Through 1950, most notes bore an embossed
House of Commons seal; when Churchill returned to office
in 1951 they adopted a printed 10 Downing Street letterhead;
after he retired they were headed from Chartwell. The
last one he actually wrote may have been in 1959; after that
his hand became very shaky and the notes were simply
reprinted from previous ones, deleting the dates.
FINEST HOUR 115 / 24

Another birthday acknowledgement dated 1949.
In all likelihood Churchill prepared a similar
note for 1948. A former bodyguard, Ronald
Golding, told us, “The deluge would start in
November and continue through New Year’s.
It came in great sacks, delivered daily.”
The boss was made to sit down again and draft
a note for his 76th birthday in 1950. He must
have been a little busier this time around, because
this example shows inordinate signs of
haste, and not much consideration
for margins!
After he became Prime Minister again, the
birthday greetings reached a crescendo. By now
the Private Office decided not to date the thankyou
note so that it could be used again the following
year—and this is the first note that is obviously
not a color separation.
A real note entirely in Winston Churchill’s own hand,
sent to an individual, is worth anywhere from $2000/£1400
on up, depending on the recipient. To someone like Lloyd
George or Chamberlain, the value would be very high; one to
Roosevelt, assuming any escaped the Hyde Park files, would
be priceless. But these printed holographs should not command
more than £50/$75 on today’s market. They are nice
little items, fun to frame, but by no means rare. Mark Weber
has assembled this specimen collection of nine. If you have
any variations, please send us photocopies. ,
For his 80th birthday in 1954, Sir Winston received
many official gifts on behalf of Parliament
and the Nation, so the note was reworded accordingly.
Since many congratulations came from
abroad, it was printed on light airmail paper.
After Churchill retired in 1955, the Private Office
adopted Chartwell notepaper. Sir Winston’s
signature was visibly shakier by now, and this
1959 example may be the last one he actually
penned for reproduction.
Here is an all-purpose note which probably followed
the 1948 “all good wishes” note on the
page opposite. This variation one was undated so
as to be used permanently. Sometimes these were
sent with books in lieu of actual inscriptions.
FINEST HOUR 115 / 25

125-100-75-50 YEARS AGO
that all should share her joyous faith in it,
made her the centre of a devoted circle.”
125 Years Ago:
Summer 1877 • Age 2
“Radiant, Translucent, Intense”
Lord Randolph’s summer routine in
Dublin was described in his biography,
written years later by Winston:
“Often on a summer’s afternoon he
would repair to Howth, where the east
coast cliffs rise up into bold headlands
which would not be unworthy of the
Atlantic waves. Here in good company he
would make the ‘periplus’ as he called it—
or, in other words, sail round ‘Ireland’s
Eye’...catch lobsters, and cook and eat
them on the rocks of the island. In the
evenings he played half-crown whist in
Trinity College or at the University Club
or dined and argued with...his friends.
Before long he had been in Donegal, in
Connemara, and all over the place—‘Hail
fellow, well met’ with everybody except
the aristocrats and the old Tories.”
Meanwhile, Churchill’s mother was
making her own impression. Edgar Vincent,
an international banker in Turkey
and former Ambassador to Berlin, wrote
in his memoirs his impression of Lady
Randolph:
“I have the clearest recollection of
seeing her for the first time. It was at the
Viceregal Lodge at Dublin. The Viceroy
was on the dais at the farther end of the
room...but eyes were not turned on him
or on his consort, but on a dark, lithe figure,
standing somewhat apart and appearing
to be of another texture to those
around her, radiant, translucent, intense, a
diamond star in her hair, her favourite
ornament—its lustre dimmed by the
Michael McMenamin
Winston’s mother.
flashing glory of her eyes. More of the
panther than of the woman in her look,
but with a cultivated intelligence
unknown to the jungle. Her courage not
less great than that of her husband—fit
mother for descendants of the great Duke.
With all these attributes of brilliancy, such
kindliness and high spirits that she was
universally popular. Her desire to please,
her delight in life, and the genuine wish
100 Years Ago:
Summer 1902 • Age 27
“Elsewhere Regarded
as a Crime...”
The outbreak of four arsons at the
Royal Military College, Sandhurst,
was the occasion for Churchill once more
publicly to criticize the government. An
inside job was suspected. When a fifth fire
broke out on 25 June in “C” Company,
the Army’s Commander-In-Chief, Lord
Roberts, ordered that all cadets in “C”
Company would be sent home without
taking their examinations and all servants
would be dismissed unless (a) they had an
alibi and could prove they were not present
when the fire was set, or (b) those
who set the fire confessed. No one came
forward, twenty-nine cadets were sent
home and three servants dismissed when
they could not furnish alibis.
To The Times on 7 July 1902,
Churchill wrote: “I will not take occasion
here to comment upon this travesty of
justice further than to point out three cardinal
principles of equity which it violates—that
suspicion is not evidence; that
accused persons should be heard in their
own defence; and that it is for the accuser
to prove his charge, not for the defendant
to prove his innocence. But it is necessary
to observe the effects. Twenty-nine cadets
have been rusticated, and will, in consequence,
forfeit six months’ seniority, a
matter of vast importance to a soldier....
“Mr. Brodrick has stated in the
House of Commons that he approves and
that Lord Roberts approves of these proceedings.
I therefore invite them to answer
three questions: What is the charge
against these twenty-nine cadets What is
the evidence in support of it When and
before whom has it been proved These
are short, plain questions, which not only
involve the interests of innocent and
deserving people, but also raise various
ancient and valuable principles; and, if fair
play is still honoured in the British Army,
they ought to be answered.”
When Rev. Frederick Westcott, the
FINEST HOUR 115 / 26

headmaster of Sherborne, wrote to The
Times that “The innocent, doubtless, suffer
with the guilty; but then they always
do. The world has been so arranged,”
Churchill replied: “Has it indeed No
doubt he has taken care that the little
world over which he presides is arranged
on that admirable plan, but it is necessary
to tell him that elsewhere the punishment
of innocent people is regarded as a crime
or as a calamity to be prevented by
unstinted exertion.”
Eventually Lord Roberts reversed
course and promised that each case would
be reviewed individually and investigated
again. In the event, all three servants were
reinstated, along with twenty-seven cadets.
Churchill spent the late summer of
1902 holidaying in Scotland, staying with
the Duke of Sutherland, as well as visiting
with the King at Balmoral Castle.
75 Years Ago:
Summer 1927 • Age 52
“A Vast Wet Blanket”
125-100-75-50 YEARS AGO
Tax cuts were high on Churchill’s
agenda. In May, he had written to a
Treasury official and offered a harsh critique
of British economic policy since the
war: “We have assumed since the war,
largely under the guidance of the Bank of
England, a policy of deflation, debt repayment,
high taxation, large sinking funds
and Gold Standard. This has raised our
credit, restored our exchange and lowered
the cost of living. On the other hand it
has produced bad trade, hard times, an
immense increase in unemployment
involving costly and unwise remedial
measures, attempts to reduce wages in
conformity with the cost of living and so
increase the competitive power, fierce
labour disputes arising therefrom, with
expense to the State and community measured
by hundreds of millions....This debt
and taxation lie like a vast wet blanket
across the whole process of creating new
wealth by new enterprise.”
Churchill’s solution was “an immense
reduction in the burden of local rates” on
factories and farmers to the tune of £30
million. Churchill wrote to Prime Minister
Stanley Baldwin on 6 June: “It would
be a steam roller flattening out all the
petty interests which have obstructed
Block Grants and rating reform....Industry
would be stimulated, Agriculture placated,
and the immense mass of the
ratepayers would be astonished and gratified.
Every town and every part of the
country, as well as every class, would share
the boon. It might even be possible, without
starving local services, to shift the basis
of assessment from property to profits;
and if this could be done, the relief would
come with increasing effect to the
depressed and struggling industries and
factories, with reactions upon our competitive
power and upon employment of
the utmost benefit.”
Churchill spent much time at
Chartwell, painting and building walls,
ponds, and dams; there also he was working
on his autobiography.
In July, Kevin O’Higgins, Justice
Minister in the Irish Free State and a close
associate of Michael Collins, was assassinated
by the IRA. On July 12th Churchill
saluted “the remarkable strength of his
character.”
In September, Churchill visited the
King at Balmoral and painted a highland
scene from his window: “It is not often
that the paths of duty and enjoyment fall
so naturally together,” he wrote. “I had a
particularly pleasant luncheon with the
King when we went out deer driving, and
a very good talk about all sorts of things. I
am very glad that he did not disapprove of
my using the Ministerial room as a studio,
and I took particular care to leave no spots
on the Victorian tartans.”
50 Years Ago:
Summer 1952 • Age 77
“Parliament is Having a Holiday”
Cutting taxes was again on Churchill’s
mind as he met with his Cabinet on
20 August. The topic was the need for a
tax-free education allowance for the children
of members of the Armed Forces.
But as Churchill told his colleagues, “Service
parents were not alone in this difficulty:
all middle-class parents were finding it
increasingly difficult to send their children
FINEST HOUR 115 / 27
to boarding schools by reason of the high
level of taxation....Should not the Government
aim rather at reducing taxation to a
level which would enable people to meet
their obligations out of taxed incomes”
Privately, Churchill was hoping General
Eisenhower would secure the Republican
nomination for President of the
United States, though in the election he
would favor Adlai Stevenson. He wrote to
his wife, on holiday in Italy: “I am relieved
at Ike’s progress over Taft. Once the
American election is over we may be able
to make real headway. Either Ike or the
Democrats wd be all right. A Taft-
MacArthur combine wd be vy bad.” His
Private Secretary, Jock Colville, noted in
his diary: “He told me that if Eisenhower
were elected President, he would have
another shot at making peace by means of
a meeting of the Big Three. For that alone
it would perhaps be worth remaining in
office. He thought that while Stalin lived
we were safer from attack than if he died
and his lieutenants started scrambling for
the succession.”
In early September, Churchill spent
two weeks at Lord Beaverbrook’s villa in
the south of France, painting and working
on his memoirs. Shortly before leaving
England he had addressed his constituency
in Woodford: “Parliament is having a
holiday. That is a very good thing for the
House of Commons....There is another
reason which I must not forget for Parliament
having a holiday. We felt it would
be a good thing for the Opposition to
have a little leisure to think over their
political position, and arrive at some more
coherent form of thought, and consistent
line of policy. Something better than class
warfare is surely needed at a time when
parties are so evenly balanced that it is
really like setting one-half of the nation
against the other.”
Lord Moran noted in his diary upon
Churchill’s return: “The PM... says he feels
better for it; he has more vigour. ‘I had no
money to gamble at the tables, but I did
three pictures while I was away, and
worked five hours every day at my book.’
In France he got a second wind. He said to
me today: ‘The Government position is
stronger than it was a year ago. I have not
yet decided when to resign. It might do
me no good when the curtain is down.’” ,

