What kind of a People do they think we are? - Winston Churchill

0mAUTUMN 2001 • NUMBER 112IBWhat kind of a People do they think we are?

THE CHURCHILL CENTERINTERNATIONAL CHURCHILL SOCIETIESUNITED STATES • UNITED KINGDOM • CANADA • AUSTRALIAPATRON: THE LADY SOAMES, D.B.E. • WWW.WINSTONCHURCHILL.ORGThe Churchill Center ig a non-profit organization which encourages study of the life and thought of 'Winston SpencerChurchill; fosters research ahout his speeches, writings and deeds; advances knowledge of his example as a statesman; and, hyprogrammes of teaching and publishing, imparts that learning to people around the world. The Center was organized in 1995 hythe International Churchill Societies, founded in 1968 to educate future generations on the works and example of WinstonChurchill. The Center and Societies jointly sponsor Finest Hour, special publications, symposia, conferences and tours.r t mJOINT HONORARY MEMBERSConrad M. Black OC PC • Winston S. ChurchillThe Lord Dcedes KBE MC PC DL • Sir Martin Gilbert CBEGrace Hamblin OBE • Robert Hardy CBE • Yousuf Karsh CCThe Lord Jenkins of Hillhcad OM PC • William ManchesterThe Duke of Marlborough JP DL • Elizabeth NelSir Anthony Montague Browne KCMG CBE DFCColin L. Powell KCB • Wendy Russell RevesAmbassador Paul H. Robinson, Jr.The Lady Thatcher LG OM PC FRSThe Hon. Caspar W. Weinberger GBETHE CHURCHILL CENTERBOARD OF GOVERNORSRandy Barber • David Boler • Nancy H. CanaryD. Craig Horn • William C. Ives • Nigel KnockerRichard M. Langworth • John H. Mather MDJames W. Muller • Charles D. Platt * John G. PlumptonDouglas S. RussellOFFICERSJohn G. Plumpton, President130 Collingsbrook Blvd., Toronto, Ont. M1W 1M7Fax. (416) 502-3847Email: savtola@winstonchurchill.orgWilliam C. Ives, Vice President77 W. Wacker Dr., 43rd fir., Chicago IL 60601Tel. (312) 845-5798 • Fax. (312) 845-5828Email: merivas@mbf-law.comDr. John H. Mather, Secretary12144 Long Ridge Lane, Bowie MD 20715Tel. (301) 262-0430 • Fax. (301) 352-0472Email: johnmather@aol.comD. Craig Horn, Treasurer8016 McKcnstry Drive, Laurel MD 20723Tel. (888) WSC-1874 • Fax. (301) 483-6902Email: dcraighorn@email.msn.comCharles D. Platt, Endowment Director14 Blue Heron Drive West, Greenwood Village CO 80121Tel. (303) 721-8550 • Fax. (303) 290-0097Email: cdp31@email.msn.comBOARD OF TRUSTEESWinston S. Churchill • The Hon. Jack Kemp • George A. LewisChristopher Matthews • Amb. Paul H. Robinson, Jr.The Hon. Celia Sandys • The Hon. Caspar W. Weinberger GBERichard M. Langworth CBE, Chairman181 Burrage Road, Hopkinton NH 03229Tel. (603) 746-4433, Fax. (603) 746-4260Email: malakand@conknet.comBUSINESS OFFICESLorraine C. Horn, AdministratorDebby Young, Membership Secretary8016 McKenstry Drive, Laurel MD 20723Tel. (888) WSC-1874 • Fax. (301) 483-6902Email: wsc_l 874@msn.comCHURCHILL STORES (Back Issues & Sales Dept.)Gail Greenly, PO Box 96, Contoocook NH 03229Tel. (603) 746-3452 • Fax (603) 746-6963Email: greengail@aol.comWWW.WINSTONCHURCHILL ORGWebmaster: John Plumpton,savrola@winstonchurchill.orgListserv: winston@vm.marist.eduListserv host: Jonah.Triebwasser, jonah.triebwasser@marist.eduCHURCHILL CENTER ASSOCIATESWinston Churchill Associates:ICS United States • The Churchill CenterThe Annenberg Foundation • David & Diane BolerColin D. Clark • Fred Farrow • Mr. & Mrs. Parker H. Lee HIMichael & Carol McMenamin David & Carole NossRay L. & Patricia M. Orban • Wendy Russell RevesElizabeth Churchill Sncll • Mr. & Mrs. Matthew B. WillsAlex M. Worth Jr.Clementine Churchill AssociatesRonald D. Abramson • Winston S. ChurchillJeanette & Angelo Gabriel • D. Craig & Lorraine HornJames F. Lane • Barbara & Richard LangworthDrs. John H. &£ Susan H. Mather • Linda & Charles PlattAmbassador & Mrs. Paul H. Robinson Jr.James R. 8c Lucille I. ThomasMary Soames AssociatesSolveig Si Randy Barber • Gary J. BonineDaniel & Susan Borinsky • Nancy Bowers • Lois BrownNancy H. Canary • Dona & Bob DalesJeffrey & Karen De Haan • Ruth & Laurence GellerFrederick C. &: Martha S. Hardman • Glenn HorowitzMr, & Mrs. William C. Ives • J. Willis JohnsonMr. & Mrs. Gerald Drake Kambestad • Elaine KendallRuth J. Lavine • Mr. & Mrs. Richard A. LeahyCyril & Harriet Mazansky " Michael W. MichelsonMr. & Mrs. James W. Muller • Earl & Charlotte NicholsonBob & Sandy Odcll • Ruth & John PlumptonHon. Douglas S. Russell • Shanin SpecterRobert M. Stephenson • Richard & Jenny StreiffPeter J. Travers • Gabriel Urwitz • Damon Wells Jr.Jacqueline & Malcolm Dean WitterBOARD OF ACADEMIC ADVISERSProf. Paul K. Alkon, University of Southern CaliforniaSir Martin Gilbert CBE, D. Litt., Merton College, OxfordProf. Barry M. Gough, Wilfrid Laurier UniversityProf. Christopher C. Harmon, Marine Corps UniversityCol. David Jablonsky, US Army War CollegeProf. Warren F. Kimball, Rutgers UniversityProf. Paul A. Rahe, University ofTulsaProf. John A. Ramsden,Queen Mary & Westfteld College, University of LondonProf. David T. Stafford, University of EdinburghDr. Jeffrey Wallin, President, The American AcademyProf. Manfred Weidhorn, Yeshiva UniversityProf. James W. Muller, Chairman,University of Alaska Anchorage1518 Airport Hts. Dr., Anchorage AK 99508Tel. (907) 786-4740 • Fax. (907) 786-4647Email: afjwm@uaa.alaska.eduAFFILIATEWashington Society for ChurchillCaroline Hartzler, PresidentPO Box 2456, Merrifield VA 22116Tel. (703) 503-9226Members of The Churchill Center also meet regularly inAlaska, California, Chicago, Detroit, Florida, New England,North Texas, Northern Ohio and Philadelphia.INTERNATIONAL COUNCILOF CHURCHILL ORGANIZATIONSAmbassador Paul H. Robinson, Jr., Chairman208 S. LaSalle St., Chicago IL 60604 USATel. (800) 621-1917Email: phr661944@aol.comICS AUSTRALIARobin Linke, 181 Jersey Street, Wembley WA 6014ICS CANADAAmbassador Kenneth W Taylor, Hon. ChairmanRandy Barber, President4 Snowshoe Cres., Thornhill, Ontario L3T 4M6Tel. (905)881-8550Email: randy,barber@cbs.gov.on.caJeanette Webber, Membership Secretary3256 Rymal Road, Mississauga, Ontario L4Y 3C1Tel. (905) 279-5169 • Email: jeanette.webber@sympatico.caCharles Anderson, Treasurer489 Stanficld Drive, Oakville, Ontario L6L 3R2The Other Club of OntarioNorman MacLeod, President16 Glenlaura Court, Ashburn, Ontario LOB 1A0Tel. (905) 655-4051Winston S. Churchill Society of Vancouver (Affiliated)Dr. Joe Siegenberg, President15-9079 Jones RoadRichmond, British Columbia V6Y 1C7Tel. (604) 231-0940ICS UNITED KINGDOMChairman:Nigel Knocker OBEPO Box 1257, Melksham, Wilts. SN12 6GQTel. & Fax. (01380) 828609Email: nigel@icsuksaf.demon.co.ukTRUSTEESThe Hon. Celia Sandys, Chairman;The Duke of Marlborough JP DLThe Rt. Hon. Earl Jellicoc KBE DSO MC FRSDavid Boler • David Porter • Geoffrey WheelerCOMMITTEENigel Knocker OBE, ChairmanWylma Wayne, Vice ChairmanPaul H. Courtenay, Hon. SecretaryAnthony Woodhead CBE FCA, Hon. TreasurerJohn Glanvill Smith, Editor ICS UK NewsletterEric Bingham • Geoffrey Fletcher • Derek GreenwellMichael Kelion • Fred Lockwood CBE • Ernie Money CBEElisabeth Sandys • Dominic WaltersNORTHERN CHAPTERDerek Greenwell, "Woodstock"6 Wilstrop Farm Road, York. YO2 3RYTcl. (01904) 702844Eric Bingham, Car Lane, Hambleton,Blackpool, Lanes. FY6 9BBTel. (01253) 701275Email: mafcking@>blackpool.netICS UNITED STATESBoard of TrusteesAmbassador Paul H. Robinson, Jr., ChairmanGeorge A. Lewis; Wendy Reves; The Hon. Celia SandysThe Lady Soames DBE; The Hon. Caspar W. WeinbergerThe staff of Finest Hour, published by The Churchill Centtand International Churchill Societies, appears on page 4.