© 2001 MERRILL LYNCH & CO. INC.
ENGLISH SPEAKING PEOPLES
ON WAR CRIMES
Why was Churchill so
forgiving of the Germans
LLOYD W. ROBERTSON
Awar crimes tribunal was a novelty at the time of
the Nuremberg Trials after World War II. Now
such a tribunal—the International Criminal
Court—may become a permanent institution. The International
Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia
made headlines by making a case against Milosevic;
Pinochet was ordered back to Chile by a Spanish court.
Milosevic was and is guilty of “ethnic cleansing,” which
many people take to be equivalent to attempted genocide;
Pinochet was charged with crimes similar to those the
Nazis committed—not just war crimes, but crimes against
humanity. Today many are wondering what will or should
be done with surviving leaders of the Taliban and al
Qaeda after the attacks on New York and Washington on
September 11th. An international trial is again recommended
in some circles.
Whether these different cases should all be treated
in the same way is a good question. Were the Nazis not
merely an extreme case, but a bizarre exception Pinochet
seems hardly comparable. Was Hitler’s a unique pathology
If so, it may not be wise to pattern modern cases
after the Nuremberg example; perhaps, instead of thinking
only of punishing the guilty, we should try to discover
what is beneficial.
As we seek guidance on how to proceed, we may
learn from the thoughts of Winston Churchill. What he
says about war crimes and war criminals is remarkably
consistent, if we allow for his need on occasion to temper
his views alongside public opinion.
Churchill came to believe that the Nuremberg trials
were both just and beneficial—that they more or less
successfully punished those who were guilty of terrible
crimes. He referred to “Hitler’s crimes,” and the worst
horrors of the Nazi movement, as “squalid.” But his embrace
of the Nuremberg trials apparently remained an exception
to his general view that defeated war leaders
should not be tried. And the advocates of war crimes trials
today are almost certainly recommending them in circumstances
where Churchill did not.
When World War I ended in 1918, Churchill was
in Prime Minister Lloyd George’s cabinet. Lloyd George
called an election, and both he and Churchill were surprised
by the way the British electorate looked upon the
late war. The public had a clear agenda, as Churchill wrote
in The Aftermath: “Three demands rose immediate and
clangorous from the masses of the people, viz. to hang the
Kaiser; to abolish conscription; and to make the Germans
pay the uttermost farthing [in reparations to the victors].”
In contemporary language, we would say the
British public wanted Kaiser Wilhelm, who had led his
country into war, to be punished as a war criminal, and
they wanted the German people as a whole to pay a finan-
ENGLISH SPEAKING PEOPLES is a periodic series of articles which apply
Churchill’s wisdom and experience to modern-day issues among the
Great Democracies. Responsible opposing opinion is welcome and
will be published. Mr. Robertson, who holds a Ph.D. in political science
from the University of Toronto, taught in post-secondary education
for eight years, including six in the United States. Today he works
in government in Ontario, Canada. For anyone who wishes further to
consider the issues he raises, he recommends a thoughtful book by a
teacher of his, Clifford Orwin, The Humanity of Thucydides.
FINEST HOUR 115 / 28

cial penalty. However cruel and shortsighted these demands
might seem now, there seemed ample reason for
them at the time. Many countries had suffered terribly in
the Great War, and Britain has been said to have lost a
generation of young men. Germany had suffered as well,
but the British people clearly saw the German government,
along with Germans who supported what had
begun as a very popular war, as aggressors deserving of
punishment.
When all parties to a war fight relentlessly and
remorselessly, it might be difficult to support
the claim that some are more guilty than others.
In the case of the Great War, however, vast debates
among historians continue to provide some support for
the conclusion that Germany’s ambition to build an empire
comparable to Britain’s, combined with the Kaiser’s
impulsiveness and arrogance, were decisive factors in
bringing this terrible war on the countries involved. Likewise,
Germany was the first country to develop and use
“gas” or chemical warfare; and in the early battles, Germans
were known to use tricks such as pretending to surrender,
then luring their enemies into an ambush. In
short, the British had reason, based on knowledge, to believe
that the Great War occurred because Germany
wanted it, and was as terrible as it was because the Germans
escalated it both in scale and in tactics.
In The Aftermath, Churchill spends more time on
the “reparations” question than on the “hang the Kaiser”
question, but he does explain why there was such strong
popular revulsion to the Kaiser, supported by virtually all
politicians. (The moderates, including Churchill, insisted
on a trial first. In January 1920 the Allies demanded that
the Kaiser be extradited from his place of exile in Holland,
but no further action was ever taken. The Kaiser
died there in 1941.) “For four years the Kaiser had been
pilloried by every form of propaganda as the man whose
criminal ambition and wicked folly had loosed the awful
flood of misery upon the world,” Churchill wrote. “He
was the man responsible for all the slaughter. Why should
he not be punished for it”
Churchill admits he did not seriously challenge
this view, at least not in public, but he also reports his private
thoughts at the time: “Personally, I was not convinced
that the responsibility of princes for acts of state
could be dealt with in this way.” He says he considered
the effect on the German people and thus on European
politics: “It seemed that to hang the Kaiser was the best
way to restore at once his dignity and his dynasty.” In later
years Churchill was known to say that participants in the
Treaty of Versailles were wrong to force a changed regime
on Germany, and to end the reign of the royal family. In
hindsight, at least, it seems there was something to be said
for the Kaiser’s dynasty, and perhaps even for his dignity,
if these might have helped prevent the rise of Hitler.
We can get more of the flavour of Churchill’s own
view from his report of a conversation he had with Lloyd
George on the night of the Armistice, 11 November
1918. Enormous changes would now be required. Soldiers
would come home, looking for jobs; women would (presumably)
have to give up their munitions work, which
had come to be higher-paying than similar jobs for men
in peacetime. The economy would have to be switched to
a peacetime footing; and of course there were real issues
surrounding “the settlement of Europe”—including the
moral and legal claims of the victors, and how best to rebuild
the economies of friends, and perhaps of enemies as
well. “The conversation,” Churchill writes, “ran on the
great qualities of the German people, on the tremendous
fight they had made against three-quarters of the world,
on the impossibility of rebuilding Europe except with
their aid.”
Churchill and Lloyd George, apparently, had no
interest in blaming the Germans—not even the Kaiser.
On the contrary, they praised the former enemy for their
war effort. As for whether Britain had an interest in helping
or harming Germany, there was no doubt: Britain’s
economy could enjoy maximum growth only if there was
a healthy German economy.
Churchill and Lloyd George could easily have advanced
a more sophisticated version of the “popular” view
that Britain was morally in the right and Germany in the
wrong. It could have been argued, for example, that the
balance of power before the war had not only favoured
Britain, but had kept the peace; that any country which
threatened the balance was an aggressor, responsible for
the harm that ensued; that the British were right to oppose
any threat to that balance. That was not a doctrine
on which Churchill insisted—in fact, in the crucial passages,
he doesn’t even mention it. Why was Churchill in
1918 so forgiving of the Germans, and possibly of the
Kaiser himself
After the end of the Second World War, which in
many ways was a continuation of the First,
Churchill reflected on the events that led Europe
from the First to the Second. Once again he shows no
anger at the Germans—certainly not at their ambition,
which could easily become war-mongering, but was
closely tied to their ability to overcome hardship:
“Germany might be disarmed; her military system
shivered in fragments; her fortresses dismantled. Germany
might be impoverished; she might be loaded with measureless
indemnities; she might become a prey to internal
feuds: but all this would pass in ten years or in twenty.
The indestructible might ‘of all the German tribes’ would
rise once more and the unquenched fires of warrior Prussia
glow and burn again.”
Churchill wrote these words, describing the end
of World War I, after the end of World War II; by then he
FINEST HOUR 115 / 29

ON WAR CRIMES...
was well aware of the Holocaust and other Nazi atrocities,
and of the Nuremberg Trials which were a response. Did
the horror of World War II convince Churchill that some
individuals were truly war criminals, and deserved to be
punished as such
As World War II had gone on, Churchill did support
the increasingly popular view that German
war criminals should be punished. He took credit
for drafting a statement issued in the autumn of 1943 in
the names of three “heads of government”: Roosevelt and
Stalin, along with himself. The statement referred to
“atrocities, massacres, and executions,” and promised that
“German officers and members of the Nazi Party” who
were responsible would be “sent back to the countries in
which their abominable deeds were done.” But there is no
reference to an international tribunal. In the House of
Commons in 1942, Churchill referred to the “mass deportation”
of Jews in France and the “scattering of families”
as “the most bestial, the most squalid and the most
senseless of all offences,” and said that the “hour of liberation”
for Europe would also be “the hour of retribution.”
In an Appendix to the final volume of The Second
World War, Churchill reprints without comment a letter
he wrote to his Foreign Secretary, Anthony Eden. In it he
referred to mass “butcheries,” particularly of Jews, as
“probably the greatest and most horrible crime ever committed”
and says “all concerned who may fall into our
hands, including those who only obeyed orders...should
be put to death after their association with the murders
has been proved.” This letter, in particular, has been cited
favourably by writers on the Holocaust.
Yet behind or beneath these statements, which
may have been intended to keep up morale and hatred of
the enemy while the war had not yet been won, was the
“old” Churchill, hesitant to judge those who cause wars or
inflict terrible deeds during wars. Partly, no doubt, because
of his experiences after the First War, Churchill was
concerned that the public in Allied countries would demand
large-scale punishment of the German people as a
whole, which would in the end prove counter-productive.
For example, in his discussion of the Allied demand
for “unconditional surrender,” Churchill stresses
that the main issue was whether Germans were given hope
of clemency; with no hope, they might fight on to the
bitter end at a tremendous cost to the Allies.
But Churchill’s hands were tied: “...a statement of
the actual conditions on which the three great Allies
would have insisted and would have been forced by public
opinion to insist, would have been far more repulsive to
any German peace movement than the general expression
‘unconditional surrender’....I myself wished to publish a
list of some 50 to 100 outlaws of first notoriety with a
view to dissociating the mass of the people from those
who will suffer capital punishment at the hands of the Allies
and of avoiding anything in the nature of mass executions.
This would tend to reassure the ordinary people.”
Perhaps jokingly, Stalin proposed at the 1943
Teheran Conference that 50,000 Germans—military officers
and technicians—be “rounded up and shot”—not because
of the Holocaust or mistreatment of civilians, but so
that “German military strength would be extirpated.”
Later Stalin, perhaps recalling his success with Russia’s
show trials, insisted on trials for alleged war criminals, and
was interested in employing some of the defeated enemy
as slave labour. Churchill sometimes suggested that one
argument for international trials was that they would save
some individuals from Soviet justice. At Yalta in 1945,
Stalin insisted on trials, preferably public; Roosevelt
wanted limited publicity for any trials; Churchill suggested
shooting “the grand criminals” only, without trial.*
Churchill wished to give up as few Germans as
possible to appease the popular outcry. In “Lawless Redress,”
a recent article on war crimes, columnist George
Will wrote that in any event, “Leading Nazis were going
to be killed. It would have been done by vengeful vigilantes
if it had not been done with Nuremberg’s patina of
judicial sanction....” To paraphrase: we who are responsible
had better ensure a hanging, lest there be a lynching
that is out of control.
At another point Churchill says that in the spirit
of unconditional surrender, “we would not negotiate with
any of the war criminals....It was more probable that
Hitler and his associates would be killed or would disappear....”
Certainly in 1948, as Sir Martin Gilbert’s biography
shows, Churchill opposed the “interminable and indefinite
persecution and hunting-down of individuals;
after all, the principal criminals have been punished.”
Speaking in the House of Commons in 1946,
Churchill advised against judging “vast categories of Germans”
as “potentially guilty,”and above all against condemning
the “ordinary people” of Germany. When ordinary
people are subjected to cruelty, he said, “there are
great numbers...who will succumb....I thank God that in
this island home of ours, we have never been put to the
test which many of the peoples of Europe have had to undergo.”
*In fact, of twenty-two defendants at the International Military
Tribunal—the first Nuremberg Trial in 1945-46—twelve were
given the death penalty, three were acquitted, three were given
life imprisonment, and four were imprisoned for ten to twenty
years. This was the first of many trials in Germany and elsewhere.
According to the website of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre,
the three main Western Allies convicted more than 5,000
Nazis, sentencing over 800 to death, and executing almost 500.
The Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany) eventually
indicted 90,921 suspected Nazi criminals; 6,627 were sentenced
to prison terms, and twelve were condemned to death.
FINEST HOUR 115 / 30

“Applying Churchill’s thought and
experience when considering the fate
of the Taliban and al Qaeda may require
us to ask: How can we
positively affect opinion in the
greater Islamic world”
With all this in mind, it is not surprising that
Churchill lobbied to spare the German field
marshals and generals, who were not necessarily
Nazis, from being treated as criminals. In October
1948 he gave a speech in which he said that “on every
ground, soldierly, juridical and humanitarian, [trying the
military leaders] is known to be a wrong and base thing to
do.” He also mused on several occasions that if the war
had gone the other way, he personally would have been
“in the dock.” As in the case of the First World War, he
was concerned that military and political leaders should
not be blamed for doing what they must to achieve national
ambitions, even if their actions are morally dubious
when taken in isolation.
Apart from the question of justice was that of benefit.
Churchill wanted Germany to be rearmed (as part of
a European force) as quickly as possible in the late 1940s,
“for defence against Communist and Russian aggression.”
Trials might influence many Germans still making up
their minds whether to side with the West in the new
world order. Likewise, Churchill thought, American General
MacArthur’s rebuilding of Japan was a model of reconciliation
and “statecraft.” Just as when he enthusiastically
allied with Stalin during the war, Churchill was always
ready and able to concentrate on the greatest threat
of the moment.
As the first Nuremberg Trial unfolded, Churchill
expressed surprise at the extent of the German atrocities,
saying that, while he had had misgivings at the beginning,
he had come to feel the trial was justified. Such comments
may have been disingenuous, since he was well informed
about the Holocaust long before the end of the war. But
his comments were misleading in another way. The question
he seemed to pose was not whether the guilty were
punished, but rather whether Nuremberg served the interests
of Britain and other countries involved.
Churchill’s “moral” in The Second World War was:
“In War: Resolution; In Defeat: Defiance; In Victory:
Magnanimity; In Peace: Good Will.” He may actually
have lived up to that motto as much as anyone. By contrast,
what we are all too likely to find when public opinion
alone guides policy is hesitancy to make war, indignation
that anyone actually opposes us, exaggerated rhetoric
about the enemy, and vindictiveness and malice in victory.
Why, as seems likely, did Churchill believe that except
for the Nazis, there should probably be no war crimes
trials He obviously knew that strong leaders may remain
popular in their own country, and might be useful, especially
in another war—provided we can free ourselves of
recriminations over the last one. Thus Churchill, like the
American General Patton, had an interest in seeing a German
military force, including many officers, turned, if
necessary, against the Soviet Union.
He seems also to have suspected that persons who
fall short of true greatness are inclined to judge the great
harshly. Churchill preferred that the great be acknowledged.
He saw positive attributes in the greatest German
generals, such as Rommel and Guderian, and ruminated
about the situation had the Axis won, visualizing himself
“in the dock.”
Today, the debate about the benefits and justice of
war crimes tribunals continues. If trials follow a
war, will they continue the divisions and bitterness
of the conflict rather than contribute to reconciliation
“History is written by the winners”: won’t the winners always
place their opposite numbers on trial With rare exceptions—the
Holocaust certainly is one—won’t those
who are accused and convicted, or many of them, appear
to a fair observer to have done no worse than many others
who go free Won’t the proceedings institutionalize the
notion that an action is criminal when performed by
those unfortunate enough to be defeated, but forgivable,
even heroic, when performed by the winners Is selective
justice truly justice Or does it, in the language of
Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms, “bring the administration
of justice into disrepute”
Applying Churchill’s thought and experience
when considering the fate of the Taliban and al Qaeda
may require us to ask: How can we positively affect opinion
in the greater Islamic world This does not mean renouncing
violence, for as the World Wars showed, violence
is sometimes necessary. But when violence ends we
may need to demonstrate we are actually committed to
the rule of law and not to vigilante justice. The American
leadership seems to have the same reservation about public
trials that Roosevelt did in the 1940s. Such trials can
be made into a mockery, and a recruiting tool, by determined
suspects.
The Nazis who were put on trial acted completely
beaten, as indeed they were, so the Nuremberg Trials
helped solidify both the outcome of the war and the positive
rebuilding effort in Germany and elsewhere. Churchill
can teach us to be impressed at that exercise; but also not
to assume that such good fortune will always prevail, nor
that the same procedure will always be wise. ,
FINEST HOUR 115 / 31

Love Story
Richard M. Langworth
“The Gathering Storm,” a film for
television produced by BBC Films
and HBO Inc., starring Albert Finney
as Winston Churchill and Vanessa
Redgrave as Clementine. Script by
Hugh Whitemore, directed by
Richard Loncraine. 90 minutes. We
have eight brand new reviewer’s videotapes
(USA format), $40 postpaid in
USA, elsewhere enquire; make
payable to The Churchill Center.
Churchill films seldom engender
unanimity among reviewers, but
everyone in the room watching the
preview, by kind invitation of the
British Consul in Boston, had the same
reaction: astonishment at just how
good this film is. Even in a cynical and
antiheroic age, filmmakers still can
recreate what Lady Soames calls “The
Saga” without reducing her father to a
flawed burlesque or a godlike caricature.
With the exception of one huge
gap in the story line, “The Gathering
Storm” is a masterpiece.
BOOKS, ARTS
&CURIOSITIES
Unexpectedly in the male-dominated
world of the 1930s, but perhaps
intentionally in 2002, the greatest supporting
roles are female. Clementine
Churchill is one of these. Badly misplayed
by Sean Phillips in the “Wilderness
Years” documentary two decades
ago (FH 38), Clemmie gets justice at
the hands of Vanessa Redgrave.
Redgrave not only looks the
part—Winston Churchill, who should
know, says the resemblance is uncanny.
But scriptwriter Hugh Whitemore has
also provided her with exactly the right
lines as she cajoles, scolds, wheedles
and encourages her husband. “I often
put myself in Clemmie’s shoes,” wrote
Diana Duff Cooper, “and as often felt
how they pinched and rubbed till I
kicked them off, heroic soles and all,
and begged my husband to rest and be
careful. Fortunately, Clemmie was a
mortal of another clay.” (FH 83:13).
Equally compelling is Ava (Lena
Headey), the beautiful wife of Ralph
Wigram (Linus Roache) a Foreign Office
official who, as Martin Gilbert revealed
in the official biography, risked
his career to bring Churchill secret
documents on Germany’s rearmament.
Devotedly Ava bears her husband’s
strain, her deep concern for a son suffering
from cerebral palsy, and the
worst that politics can throw at her.
Angered by Wigram’s aid to
Churchill, a government toady named
Pettifer (in life Walter Runciman, President
of the Board of Trade) visits Ava
with a threat: if Ralph doesn’t stop
helping Churchill he will be transferred
abroad, leaving Ava and the boy alone
in London. She promptly tells him to
do his worst and throws him out.
This is an overdue tribute to a little-known
heroine. Ava Bodley married
Ralph Wigram in 1925. After Ralph’s
death from polio in 1936 she wrote to
WSC: “He adored you so & always
said you were the greatest Englishman
alive.” In 1941 she married John Anderson,
later Viscount Waverly, Home
Secretary and later Chancellor of the
Exchequer in Churchill’s wartime government,
for whom the Anderson Shelter
was named. Churchill was devoted
to Ava, and when Anderson died in
1958, Martin Gilbert reports, Sir Winston
telephoned her from Chartwell:
“After commiserating with her on Lord
Waverly’s death he was silent for a
while, then said to her with what
sounded like tears in his voice, ‘For
Ralph Wigram grieve.’”
Albert Finney, who plays Winston,
is ten or fifteen years too old and
looks more like WSC’s late nephew
Peregrine. But his mannerisms and pale
blue eyes are right, and he grows on
you, despite unnecessary toilet scenes
and red velvet siren suits worn round
the clock. Finney overplays the role—
every Churchill impersonator does except
Robert Hardy. He’s no Hardy, but
Finney is all right. Again Whitemore’s
script comes through: here and there is
a snatch of words Churchill spoke in
different contexts (e.g., a 1939 broadcast,
recast as a Commons speech in
1936). But the flow is so seamless that
only the determined critic will notice.
The rest of the casting is good:
not perhaps so physically exact as in
“The Wilderness Years,” but convincing
and finely directed by Richard
Loncraine. Sarah Churchill should
have had a flame red wig to hide that
mousy hair, and Brendan Bracken also
starts too dark-haired, though his mop
reddens as the crisis mounts!
Randolph is too young and silly;
Nigel Havers was a better Randolph in
the 1982 version. Derek Jacobi makes
a lifelike Stanley Baldwin. Sir Robert
Vansittart (Tom Wilkinson) is the uneasy
Undersecretary of State for Foreign
Affairs, balancing loyalty to his
government with fear for his country,
saying of Churchill, “he demands total
loyalty,” and implying that it’s worth it.
The opening scenes at Chartwell
in 1934 play like Manchester’s prologue
to his second volume of The Last
Lion, providing a penetrating look at
the household down to “Mr. Accountant
Woods,” who pronounces Win-
FINEST HOUR 115 / 32

ston’s finances a shambles. Winston’s
hobbies—painting, bricklaying, feeding
his fish, watching his pigs (the famous
pig line is de rigueur)—are nicely
done, though the fishpond is not the
one at Chartwell. Mary looks more like
Chelsea Clinton than the beautiful
Mary, but Ronnie Barker has come out
of retirement to make an ideal Inches,
the long-suffering, devoted butler.
If this film were not so good, the
gap in the story line would be unforgivable:
After 1936 and Baldwin’s retirement
as Prime Minister, we skip
ahead to the war and Churchill’s arrival
at the Admiralty. How can a film entitled
“The Gathering Storm” ignore the
premiership of Neville Chamberlain
and Munich
Granted, there are just ninety
minutes, so it’s fair to forego, say, the
Abdication Crisis. But without Munich
the story falls short of its dramatic potential.
Sadly too, Churchill in Commons
mainly utters only banal statistics
about aircraft. By devoting fewer minutes
to India and aircraft, they could
have allowed Finney to tackle that
most famous prewar oration, after Munich:
“I have watched this famous island
descending the stairway which
leads to a dark gulf.”
A minor flaw is the failure to
identify the characters. Modern audiences
would benefit from seeing the
credits before the film, the actors portrayed
alongside a few lines defining
the characters they represent. But
there’s little else to criticize, and what’s
missing from 1937-39 is balanced by
what’s included from 1934-36. Have
they left room for a sequel
The essence of this film is not so
much the urgency of the hour, the
naivete of Britain’s leaders, their refusal
to act “until self-preservation strikes its
jarring gong,” Churchill’s defiant warnings
when nobody would listen (his
true finest hour, many think)—and the
relevance of Britain’s inertia to our
growing lethargy today, in the face of
threats more perilous than we seem to
realize. All that is there—but primarily
this is a love story.
The intensity of Winston and
Clementine’s devotion to one another
permeates the tale. From their spats
over money to their rapid reconciliations;
from Winston’s chagrin at Clemmie’s
four-month escape to the South
Seas (“If it weren’t for Mary I’d be awfully
miserable”) to his impromptu
romp through the fishpond upon her
return; to his touching tribute as he returns
to the Admiralty (“thank you for
loving me”), the film exudes the powerful
ties that all marriages should
have, and theirs did. Churchill once
described his marriage: “Here firm,
though all be crumbling.” Fortunately
for him, it really was. Give BBC and
HBO a tip of the hat. ,
“If We Lose at
Sea, We Lose...”
David Freeman
Churchill’s Anchor: The Biography of
Admiral of the Fleet Sir Dudley Pound
OM, GCB, GCVO, by Robin Brodhurst.
Barnsley, South Yorkshire: Leo
Cooper, 320 pp., illus. Regular price
$36.95, member price $30.
While accompanying the Prime
Minister to Washington for talks
with the American high command in
May 1943, Britain’s First Sea Lord, Sir
Dudley Pound, was asked by a journalist:
“Can you give us anything on the
Prof. Freeman earned teaches at California
State University, Fullerton.
battle of the Atlantic How’s it really
going” Pound looked grave, stroked
his chin, and chatter died away as the
entire room listened for his answer.
Eventually, after long consideration, he
said, still with a deadly serious expression:
“I can tell you this, my boy. I’d
rather be Ernie King or Dudley Pound
than that fellow Doenitz!”
Victory in the crucial Battle of the
Atlantic owed as much to the strategic
vision of Pound as it did to the thousands
of sailors who waged the struggle
on salt water. For it was Pound who
understood from the war’s beginning
and made clear to his colleagues and
superiors the salient point: “If we lose
the war at sea, we lose the war.”
Amazingly, perhaps, for a subject
as well documented as World War II
naval history, there has never before
been a dedicated biography of the man
who led Britain’s Senior Service during
the war’s first four years. Robin Brodhurst,
who is Head of History at Pangbourne
College, has at last filled the
gap with this admirable work made
possible, appropriately, by means of a
Churchill Fellowship. Agreeably, Brodhurst,
like Churchill, graduated from
Sandhurst and served in the army before
pursuing his interests in writing
the history of naval affairs. As the title
implies, Churchill figures prominently
in this book, over half of which is given
over to the Second World War.
Unfortunately, there is no collection
of Pound’s papers, the majority of
which were destroyed after his death by
his professional successors. Consequently,
perhaps, there is little in this
biography dealing with Pound’s personal
life beyond the bare facts of his
family which, from tantalizing hints,
raise questions that are left unanswered.
Still, Brodhurst writes in a
clear style that ably carries his readers
through sometimes complex matters. If
there is a complaint to make, it is over
the author’s hair-splitting attention to
grammar in primary documents that
results in a disconcerting number of
“[sic]” abbreviations in the text. Nev-
continued overleaf
FINEST HOUR 115 / 33