"Our qualities and deeds must burn and glow"JOURNAL OF THE CHURCHILL CENTER & SOCIETIESAUTUMN 2001 • NUMBER 1126 "You Do Your Worst—And We Will Do Our Best"A tonic for the present: 14 July 1941 • Winston S. Churchill8 Immortal Words: "Our Qualities and Deeds Must Burn and Glow"Churchill's Wisdom Calls to Us Across the Years • Richard M. Langworth18 Sixty Years On: The Atlantic Charter 1941-2001Proof of its lasting impact can still be seen • Ron Cynewulf Robbins24 Cover Story: Churchill's GreatnessThere is only one "Greatest" 'Jeffrey Wallin with Juan Williams of Fox News26 How Churchill Did ItCrafting the speeches that still inspire us today • Stephen Bungay34 Alanbrooke and ChurchillEasily visible on secure plinths above swirls of pettiness • Christopher C. Harmon42 The Peoples Rights: Opportunity Lost?What would have happened had the Liberals succeeded? • Andrew MacLaren43 Funding The Churchill Center: 2001 Heritage Fund AppealBOOKS, ARTS & CURIOSITIES:39 David Irving thinks Churchill was a flasher, says Andrew Roberts ...Curt Zoller says the Dardanelles Commission has finally issued a report...Woods Corner: David Druckman and Mark Weber on oldish books.4 Despatch Box • 5 Datelines • 8 Immortal Words • 12 Calendar • 17 Riddles, Mysteries,Enigmas • 32 Action This Day • 40 Wit & Wisdom • 41 Eminent Churchillians49 Inside the Journals • 50 Churchill Online • 51 Recipes From No. 10 • 52 LeadingChurchill Myths • 54 Churchilltrivia • 55 Ampersand • 56 Immortal AdvertsCover: Churchill addressing the Congress of the United States, 26 December 1941. Behind himon the Senate rostrum is Representative William P. Cole, Jr., temporary Speaker of the House.s€41_j*.

"enediNumber 112* Autumn 2001ISSN 0882-3715www.winstonchurchill.orgBarbara F. Langworth, Publisher(b_langworth@conknet.com)Richard M. Langworth, Editor(malakand@conknet.com)PO Box 385, Contoocook,NH 03229 USATel. (603) 746-4433Fax. (603) 746-4260• Address changes. USA: send tothe business office of The ChurchillCenter. UK, Canada & Australia:send to ICS business offices.All offices are listed on page 2.Senior Editors:Ron Cynewulf RobbinsJohn G. PlumptonAssociate Editor:Paul H. CourtenayNews Editor: John FrostFeatures Editor: Douglas J. Hallits*ContributorsGeorge Richard, Australia;Randy Barber, Chris Bell,Barry Gough, Canada;Inder Dan Ratnu, India;Paul Addison, David Boler,Winston S. Churchill,Sir Martin Gilbert, Allen Packwood,Phil Reed, United Kingdom;Chris Hanger, Chris Harmon,Warren F. Kimball, Cyril Mazansky,Michael McMenamin,James W. Muller, Mark Weber,Manfred Weidhorn, Curt Zoller,United StatesFinest Hour is made possible in part throughthe generous support of members of TheChurchill Center and Societies, and with theassistance of an endowment cfeated by TheChurchill Center Associates (listed on page 2).Finest Hour is published quarterly by TheChurchill Center and International ChurchillSocieties, which offer various levels of supportin their respective currencies. Membershipapplications should be sent to the approptiateoffices on page 2. Permission to mail at nonprofitrates in USA granted by the UnitedStates Postal Service, Concord, NH, permitno. 1524. Copyright 2001. All rights reserved.Designed and edited by DragonwyckPublishing Inc. Production by New EnglandFoil Stamping Inc. Printed by ReprographicsInc. Made in U.S.A.ABOARD DDG81Greetings from aboard USS Winston S.Churchill, in the Western Approaches of theEnglish Channel. We have calm seas, the sun isshining and we are engaged in a training exercisewith the Royal Navy. We are 48 hours out ofPortsmouth, where the ship had a rapturouswelcome—the lines of people waiting to comeaboard were three hours long! She was the star ofthe Festival of the Sea. We are about to arrive inPlymouth, the home port of Sir Francis Drake.She is a great ship, with a fine Commander,Mike Franken, and a magnificent crew. As youcan imagine, I am loving every minute and, dareI say it, bursting with pride that such a fine shipshould bear my Grandfather's name.WINSTON S. CHURCHILL, 27AUG01ATROCITIES IN 1919In FH 110:4, F. Y. Gabriel asks whyChurchill didn't protest against the mass slaughterof Jews by the White Russians in 1919. Theshort answer to that question may be found intwo paragraphs in my article, "Churchill and theJews," published in the May/June 1999 issue ofMidstream, bimonthly of the Theodor HerzlFoundation. More details are in Martin Gilbert'sWinston S. Churchill, Vol. IV, pages 338-44.DR. M. DONALD COLEMAN, MAMARONECK, NYFROM DR. COLEMAN'S ARTICLESpearheading Britain's near state of waragainst the Bolshevik revolution in Russia,Churchill saw the Reds as largely led by bloodthirstyJews, who, in their revenge for past antisemitism,aimed to destroy all civil society. Bolshevikbrutality was undeniable, and while theBolsheviks certainly were not all Jews, a disproportionatenumber were. Among White Russians,virulent antisemitism needed little realcause to descend to brutal pogroms. In southernRussia, it is believed that over 100,000 Jews perishedfollowing the White Russian advance.Some of Churchill's utterances crossed overinto an antisemitic vein: "The Bolsheviks arenot fools. Whoever said they were? These Semiticconspirators are among the highest politicalintelligence in the world and implacably devotedto its destruction." He also referred to theSoviet government as "the tyrannic Governmentof these Jew Commissars."But despite Churchill's intense feelings inwhich "Bolshevik" and "Jew" became almost interchangeable,he warned White Russian generalDeniken to prevent pogroms against "innocentJews" or else he would lose British backing.Churchill's Bolshevik-Jew conflation during thisperiod fell away when