Freeman, continued
ertheless, this is a well-researched biography
and a crackling good read.
Like the prime minister he ably
served, Pound was American on his
mother’s side. Elizabeth Pickman
Rogers came, appropriately, from an
old Massachusetts seafaring family, but
seems to have been a much more impossible
woman than Jennie Jerome.
Ultimately, she proved too much for
her husband, Alfred Pound, who preferred
the quiet life of a country solicitor.
Mrs. Pound’s kleptomania and excessive
borrowing destroyed her marriage
and poisoned her own image in
the memory of her son. Her profligacy
also meant that Dudley would
throughout his life be wholly dependent
on his navy pay for an income
which itself was subject to the vicissitudes
of the tight budgets of the interwar
years. After his retirement Admiral
of the Fleet Pound declined Churchill’s
offer of a peerage in the belief that his
family could not support such a position
financially.
While he may not have recalled
his mother with fondness, Dudley
Pound inherited from her the same
strong-willed determination that
Churchill, Harold Macmillan and the
now late Lord Hailsham all recognized
and remarked upon in their own
American mothers. Like those statesmen,
Pound enjoyed something of a
mercurial life.
Born on 29 August 1877, Dudley
Pound began his naval career at age
thirteen and followed the conventional
path of the pre-1914 Royal Navy. He
excelled on exams, usually coming first
and marking himself out as a young officer
of promise by the time he received
his commission. During the late Victorian
and Edwardian periods, he proceeded
rapidly up the ranks.
In the first month of the Great
War, Pound demonstrated his farsightedness
by stressing the need for aircraft
to work with the navy in anti-submarine
warfare. Soon afterwards, he made
Captain and was appointed naval assistant
to the First Sea Lord, the inimitable
Jacky Fisher. Thus Pound became
an eye-witness to the ultimately
combustible chemistry between Fisher
and the First Lord, Churchill. From
that experience, the future First Sea
Lord took away what proved in time to
be valuable lessons, both on the proper
relationship between the professional
and political heads of the navy, and on
how to handle Churchill.
By 1916 Pound had taken up his
first command, the battleship HMS
Colossus. Attached to the Grand Fleet,
Colossus led the 5th Division at Jutland,
where she engaged in two sharp
encounters: the sinking of the German
cruiser Wiesbaden and the destroyer
V48; and a severe shelling which took
the arm of the range taker who was
standing next to Pound on the bridge.
Nevertheless, Pound brought Colossus
safely home to Scapa Flow, having distinguished
himself in the one great surface
naval battle of the war.
Between the wars Pound served as
chief of staff in the Mediterranean to
the flamboyant Admiral Sir Roger
Keyes, learning lessons in how not to
behave in high command. After a stint
as Second Sea Lord, Pound was given
command of the Mediterranean Fleet,
then the Royal Navy’s premier at-sea
command. From this posting he hoped
directly to retire, but a rash of serious
illnesses among Britain’s top admirals
of the day left little option but for him
to become First Sea Lord on the eve of
war in July 1939—the best possible
man still available.
Brodhurst believes that it must
have been Pound who ordered the famous
signal to the fleet “Winston is
Back!” but interestingly notes that the
message was intended to be a warning
as much as a report. Still, Pound had
long ago learned just how to handle his
new political superior. “Never say a direct
‘No’ to Churchill at a meeting,”
the First Sea Lord would advise his
deputy in 1941. “You can argue against
it, and as long as you don’t exaggerate
your case the PM will always let you
have your say.”
Like his chief-of-staff colleague
Sir Alan Brooke, Pound understood
the best way to dissuade Churchill was
to present a thoroughly researched,
well-reasoned explanation of the disadvantages
inherent to an ill-conceived
plan. Exasperating as such exercises
may have been for the military commanders,
they testified to a leader with
FINEST HOUR 115 / 34
MEMBER DISCOUNTS
To order: list books and prices,
add for shipping ($6 first book, $1
each additional in USA; $10 minimum
elsewhere, air more). Mail with
cheque to Churchill Center , PO
Box 385, Contoocook NH 03229
USA. Visa or Mastercard welcome;
state name, numbers and expiration
date and sign your order. Toll-free
number for ordering books only,
please: (888) 454-2275.
creativity, always willing to investigate
every conceivable plan of attack. Pound
appreciated this quality in a man and
regarded inaction as the greatest failing
that his naval commanders could exhibit.
More than one captain got
sacked by Pound for excess caution.
Brodhurst faults Pound for tolerating
more interference in operational
matters from Churchill than should
have been allowed. But the author also
admits that Pound recognized the importance
of civilian authority taking
precedence over that of the professional
military in any democracy. Thus, the
First Sea Lord went along with the dispatch
of the ill-fated Force Z to the Far
East in December 1941 which resulted
in the loss of Prince of Wales and Repulse
as well as Pound’s very dear friend
Admiral Tom Phillips.
For the same reason—the politics
of the war dictated it—Pound bowed
to the need to send the equally ill-fated
convoy PQ 17 around the Scandinavian
peninsula to Archangel in the
summer of 1942, taking personal responsibility
for the decision to order
the convoy’s dispersal when he could
not rule out the possibility that Tirpitz
might have been in the vicinity.
The First Sea Lord did not believe
such a difficult decision should be
shouldered by anyone of lesser rank.
While he may be criticized for being
too conservative on that occasion,
Pound could not realistically risk any
of his ships at a time when the war had
reduced the Royal Navy to such an
alarming level that even Churchill
showed signs of acute anxiety, as the
Prime Minister admitted in his memoirs.
PQ 17 lost twenty-three ships to
German attack, but the all-important
naval escorts escaped unscathed. The
irony was that Pound had opposed

sending out either Force Z or PQ 17
without air cover. But again, he understood
the cardinal principle of civilian
control over the final decision.
Pound’s great accomplishment remains
his determination to concentrate
almost single-mindedly on the Battle
of the Atlantic. He had an excellent
rapport with his American liaison Admiral
“Betty” Stark, and the patience
and discipline to work with his American
opposite number, the prickly
Ernest King, who preferred a Pacificfirst
war strategy that would showcase
the U.S. Navy. Eventually, Pound persuaded
King to assign an escort carrier
to Atlantic convoys, closing the “airgap”
and guaranteeing victory at sea.
There has been some controversy
surrounding the state of Pound’s health
during the war. Brodhurst shows that
he certainly was up to the task in 1939,
despite arthritis in the hip that caused
him to use a cane. The old sea dog had
also learned a trick or two in how to
cat-nap during heavy working days.
Further, he had a habit of closing his
eyes when concentrating. This caused
many to believe that Pound was sleeping;
but there are ample testimonials to
his ability to come to life whenever
naval matters were discussed.
Professional opinion at the time
held that Pound’s final illness came on
quite suddenly. A paralytic stroke during
the Quebec Conference announced
the presence of a fast developing brain
tumor. As soon as he realized he was
not recovering, Pound declared himself
“unfit for duty” and submitted his resignation
to Churchill.
The end came only weeks later in
a London hospital, suitably on Trafalgar
Day, 21 October 1943. The Prime
Minister led the funeral procession, behind
the King’s representative, for the
one man with whom he had worked
on a nearly daily basis since the start of
the war. Even in death Pound served
Churchill, having left behind a wellgroomed
successor as First Sea Lord in
the person of A.B. Cunningham.
Brodhurst concludes this welcome
biography with the observation that
Pound was not a Roosevelt figure but
rather a Truman, and like Truman he
stayed in the kitchen and he took the
heat. ,
Flavour Minus
Ingredients
Paul H. Courtenay
Mr. Courtenay is FH’s Associate Editor.
FINEST HOUR 115 / 35
The
Wicked
Wit of
Winston
Churchill,
compiled
by Dominique
Enright,
published
by Michael
O’Mara
Books Ltd,
2001.
Hardbound,
162 pages, £10/$16.95, member
price $10.
At first glance this is an attractive
looking little book, but the first
sentence of the introduction quickly
raises doubts. Ms. Enright tells us that
Churchill was born a nephew of the
Duke of Marlborough!
From this point the reader’s confidence
is undermined, and it is easy to
spot other errors of fact before even
reaching the twelve chapters of quotations,
many of which are close enough,
but inaccurately recorded. The author
has clearly lifted many of her quotes—
often word for word—from an earlier
book of this genre which is itself full of
inaccuracies and inventions.
A typical misquotation occurs
over Churchill’s famous definition of a
lie in an early debate over what some
had called “Chinese slavery”: “...it cannot
in the opinion of His Majesty’s
Government be classified as slavery in
the extreme acceptance of the word
without some risk of terminological inexactitude.”
For this Enright substitutes:
“Perhaps we have been guilty of
some terminological inexactitudes.”
Churchill’s famous “Dogs look up
at you, cats look down at you” is stated
as, “Dogs look up to men, cats look
down on them,” which is a new variation
among several; Churchill made
this remark many times and had several
versions, but this is not among them.
A prominent misattribution credits
WSC with apologizing for the length
of a speech because he did not have the
time to prepare a shorter one; this was
uttered much earlier by the Duke of
Wellington. Some researchers think
both may have borrowed the sense of
the remark from Blasé Pascal, who
wrote in a 1656 letter to a friend: “I
have only made this letter rather long
because I have not had time to made it
shorter.”
Apart from errors, the main fault
with this book is its lack of attribution.
Several items state the circumstances of
their origins, but the great majority
give no clue as to their validity and are
simply stated to have emanated from
the great man; unfamiliar quotations
are therefore impossible to verify.
The book is full of apocryphal or,
at the very least, invalidated statements,
which cannot be verified. For
example we are told that, on breaking
his thigh at Montecarlo and being
borne away on a stretcher, Churchill
said to the ambulance man, “Not feet
first, please!” We are also informed that
when a British actor said he was honored
to know he was WSC’s favorite,
the reply was said to be: “Yes, and my
fifth favorite actor after the Marx
brothers.” Cute, but who can prove
them
Another unlikely remark, which
has been around for years, is alleged to
have been made following a reception
in Virginia; on being offered chicken,
he asked for a breast, whereupon his
hostess informed him that Southern
ladies preferred the term “white meat.”
The following day he allegedly sent her
a corsage with the message, “I would
be obliged if you would put this on
your white meat.” The remark sounds
entirely out of character for Churchill,
who almost always treated ladies with
Victorian courtesy.
A certain innocence about world
events is also apparent. Referring to the
meeting with Roosevelt at Placentia
Bay, the compiler says that Churchill
crossed the Atlantic in a destroyer (that
really would have been an adventure).
continued overleaf

Courtenay, continued
floor to become a Liberal in 1906 (instead
of 1904). She correctly quotes his
speech, “...I had the luck to be called
upon to give the roar,” and the date
(1954); but the fact that it was his response
to Parliament on his 80th birthday
has eluded her.
We also learn that he had exhibited
paintings under an assumed name
at the Louvre; this was an over-ambitious
claim, though he did sell some
anonymous works at a Paris gallery.
The compiler is described as a
freelance writer, which suggests that
she is dashing off something for the
market without much familiarity with
the subject. Indeed she goes as far as to
say, in a chapter on Anecdotes:
“...some of the stories are definitely
authentic, but there are no
doubt many that have been embellished;
or have changed in details such
as date, location, even characters, as
they have been told and retold. But if
the details are not always in accordance
with other versions of the story, they
have been selected for their
Churchillian flavour.”
That says it all. ,
Finland: Contradictory Perspectives
Jari Lybeck • Translation by Riikka Forsström
Churchill ja Suomi [Churchill and
Finland] 1900-1955, by Markku
Ruotsila. Helsinki: Otava 2002. Subtitle
translates, “Winston Churchill’s
Ideas and Action Related to Finland.”
Text in Finnish. Anyone interested in
acquiring this title should contact the
editor; one order will be placed.
This doctoral thesis is the first of its
kind in Finnish historiography. It
deals with Churchill’s opinions related
to Finland and the importance of Finland
for Churchill in a wider, international
context.
According to Ruotsila, Churchill
knew little of Finland or its culture,
and was interested in the country only
as a part of a larger totality containing
two sides: geo-strategical and ideological.
Churchill’s leading ideological idea
was anti-Communism. His geo-strategy
concerned the balance of power in
international relations.
Churchill became interested in
Finland after the Bolsheviks came to
power in Russia and the Western Powers
thought to undermine their control. In
1919, Churchill’s vehement campaign
to help the White Russians against the
Reds found sympathy with Finland’s
This abstract of Mr. Lybeck’s review, published
in the newspaper Turun Sanomat on 26
May, was translated by Dr. Riikka Forsström
through the courtesy of Prof. Paul Alkon.
Marshal Mannerheim; they
even made common plans
for an Anglo-Finnish
capture of St. Petersburg.
But Churchill’s influence
was limited, and
neither Prime Minister
Lloyd George nor the
United States was
much interested. Mannerheim
found little
support in Finnish
ruling circles, and
Churchill in frustration held
Finland partly responsible
for the failure “to strangle Bolshevism
in its cradle.”
Between the two world wars
Churchill campaigned for rearmament
in the face of Hitler. To the ordinary
British conservative, Communism and
Nazism had common roots; but the
threat of Nazism was more immediate,
so Churchill was willing to join with
the Soviet Union in a “Grand Alliance,”
including Finland. To
Churchill’s displeasure, Finland rebuffed
any thought of an alliance with
Russia, which was then demanding
bases on Finnish soil—an issue
Churchill thought subordinate to the
greater good.
After the “Winter War” broke out
between the Soviets and the Finns in
late 1939, Churchill faced a contradictory
perspective. His geo-strategical
viewpoint, allying with the Soviets
against Hitler, collided with his ideological
opposition to Communism.
Since he wished to draw the Soviets
away from Germany, his geo-strategical
impulse prevailed. He elevated Finland
and the Finns to heroic proportions in
his January 1940 speech, “The Flame
of Freedom in the Icy North,” but the
Russians eventually prevailed.
The situation changed again in
1942, when Finland found herself
fighting with Germany against the Soviet
Union and Stalin pressured his allies
to declare war on Finland.
Churchill did not want this, and
would have been content if, in fighting
alongside Germany, Finland did not
engage in campaigns which would benefit
Hitler. He sent such a message to
his old ally, Mannerheim, appealing for
an end to Finland’s military operations.
Mannerheim’s answer was negative,
and Churchill had reluctantly to declare
war. All this Ruotsila documents
very well from minutes and records.
Ruotsila’s style is extremely clear,
but to some extent monotonous. His
book is well researched through leading
archives, most notably the Churchill
Archives Centre, and his references are
meticulously documented. ,
OLDER TITLES REVIEWED
Those Wily
British...
Warren F. Kimball
Spies and Saboteurs: Anglo-American
Collaboration and Rivalry in Human
Intelligence Collection and Special
Operations, 1940-1945, by Jay Jakub.
New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1999.
Despite the title, this book is not
the place to find exciting madefor-Hollywood
stories of derring-do,
with a Mata Hari, a James Bond, or
Dr. Kimball is Treat Professor of History at
Rutgers University, visiting professor at The
Citadel, author of several books on Roosevelt
and Churchill, editor of their Correspondence,
and a CC academic adviser.
FINEST HOUR 115 / 36

Kimball, continued...
even an Allen Dulles seducing secrets
out of diplomats, blowing up bridges,
or subverting governments. Rather this
is a careful, detailed, tightly focused
study of the administrative relationship
between British and American intelligence
agencies during the Second
World War. It is, at times, a blow by
blow description of turf battles fought
by and amongst all those various agencies:
Brits versus Yanks, Brits versus
Brits, and OSS versus the Washington
bureaucracy and J. Edgar Hoover. The
author has given us neat introductions
and summaries of each chapter, allowing
us to pick and choose the details
we decide to examine. Operations in
the field to collect intelligence or support
this or that politician are left
largely to other histories.
Much of the story and the perspective
is familiar. The British, wily
and experienced, begin in 1940 by
manipulating (“mentoring” is the
author’s gentler word) the Americans
to get them to create an intelligence
agency that would be professional and
would cooperate with Britain. (British
manipulation of the Americans is only
hinted at, but for some overwrought
hints see the confused and exaggerated
study of British intelligence operations
inside the United States by Thomas E.
Mahl, Desperate Deception: British
Covert Operations in the United States,
1939-1944, Washington and London:
Brassey’s, 1998.) “Big” Bill Donovan,
“little” Bill Stevenson (“Intrepid”), and
the rest of the usual suspects appear.
Whatever Jakub’s admiration for the
British, his message is clear. There is
no gratitude in international relations.
There is not and should not be any
reliance on trust in intelligence relations.
National self-interest is the rule.
How does this book add to either
our knowledge or understanding
However gratified the author was to be
inducted into the Special Forces Club
in London, there is little indication
that those same wily and experienced
British who kept the ULTRA secret for
some thirty years disclosed any significant
new information or perspectives.
But then British intelligence records
are carefully culled out of whatever
records the British release through
their thirty year rule.
OSS records are, on the other
hand, now open for research. A few
remain closed in part because the foreign
government (including the UK)
that “owns” information will not
release it. Some others remain closed
because they contain personal (private)
information or personnel information
that could reveal the names of still
secret agents. (The CIA, which now
controls classified OSS records, claims
that it would betray a trust to reveal
the names of foreign agents and contacts—no
matter how long ago and
dead they are.)
Some records that pertain to
intelligence work done by accused
Nazi war criminals will, presumably,
be opened through the work of the
Nazi War Criminals (Holtzman)
MOMENTS IN TIME
Wielding the Whip Hands, 1950s
Commission. But whatever the importance
of those limited exceptions, the
huge collection of opened OSS records
has not been properly exploited by
scholars. This book may help remedy
that failing, for in its examination of
the administrative and personal relationships
that set the structure for
Anglo-American cooperation, Jakub
provides a useful road map through
important portions of OSS files. His
footnotes will often lead researchers to
the information on operations that can
illuminate policy.
The “key findings,” which contain
some self-evident categories of
intelligence dependence/cooperation
independence, include the claim that
“the transatlantic ‘partners’...finished
the war more as rivals in much of the
world” (185). Compared to what ,
E
ric Kane of Bayport,
New York
sent us a copy of this
interesting 8x10-inch
photograph signed by
Churchill and numerous
others, and asks
us to identify the cast
of characters. Allen
Packwood and Paul
Courtenay agree that
the photograph shows
Churchill with members
of the Conservative
Whips Office
from his second ministry
in the 1950s.
They identified most
of the front row. Left to right: Unknown, Edward Heath (Deputy Chief Whip,
later Prime Minister), Patrick Buchnan-Hepburn (later Lord Hailes, Government
Chief Whip 1951-55), WSC, Cedric Drewe, Roger Conant and Henry
Studholme. They recognise few in the back row, but of the remaining legible
signatures, the following were whips at the time: Martin Redmayne (presumably
back row, far left), Dennis Vosper (later Lord Runcorn, Conservative
Whip 1950-54, centre under portrait) and Dick Thompson (second from
right). Can anyone help identify the others ,
FINEST HOUR 115 / 37

EMINENT CHURCHILLIANS
Patrick Kinna MBE: “He was sure we would win all along.”
JASON WOODWARD
Cdr. Mike Franken, commanding officer of
the guided missile destroyer USS Winston S.
Churchill, welcomes a special guest at the
International Festival of the Sea, 2001,
when Patrick Kinna was invited to visit in
honour of his being the last surviving member
of Churchill’s wartime Private Office
Churchill hated whistling,
Roosevelt always said hello,
De Gaulle was a gossip,
Stalin never smiled.
As one of Churchill’s personal
secretaries, ICS UK member Patrick
Kinna accompanied the Prime
Minister everywhere he went and
met many of the 20th century’s
greatest statesmen. Though he stayed
at the White House and slept at the Kremlin, he lived
for most of the time in Downing Street.
Now aged 88, Mr. Kinna lives in Sussex Square,
Brighton in the flat he shared with his sister Gladys until
her death six years ago. He is the last surviving member
of the “little people,” the close-knit Secretariat which
surrounded Churchill during the war. Last summer he
was guest of honour during the visit of USS Winston S.
Churchill to Portsmouth Harbour, where he was given a
full tour of the latest vessel named for his old chief.
“I had the most wonderful day,” he said. “I felt
embarrassed because they made such a fuss of me. It’s all
changed from my day. Almost everything on board was
completely different from when I was on a warship.
Time has moved on.”
More than anything, it was an opportunity to
reflect on old times and recall the many memories and
journeys of those wartime years when Mr. Kinna was
one of Churchill’s most trusted aides. “When I look
back now,” he continued, “I cannot believe it really happened.
Did I really do all those things...did I really see
all those people It’s almost like a dream. It was so interesting,
but at the time one did not have much opportunity
to reflect on it all.”
Brought up in London, Patrick Kinna trained to
become a verbatim reporter in the House of Commons,
Mr. Woodward’s article is reprinted by kind permission of
Portsmouth’s The Argus from its editions of 25-26 August 2001.
but his exceptional shorthand and typing skills brought
him to the attention of the Cabinet Office shortly before
war broke out in 1939. The day the war began he was
sent to Paris to work for the Anglo-French Liaison
Secretariat and as secretary to the Duke of Windsor, formerly
King Edward VIII, who had abdicated in 1936 to
marry Mrs. Simpson.
“He was a charming man,” Kinna said of the
Duke. “When the Germans arrived he left for Spain very
quickly to avoid being captured. Later he sent me a note
apologising for not having time to say goodbye. I never
saw him again.”
After the invasion of France, Patrick Kinna
returned to England and was ordered to accompany
Churchill on a secret trip to meet President Roosevelt
“somewhere in the Atlantic,” the first of many wartime
meetings between the two. “It was a wonderful opportunity
for me,” he recalled. “Before I embarked, I remember
asking if the PM had any pet likes or dislikes. I was
told he absolutely detested people whistling.
“The first morning I was summoned to his cabin
and was feeling very nervous. He ordered me to sit
down, and just as I did, one of the sailors began
whistling outside. He demanded I go and shut him up.
He did not seem very friendly at all. It wasn’t a very
good start and I thought I wouldn’t last. I was a bit
scared of him, Winston being Winston. However, after
that everything went splendidly.”
FINEST HOUR 115 / 38

On their return to England, Mr. Kinna was asked
to join Churchill’s personal staff as confidential secretary:
“They needed male secretaries because they couldn’t take
women on battleships. When Mr. Churchill travelled, I
was the only one who could do shorthand and type. In a
way I was indispensable, but at the beginning I would
think, ‘Am I really here’ ‘Am I really doing all this VIP
stuff’ I used to be afraid to go out, in case I said something
I shouldn’t, or let something slip.”
In the event there was little time for social life. A
normal day would start at 8 AM and finish at midnight.
Mr. Kinna rarely went out to socialise and never took a
holiday during his entire four years with Churchill.
During that period he accompanied the Prime Minister
on many dangerous missions abroad, including the conferences
in Tehran and Yalta, where Roosevelt, Churchill,
and Stalin met to discuss the war.
Patrick Kinna readily confirmed the incident at the
White House when Roosevelt confronted a naked
Churchill, which is often regarded as apocryphal.
He was taking shorthand notes as Churchill sat in the
bath, but the PM then got out, and continued to dictate
a letter while pacing up and down the room stark naked.
“Just then there was a knock at the door. Winston,
thinking it was one of his staff, and said ‘Yes’—only for
the President of the United States to enter! Without any
hesitation, Winston told him, ‘You see, Mr. President, I
have nothing to conceal from you.’ It was a fantastic
moment. They both fell about laughing.”
Much less humour attended Churchill’s first visit
to Moscow, where Churchill had to inform Stalin there
would be no Second Front in 1942, a message Churchill
had likened to delivering a lump of ice to the North
Pole. Churchill, Kinna recalls, was put in a foul mood
by Stalin’s attitude:
“Stalin was very uncouth and rather a tough chap.
I don’t know what they talked about in their first meeting
but afterwards Winston was fuming. He stormed up
and down the room cursing Stalin and even considered
returning home there and then. The British ambassador
reminded him that every room in the Kremlin was
bugged, but it didn’t deter Winston.”
Churchill, of course, had turned his bugged quarters
to advantage: “The next day the whole atmosphere
had changed. Stalin was charming and insisted we attend
a banquet.” Kinna’s impression of Stalin was of a very
austere man who liked to be “king of the castle.” He also
remembered how terrified and starving the Russian waiters
looked at the banquet.
There were many other unique insights into world
leaders and major historical events during the war: “I did
not care for de Gaulle very much. He could not be trusted
with secret things. He was a bit too talkative. Other
times he was not talkative enough. I also met Tito quite
a lot; he was a very honest and genuine man.”
Patrick Kinna was present on the fateful evening at
Chequers, December 7th, 1941, and remembers
Churchill’s relief on receiving the news of the attack on
Pearl Harbour, knowing the Americans would now be
joining the war. And he was present to observe
Churchill’s despair on hearing that the Prince of Wales
and Repulse had been sunk by the Japanese, and with
them a personal friend, Admiral Tom Phillips.
On another occasion, Mr. Kinna was briefly given
charge of the “C” box, the red case containing Britain’s
atomic secrets, which accompanied Churchill everywhere
he went. “We were in Canada and I was given charge of
the box as we crossed a lake by boat,” he said. “The
water was very choppy and I remember thinking, ‘If this
boat goes down I had better make sure I go down with
this box.’”
One of Patrick Kinna’s most moving memories
came in 1945, when Churchill lost the election: “He was
looking very glum and started reminiscing about all the
trips we had been on, and all the people we had met.
‘But now,’ he said, ‘the British people do not want me
anymore,’ and tears started streaming down his cheeks.
It was quite extraordinary.
“Throughout my time with Churchill, he was
always very professional. He always called me ‘Mr.
Kinna,’ never ‘Patrick.’ He was very friendly but never
chatty. He never chatted about anything. Even so, one
had the impression he had a kind and tender heart
behind that bulldog manner.”
After the war, Mr. Kinna turned down Churchill’s
offer to be his private secretary in Opposition. “I
was exhausted,” he remembered. “I’d worked four
years without a holiday and needed a break.” There were
no hard feelings and Churchill put his name forward to
become an MBE as a way of thanking him for his loyal
service.
After a rest, he was recruited by Labour foreign
secretary Ernest Bevin, whom he served until Bevin’s
death in 1951. He then left the world of politics and
worked as a company director. He never married, and
when he retired in 1973 he moved to Brighton with his
sister. “We loved the seaside,” he said, “and regularly
came down to visit the town and go for dinner. When I
retired, we decided to move down here permanently.”
Patrick Kinna has precious few photos of the era
that played such an important part in his life. At that
time everyone was far too busy to pose for a picture. But
in the hallway of his home hangs a solitary portrait of
Sir Winston Churchill. “He was a wonderful man,”
Kinna reflects: “—a very hard worker and a great leader.
At the time, all of us thought how lucky we were that he
was PM. Even in private he never doubted. He was sure
we would win all along.” more Churchillians overleaf
FINEST HOUR 115 / 39