his responsibilities as ministerfor war ended in 1921. He did not followthe path of many others who permitted observationsabout Jews and their over-representation inthe Communist movement to feed into preexistingpersonal prejudices. For Churchill, the basicfoundation for this prejudice did not exist.DESPATCH BOXEXCERPTS FROMWINSTONS. CHURCHILL,VOL. IVWSC to Gen. Harington, Deputy Chief, ImperialGeneral Staff, 2 June 1919:"Any force wh we support even indirectlymust proceed according to the laws & customsof war & be guided by humane considerations....Wholesaleexecutions are unpardonableon political as well as on moral grounds." (293)WSC to Gen. Gough, Commander, British militarymission to the Baltic, 6June 1919:"Excesses by anti-Bolsheviks if they are victoriouswill alienate sympathies British nationand render continuance of support most difficult....Youshould press for fair public trial of allculprits and stringent orders against terrorismand indiscriminate shooting." (293)WSC to Gen. Holman, Commander, military missionto South Russia, 18 September 1919:"[Urge Gen. Deniken] to do everything inhis power to prevent a massacre of the Jews inthe liberated districts [and to issue] a proclamationagainst antisemitism." (330)WSC to Lloyd George, 20 October 1919:"There is very bitter feeling throughoutRussia against the Jews, who are regarded asbeing the main instigators of the ruin of the[Russian] Empire, and who, certainly, haveplayed a leading part in Bolshevikatrocities....This feeling is shared by the VolunteerArmy and the Army of the Don under GeneralDeniken....I have repeatedly urged him tomake my task easier by proving his capacity torestrain his troops and have received from himsolemn assurances....By continuing to supplyGeneral Deniken we shall be constantly in a positionto exercise a modifying influence uponwhat are, after all, some of the most terrible hatredswhich have ever afflicted mankind. By cuttingourselves adrift we should lose all power toinfluence events either in the direction of mercyor democracy." {Companion Part 2: 912)WSC to Gen. Deniken, 20 October 1919:"Your Excellency, I know, will realise thevital importance at this time, when such brilliantresults are being secured, of preventing byevery possible means the ill-treatment of the innocentJewish population." (343)WSC to the Cabinet, 21 October 1919:(Memo to British military mission commander)"Everything will be done by Gen. Hakingto prevent indiscriminate or wholesale executions.Even the worst criminals are entitled to atrial. Above all, anything in the nature of a Jewishpogrom would do immense harm to theRussian cause. All the influence of the Britishrepresentative will be used in securing the safetyof innocent Jews...." {Companion Part 2: 934) k>FINEST HOUR 112/4

DATELINESQUOTATION OF THE SEASON"I do not grudge our loyal, brave people, wko were ready to do tkeir duty no matter wkat tkecost, wko never flincked under tke strain of last week...kut tkey skould know tke trutk.Tkey skould know tkat tkere kas been gross neglect and deficiency in our defences.Tkey skould know tkat we kave sustained a defeat witkout a war, tke consequences of wkick willtravel far witk us along our road. Tkey skould know tkat we kave passed an awful milestone inour kistory...and tkat terrikle words kave for tke time keing keen pronounced against tke Westerndemocracies: 'Thou art weigked in tke kalance and found wanting.'And do not suppose tkat tkis is tke end. Tkis is only tke beginning of tke reckoning.Tkis is only tke first sip, tke first foretaste of a bitter cup, wkick will ke proffered to usyear by year unless by a supreme recovery ot moral healtrT a:nd martial vigtewe arise again and take our stand for freedom, as in tke olden ti—VC'SC, HOUSE OF COMMONS, 5 OCTOBER ]93811 September 2001The PresidentThe White House, WashingtonDear Mr. President,The prayers of thousands of membersof The Churchill Center and Societiesthroughout the world are with youand your administration at this time.In your own speeches you said thatLower Manhattan, 10 September 2001"just as Churchill defined the moral issuesof the 1930s and 1940s, he also definedthe great moral challenge up toour own times." It is our fervent wishthat the words and actions of Sir WinstonChurchill, whose bust observesyour deliberations in the Oval Office,will provide comfort and inspiration.Commanders cannot know outcomes—onlychoices. But these wordsof Sir Winston provide a beacon formaking those choices.• "The price of greatness is responsibility.One cannot rise to be in many waysthe leading community in the civilizedworld without being involved in its problems,without being convulsed by its orcontinuedoverleafFINEST HOUR 112/5

ganics, and inspired by its causes. "• "The soul of freedom is deathless; itcannot and will not perish."• "I have no fear of the future. Let usgo forward into its mysteries, let us tearaside the veils which hide it from our eyesand let us move onward with confidenceand courage."Sir Winston Churchill was alwaysconfident that the great democracieswould prevail in the fight againsttyranny and terror, whatever the pricemight be. We share his confidence inoffering our support and encouragementto you at this great moral challengeto our own times.JOHN G. PLUMPTON,PRESIDENT, THE CHURCHILL CENTERSome have asked whether we willhold our scheduled conference in SanDiego in November. My answer is yes;most emphatically YES!DATELINESIt is sadly ironic that we will soonbe meeting again to refresh the legacyof a man who so dramatically personifiedthe indomitable spirit that those inthe civilized world are now being calledupon to exhibit for themselves. Duringthe Blitz, Churchill was