Eminent Churchillians...
Douglas Russell
One of the longest-serving
members of our Board of
Governors, Iowa District Court
Judge Douglas Russell typifies
their manysided interests.
Active for fifteen years, he has
served as treasurer, and heads
the CC Awards Committee.
After recruiting a cadre of notable speakers, he
assembled the first Churchill Center Speaker’s Bureau
brochure, bringing knowledgeable and entertaining
Churchill speakers to the attention of business, industry
and associations. He is also author of The Orders,
Decorations and Medals of Sir Winston Churchill, the only
reference on the subject, published by ICS in 1990, and
now to appear in a new edition (see FH 111).
Born in Chicago in 1948, Douglas received a
degree in Political Science from Grinnell College, Iowa,
in 1971, and a J.D. degree from the University of Iowa
College of Law in 1978. He served in the Army, 1971-
74. On a Fellowship in 1974-75, he spent a year of
independent study and travel in Western Europe, focusing
on new town planning in Finland and Great Britain.
He first became aware of The Churchill Center
when he read an article on Churchill’s books in British
Heritage. He was soon in touch with the editor, who
swamped him with assignments and proposed odd projects.
In 1995, following V-E Day celebrations in
London, Douglas Russell, Richard Langworth, and two
other avid bicyclists set off to bicycle the coast of
Latvia—for no other reason, as far as Doug was concerned,
than because it was there. The idea was to commemorate
the fight for freedom that continued in the
Baltic long after V-E Day. Despite chilly temperatures
and gale force winds they completed the 410-mile course
in ten days, presented President Ulmanis with a Latvian
edition of Churchill’s The Dream, were declared “heroes”
of the town of Kandava, and debated officials about how
much influence Churchill really had at Yalta. (FH
87:27). They still speak to each other in Latvian, reciting
strings of town names which to the uninitiated sound
like real conversation!
While laboring on the new edition of his medals
book, Russell has also been preparing a much larger
opus. Shortly Brassey’s will publish his Lieutenant Churchill,
4th Hussars, a fresh account of Churchill’s military
career, with new facts and obscure stories gleaned from
years of research. Several CC meetings have already
enjoyed his slide presentation on the same subject. Doug
is married to Sue Feeney and shares a home with four
stepchildren in Iowa City, Iowa.
Larry Kryske
On 24 January 1965, a 15-year-old high school student
was listening to the radio in suburban Los
Angeles when the 1 PM news announced the passing of
Sir Winston Churchill. The boy experienced a perplexing
sense of sadness: he did not really know much about
the man, yet he thought he should. His quest for knowledge
lasted far longer than he anticipated.
The student has since served as a career naval officer,
a private school administrator,
and a professional speaker
and seminar leader. He wrote
and spoke about Churchill, took
up oil painting largely through
Churchill’s example, served on
the Board of the International
Churchill Society (1991-94),
and entered a personal “Englishspeaking
Union” with the wife
he met at a Churchill conference.
As a teenager, Larry
scoured the used bookshops of Los Angeles, discovering
Dawson’s Rare Book Store and Phillip Townsend
Somerville, who was then also encouraging ICS founding
president Dalton Newfield. Phillip was the nephew
of Admiral Sir James Somerville, who had reluctantly
ordered Royal Navy ships to open fire on the French
warships off Oran in 1940. He helped Larry find several
of his first Churchill books. In 1965, a first edition River
War could be purchased for as little as $80—still too
steep for the 15-year-old. But his collection grew, and
soon surpassed the number of books by and about
Churchill in local libraries.
In 1986, after twenty-two years in the U.S. Navy as
a “ship driver” and weapons specialist, he began his long
Churchill association. At the 1987 Dallas Conference he
met Naomi Gottlieb; they married two years later. In
1988, Larry was Toastmaster for the Conference in
Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, hosting Alistair Cooke
and Governor John Sununu.
In 1996 Larry started Homeport Speaking &
Seminars, a full-service executive development business
(www.HomeportSpeaking.com). His most unique program
is a painting keynote speech during which he completes
a large oil painting to illustrate a motivational
message. It is a visual synopsis of his business/self-help
book, The Churchill Factors: Creating Your Finest Hour
(reviewed in FH 110). His commanding performance
keeps audiences riveted. It was especially well received at
the recent Queen Mary student seminar (FH 114).
Larry’s novel presentation helps to keep Churchill’s
memory alive and inspires new generations to benefit
from Churchill’s wisdom. ,
FINEST HOUR 115 / 40

Focusing on the
Real Menace
Abstracts by Chris Hanger
Kaufman, Robert, “The Line In The
Sand—What George Bush Learned
from Winston Churchill,” Policy Review,
Spring 1991: 36-43.
With his decisive response to the
Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, the
first President Bush exhibited principles
advocated by Winston Churchill.
Like Churchill, he focused the national
interest both from a moral and geopolitical
standpoint, but also joined with
allies, or “coalition partners” as they
were called, whose governments were
often less democratic than America’s.
Bush’s chief aim was to define which
country was the ultimate menace, then
work toward building partnerships to
neutralize that threat.
Three earlier developments illustrate
Churchill’s foreign policy: the
successive threats of Imperial Germany,
Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union
and Cold War. In each case, Churchill’s
vision has been vindicated.
The late 19th century saw Germany
as a menacing power bent on
European domination and naval supremacy
over England. By 1911,
Churchill’s view of Germany had
changed from that of a relatively innocuous
country into a real threat to
European peace. Churchill’s premise
was that Britain could not tolerate a
bellicose Germany because it would
likely destabilize and subjugate British
interests. Though Russia was more autocratic,
Germany posed the more
destabilizing threat to the region.
When Hitler came to power,
Churchill believed that events were still
within the West’s ability to control.
Churchill’s general approach was not
___________________________________
Chris Hanger was sadly lost to us last
December (FH 113:8), and these are his last
two abstracts. This column will henceforth
be produced by David Freeman.
INSIDE THE JOURNALS
whether England needed to confront
Germany, but when. He stated that the
later the inevitable showdown, the
higher the human and economic cost.
When war ultimately came in September
1939, the loss of life and economic
power was devastating to
Britain. When Germany attacked Russia,
Churchill continued to focus on
Germany. Though Communism was
repugnant to him, Churchill welcomed
his Soviet ally. With American entry
into the war, Churchill’s desire was to
forge an even stronger American alliance
in order to counterbalance Soviet
expansionism, which he felt was
sure to occur in the postwar world.
In contrast to the Nazis, Churchill
felt that the Soviets would be cautious,
prudent and flexible in the long term.
He supported the formation of NATO,
the Marshall Plan, GATT, and the IMF
to promote both economic and political
stability in Western Europe.
The lesson learned by the first
President Bush was revealed when he
quickly focused on the ultimate menace:
Iraq. Though not on a par with
Hitler, if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein
had the capability and will to
wreak havoc on his own people and on
his neighbors.
FINEST HOUR 115 / 41
MacGregor, David, “Former Naval
Cheapskate: Chancellor of the Exchequer
Winston Churchill and the Royal
Navy, 1924-1929,” Armed Forces and
Society 19:3, Spring 1993: 319-33.
Winston Churchill was a staunch
supporter of rearmament during
the 1930s. However, during his tenure
as Chancellor of the Exchequer, his
Naval budget recommendations were
parsimonious, and arguably helped
cause some of the shortfalls in Naval
preparedness in the 1930s.
Upon taking office, he canceled a
large shipbuilding plan, scheduled no
cruiser construction, and froze the fiveyear
budget at £60 million per year. A
modest construction proposed in 1926
was reduced or canceled when Labour
took office in 1929. As a result, sixteen
full-size cruisers envisioned in 1925
were cut to thirteen cruisers of different
sizes; then Labour cut the number
to nine.
Churchill viewed his role in naval
growth to one of deferring but not
shelving building projects. However,
the Fleet Air Arm and Singapore naval
base fared even worse. Naval aircraft requests
for eighty new planes in 1924-
30 were cut to sixteen. In 1924, four
new aircraft carriers were proposed for
1926-36. Churchill and subsequent
governments delayed construction of
the “1926” carrier until 1935. Senior
naval personnel were not keen on the
role of air power in the Navy, so these
delays was not entirely WSC’s doing.
Development of the Singapore
base was suspended by the 1924
Labour government but resumed under
a less ambitious modified plan resulting
in further deferrals, delays, and cuts
by Churchill. Succeeding governments
continued the cuts, which rendered the
base barely serviceable by 1939 and
unable adequately to defend itself
when Japan attacked in 1941.
Churchill’s Army and RAF budgetary
reductions were less harsh than
those of the larger naval budget.
Churchill’s preference for air power
seemed grounded in the belief that less
expensive airplanes could at some
point replace ships and thereby provide
a more cost-effective solution to rising
overall military expenditures.
Other budgetary adjustments were
necessary besides naval expenditures.
Accounting sleight-of-hand techniques
were also necessary to balance the budget.
It became clearer why huge naval
costs would be harder to justify when,
for example in 1927, budget difficulties
required an unpopular cut in unemployment
benefits. With no real
threat on the horizon, it seemed that
naval cuts could be safely made.
Churchill held British naval strength
superior to both Japan and America.
Churchill’s emphasis as Chancellor
was the expansion of social programs,
i.e., butter over guns, trusting to future
governments to make changes as future
needs required. However, given finite
fiscal limits during his tenure, naval expenditures
were generally replaced by
social programs. ,