asked if worksof art should be spirited away for safekeepingand whether bombed out theatresshould be boarded up. After deploringany idea that Londoners should"scuttle," as he called it, he remindedhis colleagues that culture and the artsare what makes life worth living—thatto forsake the normal routine would bean admission that the enemy had won.By gathering undaunted in SanDiego, we will reaffirm that resolute defianceof murderous barbarism whichhistory will always associate with WinstonSpencer Churchill.WILLIAM C. IVES,VICE PRESIDENT, THE CHURCHILL CENTER(By telephone).I am calling to say that ourthoughts and prayers are with you andwith all Americans in this very devastatingtime in history and that I hope youand yours are all well and were notsomehow affected.RANDY BARBER, PRESIDENT, ICS CANADAEveryone in the UK is shattered bythis ghastly attack. The quote, "Nevergive in, never give in, never, never, never,never; in nothing, great or small, large orpetty—never give in except to convictionsof honour and good sense" is appropriate.Ironically, our committee were meetingin the Cabinet War Rooms when thenews broke.NIGEL KNOCKER, CHAIRMAN, ICS UKWe are all very shocked at today'sevents and send you our sympathies.PAUL H. COURTENAY, HON. SECRETARY, ICS UKvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv"YOU DO YOUR WORST—AND WE WILL DO OUR BEST"A Tonic for Today ky Winston S. CkurckiU, first delivered 14 July 1941In reproducing Churchill's mighty tribute tothe rescuers of London, we have done somethingwe have never done to one of hisspeeches: edited it slightly to eliminate contemporaryreferences. In this evergreen formit serves as commentary on a day that willlive in infamy, 11 September 2001. Theoriginal can be found in Churchill's TheUnrelenting Struggle (English edition 187;American edition 182) or in the CompleteSpeeches VI:6448. PHOTO FROM TIME.The impressive and inspiring spectaclewe have witnessed displaysthe vigour and efficiency of the civil defence forces.They have grown up in the stress of emergency. They havebeen shaped and tempered by the fire of the enemy, andwe saw them all, in their many grades and classes—thewardens, the rescue and first-aid parties, the casualty services,the decontamination squads, the fire services, the reportand control centre staffs, the highways and publicutility services, the messengers, the police. No one couldbut feel how great a people, how great anation we have the honour to belong to.How complex, sensitive, and resilient isthe society we have evolved over the centuries,and how capable of withstandingthe most unexpected strain.I must, however, admit that whenthe storm broke in September, I was forseveral weeks very anxious about the result.Sometimes the gas failed; sometimes theelectricity. There were grievous complaintsabout the shelters and about conditions inthem. Water was cut off, railways were cutor broken, large districts were destroyed,thousands were killed, and many more thousands werewounded. But there was one thing about which there wasnever any doubt. The courage, the unconquerable grit andstamina of our people, showed itself from the very outset.Without that all would have failed. Upon that rock, allstood unshakable. All the public services were carried on,and all the intricate arrangements, far-reaching details, involvingthe daily lives of so many millions, were carried out,FINEST HOUR 112/6

We are thinking of you all in Hopkintonat this dreadful time in our history.We pray that you were not in NewYork on Tuesday.Our hearts, and those of the Britishpeople with whom the United Stateshas enjoyed so rich and rewarding an alliancethrough the years, go out to younow. We are angered and immenselysaddened by these atrocious acts. Youwill have the love and support of thecitizens of the United Kingdom.VALERIE AND CRAIG BROWN, SURREY, UKMany thanks for all these and somany more kind thoughts from abroad.There was a lump in my throat watchingthe Royal Marines play " The Star-SpangledBanner" at the Changing of theGuard at Buckingham Palace.DATELINESIsn't it amazing how Sir WinstonChurchill's words on events that occurredso long ago could remain so relevantto what has happened this week.We are all in total shock in this part ofthe world, and the warm feelings, supportand sorrow for America are beingexpressed in every form of the mediahere and by the people.IAN STEELE, CANBERRA, AUSTRALIAEveryone here knows, and has knownfor a century, that we can always count onAustralia, in good times and bad.Like the rest of the world, except inthe abodes of the barbarians, I am sosorry for the calamity that has befallenyour country. It may be noted that alarge number of Indian losses are includedin these murders. We alreadyhave a fair share in the grief and loss.May God give you and your compatriotscourage to withstand it all.INDER DAN RATNU, JAIPUR, INDIAI was terribly shocked at TV newsof America under terrorist's unbelievableattack. Many people in Japan thinkthat U.S.A. should take the military actionsto cross out terrorists and theirsupporter's networks, with very prudentpreparations.KIYOSHIIGUCHI, YOKOHAMA, JAPANYour kind sentiments are much appreciated.Please know that, while manyinitially compared this event to PearlHarbor, they were quickly reminded thatthe latter was a military attack whichavoided civilian targets.. Likewise encouragingwere the warnings by leaders not torepeat the mistake of indiscriminately arrestingArab-Americans as were Japanese-Americans in 1942. Nevertheless AdmiralIsoruku Yamamoto's words after PearlHarbor are widely quoted: "We haveawakened a sleeping giant, and filled himwith a terrible resolve."ISvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvimprovised, elaborated, and perfected in the very teeth ofthe cruel and devastating storm.We have to ask ourselves this question: Will thebombing attacks come back again? We have proceeded onthe assumption that they will. Many new arrangementsare being contrived as a result of the hard experiencethrough which we have passed and the many mistakeswhich no doubt we have made—for success is the result ofmaking many mistakes and learning from experience. Ifthe lull is to end, if the storm is to renew itself, we will beready, we will not flinch, we can take it again.We ask no favours of the enemy. We seek fromthem no compunction. On the contrary, if tonight ourpeople were asked to cast their vote whether a conventionshould be entered into to stop the bombing of cities, theoverwhelming majority would cry, "No, we will mete outto them the measure, and more than the measure, thatthey have meted out to us." The people with one voicewould say: "You have committed every crime under thesun. Where you have been the least resisted there you havebeen the most brutal. It was you who began the indiscriminatebombing. We will have no truce or parley withyou, or the grisly gang who work your wicked will. You doyour worst—and we will do our best." Perhaps it may beour turn soon; perhaps it may be our turn now.We live in a terrible epoch of the human story,but we believe there is a broad and sure justice runningthrough its theme. It is time that the enemy should bemade to suffer in their own homelands something of thetorment they have let loose upon their neighbours andupon the world. We believe it to be in our power to keepthis process going, on a steadily rising tide, month aftermonth, year after year, until they are either extirpated byus or, better still, torn to pieces by their own people.It is for this reason that I must ask you to be preparedfor vehement counter-action by the enemy. Ourmethods of dealing with them have steadily improved.They no longer relish their trips to our shores. I do notknow why they do not come, but it is certainly not becausethey have begun to love us more. It may be because theyare saving up, but even if that be so, the very fact that theyhave to save up should give us confidence by revealing thetruth of our steady advance from an almost unarmed positionto superiority. But all engaged in our defence forcesmust prepare themselves for further heavy assaults. Yourorganization, your vigilance, your devotion to duty, yourzeal for the cause must be raised to the highest intensity.We do not expect to hit without being hit back,and we intend with every week that passes to hit harder.Prepare yourselves, then, my friends and comrades, forthis renewal of your exertions. We shall never turn fromour purpose, however sombre the road, however grievousthe cost, because we know that out of this time of trialand tribulation will be born a new freedom and glory forall mankind. M>Datelines continue on page 11FINEST HOUR 112/7

IMMORTAL WORDS"OUR QUALITIES AND DEEDS MUST BURN AND GLOW 77Churchill's Wisdom Calls to Us Across the YearsRICHARD M. LANGWORTH/ sit in one of the divesOn Fifty-second StreetUncertain and afraidAs the clever hopes expireOf a low dishonest decade;Waves of anger and fearCirculate over the brightAnd darkened lands of the earth,Obsessing our private lives;The unmentionable odour of deathOffends the September night—W. H. Auden, September I, 1939Sent to us by Professor Paul A. RaheNineteen forty, he told us, was "atime when it was equally good tolive or die." Here is another. For fivedays after September 11th we wereasked for quotes: What did Churchillsay in similar circumstances? Whendid he say it? What effect did it haveon people? Is it appropriate now? Ofcourse it is appropriate now.Churchill said at Munich, "I willbegin by saying die most unpopularthing." Here it is: We are not—quite—united. The academic left is busily atwork assuring students that Americabrought this on herself. At the Universityof North Carolina ProfessorWilliam Blum demanded the President"apologize to all the widows and orphanscreated by chauvinism, racismand sexism," and cut the defense budgetby 90%. At the University of NewMexico a Professor Richard Bertholdtold his students, "Anybody who canblow up the Pentagon has my vote." InWashington, a scraggle of innocentsfree to speak through the sacrifice ofothers gathered to demonstrate against"war and racism." The crackpot rightcontributed the Rev. Jerry Falwell, whosaid this was God's act against "pagans,abortionists, feminists, gays, lesbians,the ACLU and People for the AmericanWay."Ian Langworth at the World Trade Center, 1986** / I 'he worst difficulties from whichJ. we suffer do not come from without.They come from within. They donot come from the cottages of the wageearners.They come from a peculiar typeof brainy people always found in ourcountry, who, if they add something toits culture, take much from its strength. \Our difficulties come from the mood ofunwarrantable self-abasement intowhich we have been cast by a powerfulsection of our own intellectuals. They jcome from the acceptance of defeatistdoctrines by a large proportion of ourpoliticians....Nothing can save England jif she will not save herself. If we lose faithin ourselves, in our capacity to guide andgovern, if we lose our will to live, thenindeed our story is told."'Our "Quotation of the Season"on page 5 can only be from October1938. What Churchill said in the aftermathof Munich stands starklyagainst the searing pictures of NewYork and Washington. We have sus- |tained "a total and unmitigated defeat."There has been "gross neglectand deficiency in our defences." Wewere