WOODS CORNER
IN PRINT AND UPCOMING
After a brief lull, the cascade of new
books about Winston Churchill
has begun afresh. Here are titles we are
acquiring for the Churchill Center
Book Club. Our prices will be substantially
below prices mentioned here, and
lower than Amazon.com, of course!
• Cohen, Eliot: Supreme Command
(Free Press, 272 pp., $25), will be reviewed
in our autumn number. See also
Cohen’s brilliant “Churchill and His
Generals” in our Proceedings 1992-1993.
• Dobbs, Michael: Winston’s War: A
Novel (HarperCollins, 352 pp., £17,
November). Fans of the book and television
series “House of Cards,” with
fiendish Francis Urquhart, MP, will be
pleased to know that its author, ICS
(UK) member Michael Dobbs, is now
serving us a Churchill novel. Thus far,
Dobbs’s novels have been purely fictional,
if all too close to certain marks.
Now he focuses his detailed knowledge
of Parliamentary politics on real history.
The story begins in September 1938,
with Churchill nearly a decade out of
power, derided over India, ignored over
Hitler, and scorned for supporting Edward
VIII during the Abdication crisis.
Neville Chamberlain has returned from
Munich bearing Peace in Our Time.
Then Churchill receives a visitor at
Chartwell named Guy Burgess: the first
in a series of surprise developments that
propel Churchill into Number Ten and
change history. Churchill, who became
a hero, and Burgess, who became a traitor
by spying for the Soviets, are juxtaposed
in a fascinating novel.
• Larres, Klaus: Churchill’s Cold War:
The Politics of Personal Diplomacy (Yale
University Press), forthcoming.
• Lukacs, John: Churchill: Visionary.
Statesman. Historian (Yale University
Press, 200pp., $21.95). An appreciation
of Churchill as a statesman and seer of
the future, plus Lukacs’s account of attending
Churchill’s funeral in 1965.
• Ramsden, John: Man of the Century:
Winston Churchill Post-1945 (Harper-
Collins, 416 pp., £20, forthcoming in
October). A revelatory portrait examining
the development of Churchill’s
unique reputation and posthumous impact
on Anglo-American relations and
British history. Drawn on fresh material
and research in three continents, this
biographical study shows how his personality,
attitudes and vision of himself
shaped our own political perception of
nationhood. Historian and CC academic
adviser Ramsden argues that
Churchill’s romantic, imperial notion
of Britain contributed directly to contemporary
political culture, particularly
its attitude to Europe. He also illuminates
the national identity of Australia,
Canada, New Zealand and the USA,
and an analysis of the entire Churchill
phenomenon.
• Royal Historical Society Transactions
(Sixth Series, Vol. XI, Cambridge University
Press, 449 pp., £25). FH 111
published twelve abstracts from the
RHS 2001 conference. Complete transcripts
of eleven papers occupy 236
pages of this volume. Available to members
for £20/$30 from RHS, University
College, London, Gower Street, London,
WC1E 6BT; also to be offered by
the CC Book Club.
• Ruotsila, Markku: Churchill ja Suomi
1900-1955 (Otava). Reviewed on page
36. Ruotsila also wrote “Churchill and
Wilson” in Finest Hour 92).
• Valiunas, Algis: Churchill’s Military
Histories (Rowman and Littlefield).
Recommended by several of our academic
advisers. Valiunas’s fine appreciation
of The World Crisis, written years
ago for The American Spectator, means
this is worth waiting for.
• von Krockow, Christian Graf:
Churchill: Man of the Century (London
House, £16.99). A new English edition
of the original, reviewed in FH 102.
• Wrigley, Chris: Winston Churchill: A
Biographical Companion (ABC Clio
Press, $55). Already in print.
• Zoller, Curt: Annotated Bibliography of
Works Concerning Winston Spencer
Churchill (M.E. Sharpe in association
with The Churchill Center, $75). The
most comprehensive guide ever published,
with comments about the contents,
and a strong list of Churchill-related
titles. Due momentarily.
Family Portraits
• Churchill, Winston S.: The Best of
Winston Churchill’s Speeches, compiled
by his grandson, due out in 2003.
• Soames, Mary: Clementine Churchill,
new, revised and expanded edition, will
be published late this year.
Best Sellers
In answer to inquiries, here are the alltime
top sellers among books offered by the
Churchill Center Book Club (and privately)
Asterisk (*) denotes titles published
in association with The Churchill Center.
Churchill/Weidhorn, India 1237
*Langworth, Connoisseur’s Guide 648
*Gilbert, War Papers, Vol I 473
*Gilbert, War Papers, Vol II 428
Gilbert, Ofcl. Biography Vol VII 319
Gilbert, Ofcl. Biography Vol VIII 246
*Gilbert, War Papers, Vol III 245
Talbott, Churchill on Courage 236
*ICS, Churchill Bibliographic Data 190
*Churchill, Malakand Field Force 185
Churchill, The Great Republic 160
*Churchill, My Early Life 143
Gilbert, In Search of Churchill 121
Gilbert, Ofcl. Biography Vol VI 118
*Churchill, Savrola 112
Hayward, Churchill on Leadership 106
Montague Browne, Long Sunset 101
Stewart, Burying Caesar 96
Churchill, The Aftermath 92
Rasor, Churchill Historiography 88
Gilbert, Churchill & Emery Reves 80
Jenkins, Churchill: A Biography 80
Wilson, Churchill and The Prof 71
Barrett, Churchill Bibliography 70 ,
___________________________________
Finest Hour’s book column is named for the
late Churchill bibliographer Fred Woods.
FINEST HOUR 115 / 42

QUESTION TIME
n P R I M E M I N I S T E R ’ S Q U E S T I O N S n
Edited and annotated by Paul H. Courtenay
Question Time is that period in the Parliamentary
week where Members are allowed to ask the Prime
Minister any question, governed only by decorum
and the judgment of the Speaker as to whether they
are genuinely asking questions or (commonly) giving
a speech. Churchill was a master of Question Time,
as Mr. Courtenay demonstrates.
Innovation and Logic
On 17 December 1942 a Member
asked whether the titles Minister of
Defence and Secretary of State for War
should not under the circumstances be changed respectively
to Minister for War and Secretary of State for the Army.
WSC: “Sir, we must beware of needless innovation, especially
when guided by logic.”
Cheap Demagogic Gestures
In 1951, Churchill reduced Ministerial salaries to set an
example of economy. On 29 July 1952, Lt. Col. Lipton
(Lab.) asked if this was not “a hollow gesture.” WSC: “I am
looking forward to seeing the hon. and gallant Gentleman
make a gesture of which it can be said that it is at any rate not
less hollow.” Mr. W. Wyatt (Lab.): “Is it not a fact that when
Income Tax has been deducted the saving is relatively negligible,
and would it not be more appropriate if at his time of life
the Prime Minister abandoned these cheap demagogic gestures”
WSC: “I think the hon. Gentleman is a judge of
cheap demagogic gestures, but they do not often come off
when he makes them.” Mr. Emmanuel Shinwell (Lab.): “In
view of the castigations of the Rt. Hon. Gentleman on
Members of the former Government, does he not realise that,
even at the reduced salary, the Members of his Government
are not worth it” WSC: “The Rt. Hon. Gentleman is no
doubt trying to live up to the cheap demagogic gestures mentioned
by his hon. Friend.”
Welsh Rarebit
On 15 April 1953, Mr. Gower (Cons.) asked: “Can
the Prime Minister state what course will be followed if a
future British monarch should bear the name Llewellyn”
WSC: “I hope I may ask for long notice of that question.”
Timing of Elections
On 21 July 1942 Mr. De la Bere asked about holding
a General Election before the end of 1942. WSC: “It would
be most unusual and in my view contrary to the best precedents
for any statement to be made forecasting the advice
which in hypothetical circumstances should be tendered to
the King in respect of a Dissolution of Parliament.” [A nicely
framed reminder of the constitutional convention: before a
general election, there must be a Dissolution of the existing
Parliament.] Mr. De la Bere: “Is it not
essential whilst perils press to reason calmly
about holding a general election Would
the Prime Minister impress on Lord
Beaverbrook the necessity for calm reasoning”
WSC: “I must embrace this opportunity
of testifying my admiration for the
principles of free speech and a free press.”
Baseball and Politics
On 21 July 1952 Mr. Fenner Brockway
(Lab.) asked: “Is [the PM] aware that...the Iver Heath
Conservative Party Association held a fête to raise money for
party purposes to which it invited American Service baseball
teams to participate for a ‘Winston Churchill’ trophy...and
had a note from him saying he was honoured that his name
was linked to the trophy” WSC: “I read in the Daily Worker
some account of this. I had not, I agree, fully realized the
political implications that might attach to the matter, and in
so far as I have erred I express my regret.” [Laughter.] Mr. H.
Hynd (Lab.): “While Hon. Gentlemen opposite may try to
laugh this one off, may I ask whether the Prime Minister
would contemplate the attitude of his Hon. Friends if this
incident had happened in connection with a Labour Party
fête” WSC: “I hope we should all show an equal spirit of tolerance
and good humour.” Mr. Brockway (Lab.): “Can the
Prime Minister estimate what would be the reaction of Mr.
Eisenhower if British Forces participated in a Democratic
Party celebration” WSC: “I certainly should not attempt to
add to the many difficult questions which are pending at the
present time by bending my mind to the solution of that
question.”
Bermuda Holidays
Sir Waldron Smithers (Cons., Orpington), 23 June
1953: “Would not the Prime Minister agree that the only
way to improve the standards of living of backward races and
to avert economic disaster is to allow all peoples to buy in the
cheapest and sell in the dearest markets, because if goods
cannot cross frontiers, armies will” WSC: “Those seem to
me, on the whole, unobjectionable sentiments.” Mr.
Shurmer (Lab., Sparkbrook): “Will the Rt. Hon.
Gentleman consider taking the Hon. Member for
Orpington with him [to Bermuda] as it would please both
sides of the House if he would take him and leave him
there” Sir Waldron Smithers: “On a point or order. May I
tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I take no objection to that, but I
wish the Hon. Member for Sparkbrook would go away too.”
WSC: “I will try to answer that question. I earnestly hope
that it will be arranged through the usual channels so that
equal numbers on both sides of the House have this unfortunate
experience offered to them.” ,
FINEST HOUR 115 / 43

ARTS
Recipes from No. 10: Beignets with Cheese
by Georgina Landemare, the Churchill family cook, 1940s-1950s,
updated and annotated for the modern kitchen by Barbara Langworth
(b_langworth@conknet.com).
In the fascinating
life of her mother,
Clementine Churchill: The Biography of a
Marriage, Lady Soames acquaints us with
Georgina Landemare:
“Mrs. Landemare was a superb cook, combining
the best of French and English cooking. She had learned
her craft the hard way, starting as No. 6 in the kitchen
over which reigned the French chef, Monsieur Landemare,
whom she eventually married. Clementine had
come to know and appreciate her talents and her delightful
personality during the Thirties, when she used to
come to Chartwell for special parties or busy weekends to
boost and teach the rather inexperienced cooks or promoted
kitchenmaids that Clementine could then afford.
When they moved into Downing Street, Mrs. Landemare
came to cook for Winston and Clementine on a permanent
basis. Through all the difficulties of wartime rationing,
she managed to produce delicious food. After
the war she stayed with us until 1953 when she retired,
aged seventy.” Lady Churchill later wrote the foreword
for Mrs. Landemare’s book, Recipes from No. 10, which
may be republished by her granddaughter.
These delectable morsels from Mrs. Landemare's
kitchen were a particular favorite of the Churchill family.
BEIGNETS WITH CHEESE
(Makes 3-4 dozen)
choux paste*
4 oz grated Parmesan cheese mixed with
4 oz grated Gruyère cheese
2 egg yolks
cayenne pepper
Mix the choux paste with the grated cheese and
egg yolks and add several pinches of cayenne pepper.
Drop a spoonful at a time into very hot, but not boiling,
deep fat. Fry slowly until a golden brown. Remove from
the oil and place on kitchen paper which will absorb any
surplus grease.
Serve with tomato sauce.†
*CHOUX PASTE
1/4 lb butter
10 oz water
4 eggs
4 oz. (scant cup) flour
In a saucepan put water, butter and salt and
bring to the boil. Mix the flour in all at once and beat
well until the mixture leaves the sides of the pan (a
wooden spoon works well). Remove from the heat and
allow to cool for a minute or two, then gradually add the
four eggs one at a time, beating well after each.
†TOMATO SAUCE
1 lb. Tomatoes
3 chopped shallots
Sprig of thyme
Parsley stalks
Pepper & salt
1 tsp. Sugar
3 tbs. olive oil
1 blade (clove) of garlic
butter
Put the oil into a saucepan and fry the shallots
until soft; add the thyme, parsley stalks, garlic, seasoning
and sugar. Cut the tomatoes up coarsely and add to the
rest. Stir well and cook slowly for 1/2 hour. Pass through
a fine sieve, reheat and add a small knob of butter. ,
FINEST HOUR 115 / 44