weighed in the balance andfound wanting.It is important however to rememberthat even after Munich, thisrenowned man of war was at heart apeacemaker, who deplored the carelessneglect that had brought war on:H~V\TThen the situation was man-Vr ageable it was neglected, andnow that it is thoroughly out of hand weapply too late the remedies which thenmight have effected a cure. There isnothing new in the story. It is as old asthe sibylline books. It falls into thatlong, dismal catalogue ofthefruitlessnessof experience and the confirmed unteachabilityof mankind. Want of foresight,unwillingness to act when actionwould be simple and effective, lack ofclear thinking, confusion of counseluntil the emergency comes, until selfpreservationstrikes its jarring gong—these are the features which constitutethe endless repetition of history. " 2We remember equally Churchill'spowerful sense of fair play, which is,after all, what animated Americas effortsin the Middle East—howeverimperfect. It was inconsistent to demandthat some UN resolutions beenforced but not others; naive to urgeany nation to relinquish occupied territorywithout an absolute guaranteeof unimpeachable security; foolish tobomb the wrong places from afar inattempts at risk-free retribution. Itwas not inconsistent to support theone democracy in sea of autocracy; tobroker a settlement offering Palestinians95% of what they wanted; tospend lives and treasure saving peoplein Kuwait, Kosovo, Somalia andBosnia—all of them Muslims, ironically.Churchill said, "We have to assumethe burden of the most thanklesstasks, and in undertaking them to bescoffed at, criticised, and opposed fromFINEST HOUR 112/8

IMMORTAL WORDSnew barbarians. Unlike Christianityand Judaism, Islam has never experiencedreform. Thirteen centuries afterChristianity's founding, its fanaticswere burning infidels in the name ofGod. Thirteen centuries after Islam'sfounding is now. Its fanatics will neverseparate church and state. Whereverthey rule, women are chattel and nonbelieversare persecuted: AfricanChristians, Afghan Hindus, IndonesianBuddhists, Jews everywhere. Whyare we hated? Because here, womenare empowered. Here, Christians, Jewsand Muslims live peacefully together."Tell the truth to the British people!"Churchill once thundered in frustration.There is the truth.Churchill habitually appeared after heavy raids. In Bristol, April 1941, are (foreground left to right): bodyguardWalter H. Thompson, Clementine Churchill, American Ambassador Gilbert Winant, WSC.every quarter." 3 Well, they have nowexported their jihad, their seventh centurymentality, their unending strifeand hatreds to our country. And thatmakes it personal.7 i n succeeding generationsa lot of talk about thepacific virtues we displayed; how we exhaustedevery expedient; how we flaunteda magnificent patience; how we never lostour heads or were carried away by fear orexcitement; how we turned the secondcheek to the smiter seven times or more.Some historians will urge that admirationshould be given to a Government ofhonourable high-minded men who boreprovocation with exemplary forbearanceand piled up to their credit all the Christianvirtues, especially those which commandelectioneering popularity...."I hope it will also be written howhard all this was upon the ordinarycommon folk who fill the casualty lists.Under-represented in Government andParliamentary institutions, they confidetheir safety to the Ministers and thePrime Minister of the day. They havejust cause of complaint if their guides orrulers so mismanage their affairs that inthe end they are thrust into the worst ofwars with the worst of chances." 4So we are at war—never mindwhat slick "operation" we call it: witharmed forces 40% of their size adecade ago, and intelligence demonstrablyin need of overhaul. Will weget it right this time, or resume thefollies that may someday cost us ourlives? Our inertia in defending ourliberty dogs our history. How often,Churchill wondered, must we learnthe old truths anew, to slide slowlydown from invincibility, only to bereminded by sudden calamity that wehave neglected the primary mission ofgovernment: to provide for the commondefense?^O till, if you will not fight for thebright when you can easily winwithout bloodshed; if you will not fightwhen your victory will be sure and nottoo costly; you may come to the momentwhen you will have to fight with all theodds against you and only a precariouschance of survival. There may even be aworse case. You may have to fight whenthere is no hope of victory, because it isbetter to perish than live as slaves." 5Moral relativists once told usNazis just wanted a place in the sun;today they tell us the same about thes^aM have no truce or parleywith you, or the grisly gangwho work your wicked will. You do yourworst—and we will do our best.... Wedo not expect to hit without being hitback, and we intend with every weekthat passes to hit harder. Prepare yourselvesthen, my friends and comrades, forthis renewal of your exertions. We shallnever turn from our purpose, howeversombre the road, however grievous thecost, because we know that out of thistime of trial and tribulation will beborn a new freedom and glory for allmankind." 6Churchill warned that the task athand would not be easy. Not for himthe 1914 formulation, "it will all beover by Christmas." On the contrary,he said (and President Bush has almostsaid): "We must prepare ourselvesfor hard and heavy tidings."After Pearl Harbor Churchillbrought this message to America. Theenemy may be "dazzled and dizzy withtheir own schemes of aggression andthe prospect of early victories." Theyhave misjudged us. It is "difficult toreconcile [their] action with prudenceor even with sanity. What kind of apeople do they think we are? Is it possiblethey do not realize that we shallnever cease to persevere against >»FINEST HOUR 112/9