REMEMBER WINSTON CHURCHILL
Will future generations remember
Will the ideas you cherish now be sustained then
Will someone articulate your principles
Who will guide your grandchildren, and your country
There is an answer.
The Churchill Center Associates (page 2) are people who
have committed $10,000 or more, over five years, all taxdeductible,
to the Churchill Center and Society Endowment
funds earning interest in the United States and Canada.
With their help—and yours—those earnings guarantee
that The Churchill Center will endure as a powerful voice,
sustaining those beliefs Sir Winston and you hold dear.
Now. And for future generations.
If you would like to consider becoming a
Churchill Center Associate, please contact
Richard M. Langworth, Chairman, Board of Trustees
(888) 454-2275 • malakand@conknet.com
“Send for Churchill”:
The 1951 Campaign Pin
The Washington Society
for Churchill offers this
finely enameled replica of
the pin Churchill’s supporters
wore in the election which
made him Prime Minister again
in 1951. The craftsmanship is a
major improvement on the original: crisp, clear
and bright. US $10 or the equivalent postpaid.
Checks to WSC, c/o Dan Borinsky, 2080 Old
Bridge Road #203, Lake Ridge VA 22192.
ICS (UK) Commemorative Cover No. 1
The UK International Churchill Society has recently
embarked on a commemorative covers programme.
Cover No. 1 comes in standard form as shown, and in a
special collection of four bearing eight significant autographs.
A handsome portion of the proceeds
goes to support ICS (UK).
The first cover celebrates Churchill’s receipt of the Nobel
Prize for Literature. Two are available and can be ordered
by Visa. Send card number, expiration date, and
shipping address, and sign your order.
Mail to: BHC, Freepost SEA8889, Folkestone,
Dover DT20 2BR, England.
Above: BHC(CH) standard. Below: BHC(CHB) limited ed.
BHC(CH): A limited edition of 250, each bearing a
1951 Festival of Britain stamp cancelled with the ICS
cachet and all four of the 1974 Churchill Centenary
stamps, postmarked Woodford Green. £9.25 postpaid.
BHC (CHB): Limited edition of 250, with one 1974
Centenary stamp, Union Flag stamp, the Woodford cancel,
and a special Nobel Prize cancel. £9.25 postpaid.
SPECIAL COLLECTION: Four copies of BHC(CH)
with two signatures each: Lady Thatcher/Lord Deedes,
Lady Soames/Celia Sandys, Winston Churchill/Robert
Hardy, the Duke of Marlborough/Lord Jenkins. £150
($225) including a £75/$113 donation to ICS (UK).
Left: one of
the limited
editions. Only
25 sets were
produced and
less than a
dozen remain
available.
FINEST HOUR 115 / 45

“KEEPING THE MEMORY GREEN AND THE RECORD ACCURATE”
LEADING CHURCHILL MYTHS
The fable that Sir Alexander Fleming saved Churchill
from drowning as a boy and from pneumonia many
years later by his discovery of penicillin had quite a run on
the Internet a year or so ago, and the question still comes
up occasionally. Charming as it is, it is certainly fictitious.
The story goes at least as far back as Worship Programs
for Juniors, by Alice A. Bays and Elizabeth Jones Oakbery,
published ca. 1950 by an American religious house, in a
chapter entitled “The Power of Kindness.” This is an odd
source for an original myth, and we suspect the tale goes
back before that.
According to Bays and Oakbery, Churchill is saved
from drowning in a Scottish lake by a farm boy named
Alex, who grows up wanting to become a doctor. (Other
versions say WSC is saved by Alex’s father.) Churchill telephones
the Flemings in Scotland to say that his parents, in
gratitude, will sponsor Alex’s otherwise unaffordable medical
school education. Alex graduates with honours and in
1928 discovers that certain bacteria cannot grow in certain
vegetable molds. In 1943, when Churchill becomes ill in
the Near East, Alex’s discovery, penicillin, is flown out to effect
his cure. Thus once again Alexander Fleming saves the
life of Winston Churchill.
The first part of the story is clearly imaginary. Official
biographer Sir Martin Gilbert notes that the ages of
Churchill and Fleming (or Fleming’s father) do not support
the various accounts circulated; Alexander Fleming was
seven years younger than Churchill. If he was plowing a
field at say age 13, Churchill would have been 20. There is
no record of Churchill nearly drowning in Scotland at that
or any other age, or of Lord Randolph paying for Alexander
Fleming’s education. Sir Martin also notes that Lord
Moran’s diaries say nothing about penicillin, or the need to
fly it out to Churchill in the Near East.
Dr. John Mather, who has researched Churchill’s medical
history in great detail, punctures the 1943 part of the
story: “Churchill was treated for this very serious strain of
pneumonia not with penicillin but with ‘M&B,’ a short
name for sulfadiazine produced by May and Baker Pharmaceutical.
Since he was so ill, it was probably a bacterial
rather than a viral infection, and the M&B was successful.”
Kay Halle, in her famous quote book Irrepressible
Churchill (Cleveland: World 1966) comments (196) that
Churchill “delighted in referring to his doctors, Lord Moran
and Dr. Bedford, as ‘M&B.’ Then, when Churchill found
that the most agreeable way of taking the drug was with
______________________________________________________
This article first appeared in Finest Hour 102, Spring 1999.
whisky or brandy, he commented to his nurse: ‘Dear nurse,
pray remember that man cannot live by M and B alone.’”
But there is no evidence, Dr. Mather continues, “in the
record that he received penicillin for any of his wartime
pneumonias. He did have infections in later life, and I suspect
he was given penicillin or some other antibiotic that
would have by then become available, such as ampicillin.
“Churchill did consult with Fleming on 27 June 1946
about a staphylococcal infection which had apparently resisted
penicillin. See Churchill: Taken from the Diaries of Lord
Moran (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1966), 335.” ,
AMPERSAND
A compendium of facts eventually to
appear as a reader’s guide.
POUND AND DOLLAR VALUES
Today’s values:
AND INFLATION, 1874-2002 &£1 in: Exch. Rate $1 £1 in: Exch.Rate $1
1874 £43 4.86 $209 1950 £19 2.80 $53
1900 £61 4.86 $296 1960 £14 2.80 $39
1914 £53 4.86$258 1965 £12 2.80 $34
1920 £24 3.66 $88 1970 £9 2.40 $22
1930 £48 4.80 $230 1980 £2.5 2.33 $5.80
1940 £39 4.03 $157 1990 £1.4 1.78 $2.50
1945 £27 4.00 $108 2002 £1.0 1.50 $1.50
This chart represents the buying power (to the nearest £
or $) of one pound sterling in today’s pounds and dollars
since Churchill’s birth. (“Exch. Rate” = dollar exchange rate.)
In the 19th century, with both countries on the gold
standard, exchange rates varied little from the typical $4.86 to
£1, although there was a blip in the pound’s value around
1900. When Britain left the gold standard during WW1,
great fluctuations occurred and in 1920 the pound had sunk
to $3.66. Churchill returned Britain to the gold standard in
the late 1920s and the rate rose to $4.80, where it stayed in
the 1930s, even after Britain left the gold standard in 1931.
But devaluations reduced sterling’s value to $4.03 in 1940,
$2.80 in September 1949, and $2.40 in November 1967.
Floating exchange rates after the U.S. left the gold standard in
1971 saw the pound sink to as low as £1 to $1 in 1985. Since
that low it has hovered around $1.50, its July 2002 rate.
Devaluations aside, inflation has vastly lowered the buying
power of the pound and the dollar. See also these websites:
www.ex.ac.uk/~RDavies/arian/current/howmuch.html
and http://www.eh.net/hmit/exchangerates/ —EDITOR ,
FINEST HOUR 115 / 46

C H U R C H I L L T R I V I A
By Curt Zoller (zcurt@earthlink.net)
Twenty-four questions appear each
issue, answers in the following issue.
Categories are Contemporaries (C), Literary
(L), Miscellaneous (M), Personal (P),
Statesmanship (S) and War (W).
1255. Whom did Churchill replace as
First Lord of the Admiralty in 1911 (C)
1256. What was Churchill referring to
when he wrote in My Early Life, “One
must not yield too easily to the weakness
of audiences...They had asked for it and
they must have it.” (L)
1257. What was WSC’s code name on
the return journey from the Casablanca
Conference in February 1943 (M)
1258. What was Clementine Churchill’s
maiden name (P)
1259. On 13Aug11, Churchill sent the
Committee of Imperial Defence a prescient
strategic memo about what (S)
1260. Who was the Director of the Industrial
Intelligence Centre who informed
Churchill of Germany’s economics
and rearmament in the 1930s (W)
1261. Who was the first head of Combined
Operations” (C)
1262. What did Lady Soames entitle her
book of her parents’ correspondence (L)
1263. The 18th century House of Commons
snuff box was destroyed during an
air raid on 10 May 1941. What was
Churchill’s replacement (M)
1264. How many Prime Ministers held
office during the time Churchill was out
of office from 1929 to 1939 (P)
1265. In September 1940, Churchill
asked Admiral Keyes to prepare Operation
Workshop—with what objective (S)
1266. In 1920, the Treaty of Sèvres established
a neutral zone around the Sea
of Marmora. What was WSC’s opinion
on retaining the Gallipoli Peninsula (W)
1267. Who replaced Roger Keyes as head
of Combined Operations in 1941 (C)
1268. What are the two rarest Churchill
books (L)
1269. In December 1901, Churchill said
he would forego his mother’s annual allowance.
How much was it (M)
1270. In 1897 Churchill wrote, I “surveyed
this prospect with the eye of an
urchin looking through a pastry cook’s
window.” To what did he refer (P)
1271. When did Churchill say, and what
was the result of his saying, “No Socialist
system can be established without political
police.... They would have to fall back on
some form of Gestapo—no doubt very humanely
directed in the first instance.” (S)
1272. At the Admiralty in WW2
Churchill proposed blocking shipments
of iron ore to Germany from Sweden
and Norway from which two ports (W)
1273. Of whom did WSC say in 1951,
“He takes his place among the great Foreign
Secretaries of our country” (C)
1274. How early did Winston consider
writing a biography of his father (L)
1275. Whom did WSC refer to when he
said, “If you wanted nothing done, [he]
was the best man for the task” (M)
1276. When did Churchill first enter
Parliament (P)
1277. To deceive the Germans the
British enlisted Michael Howard, a
British double agent codenamed “Snow”
by the British and “Johnny” by the Germans.
What reason did he give the Germans
for working with them (S)
1278. After many disappointments, what
was the first successful effort by Combined
Operations Command (W)
ANSWERS TO LAST TRIVIA
(1231) Churchill said de Gaulle “thinks
of himself as Joan of Arc.” (1232) The
WSC book Roosevelt enjoyed before the
war was Marlborough. (1233) The 1942
no-confidence vote was over the PM
continuing to hold the position of Minister
of Defence. (1234) Churchill called
the intercepted German codes “Boniface”
to imply that they came from an agent.
(1235) The comment “God-awful American
academics” was made by Col. Sir
Ronald Wingate concerning the OSS.
FINEST HOUR 115 / 47
(1236) The three chiefs of staff committees
were the British Chiefs, American
Joint Chiefs, and Combined Chiefs.
(1237) Churchill’s best man was Lord
Hugh Cecil. (1238) Churchill wrote that
Cuban insurgents destroyed sugar crops
with “a piece of phosphorous, coated
with wax... fastened to the tail of the
Cuban grass snake...which is then set
loose. The sun melts the wax and ignites
the phosphorous...” (1239) Churchill
was said to be an eighth cousin, twice removed,
of Franklin D. Roosevelt, but
there is considerable debate about this.
(1240) Churchill called the Bletchley
code breakers “geese who laid golden
eggs and never cackled.”
(1241) The two targets added by Bomber
Command in January 1945 were Berlin
and rail connections needed by German
reinforcements in the battle of the Oder
River. (1242) The Africa Star was authorized
for service on one Mediterranean
island: Malta. (1243) Anthony Eden
became PM when Churchill retired in
1955. (1244) Churchill wanted £2000 in
royalties for Ian Hamilton’s March.
(1245) Churchill’s father Lord Randolph
was 45 when he died in 1895.
(1246) Ernest Bevin recommended
Churchill for Lord Warden of the
Cinque Ports. (1247) In 1944, the
Chiefs of Staff recommended against the
use of gas. (1248) The Malakand commander
was General Sir Bindon Blood.
(1249) Churchill was accompanied to
Cuba by Reginald Barnes. (1250)
Churchill originally wanted to call his
WW1 memoirs The Great Amphibian;
the title was rejected by the publisher.
(1251) Churchill was a Captain in the
Queen’s Own Oxfordshire Hussars.
(1252) Churchill was first approached to
stand as a Tory candidate for Oldham in
1899. He lost by fewer than 1500 votes.
(1253) Yalta’s major issues included the
future of Germany, a French occupation
zone, German reparations, a world organization,
Poland’s borders and government,
and Russian entry into the war
against Japan. (1254) Churchill first
asked Gen. Sir Alan Brooke, who had
been Chief of the Imperial General Staff
for just eight months, to lead the Eighth
Army after Auchinleck. He then selected
Gen. Gott, who was killed in a plane
crash before he could assume command,
and Churchill selected Gen. Bernard
Montgomery. ,

“If we are together, nothing is impossible...”
Prime Minister Mackenzie King of Canada, President Franklin Roosevelt, Winston Churchill
and Canada’s Governor-General the Earl of Athlone, Quebec City, 7 September 1943