them until they have been taught alesson which they and the world willnever forget?" 7The Congress of the UnitedStates, including many a grim old isolationist,stood on its collective feetand roared. Churchill told them:ome people may be startled ormomentarily depressed when, likeyour President, I speak of a long andhard war. But our peoples would ratherknow the truth, sombre though it be.And afier all, when we are doing thenoblest work in the world, not only defendingour hearths and homes but thecause of freedom in other lands, thequestion of when deliverance comes fallsinto its proper place in the grand proportionsof human history. Sure I amthat this day—now—we are the mastersof our fate; that the task which hasbeen set us is not above our strength;that its pangs and toils are not beyondour endurance. As long as we have faithin our cause and an unconquerablewill-power, salvation will not be deniedus. In the words of the Psalmist, "Heshall not be afraid of evil tidings; hisheart is fixed, trusting in the Lord. " 7Can America, Britain and theirallies stay the course? The enemy hastwo hopes, as Churchill warned in1944: "The first is that by lengtheningthe struggle he may wear downour resolution; the second and moreimportant hope is that division willarise." 8 Division has already arisen;but the performance of the commonpeople, the leaders of major parties,and, remarkably, the civilized world,suggests that today's generation doesnot lack the staying power of its predecessors.We will need it.his is the lesson: never give in,JL never give in, never, never, never,Footnotes1. Royal Society of St. George, 24 April 19332. House of Commons, 12 April 19353. House of Commons, 8 December 19444. Unpublished passage from The Gathering Storm,from Martin Gilbert, Winston S. Churchill,IMMORTAL WORDSnever—in nothing, great or small, largeor petty—never give in except to convictionsof honour and good sense. Neveryield to force; never yield to the apparentlyoverwhelming might of theenemy....Do not let us speak of darkerdays; let us rather speak of sterner days.These are not dark days: these are greatdays—the greatest days our country hasever lived—and we must all thank Godthat we have been allowed, each of us accordingto our stations, to play a part inmaking these days memorable in the historyof our race." 9Never give in—and never misunderstand.This was not the work ofragtag guerrillas, materializing brieflyto strike and melt away. This was thework of educated, methodical barbarianswho made a careful appraisal ofthe likely reaction. "We must at leastentertain the possibility," wrote PaulRahe, "that those who planned thisoperation planned its consequences,that they thought also, with equal intelligenceand understanding, concerningour likely reaction to thehavoc that they intended to wreak.We must ponder whether they mighthave understood just how much damagewe would do to ourselves economicallyin the aftermath, just howcautious and fearful that we wouldbecome, just how inclined manyAmericans would be to wring theirhands and blame their country forwhat the terrorists had done." If theyhave so judged us, they are unwise.ly people—and there weremany, not only in enemy countries—mightdiscount the force of theUnited States. Some said they were soft,others that they would never be united.They would fool around at a distance.They would never come to grips. Theywould never stand blood-letting. TheirCompanion Volume V, Part 3 "The Comingof War" 1623, brought to our attentionby Gregory Smith.5. The Gathering Storm, 272 (English edition),348 (American edition)6. Civil Defence Services, Hyde Park, 14 July 1941democracy and system of recurrent electionswould paralyze their war effort.They would be just a vague blur on thehorizon to friend or foe. Now we shouldsee the weakness of this numerous butremote, wealthy, and talkative people.But I had studied the American CivilWar, fought out to the last desperateinch. American blood flowed in myveins. I thought of a remark which EdwardGrey had made to me more thanthirty years before—that the UnitedStates is like a gigantic boiler. Once thefire is lighted under it there is no limitto the power it can generate.'"'"With twenty years' battle experience,from frontier skirmishes nearAfghanistan to the Great War's WesternFront, Churchill knew how difficultwar can be. It never fazed him.His courage calls to us across the yearsfrom that bleak May of 1940:a* I i 'oday is Trinity Sunday. Cen-JL turies ago words were written tobe a call and a spur to the faithful servantsof Truth and Justice: Arm yourselves,and be ye men of valour, and bein readiness for the conflict; for it is betterfor us to perish in battle than to lookupon the outrage of our nation and ouraltar. As the Will of God is in Heaven,even so let it be.'""From Rudy Giuliani in his baseballcap to a President quoting theman whose bust adorns his office, wehave just been reminded of how vitalChurchill remains to free peoples:how appropriate his words, how contagioushis resolve, how necessary hisoptimism. We have only to follow hisprecepts. Then truly it may be saidthat if the Great Democracies last fora thousand years, we shall still look toWinston Churchill as the essence anddistillation of liberty. $7. United States Congress, 26 December 19418. House of Commons, 27 October 19449. Harrow School, 29 October 194110. The Grand Alliance, 540 (English edition),607 (American edition)11. Broadcast, London, 19 May 1940FINEST HOUR 112/10

DATELINES"Churchill in a Yankees Cap"NEW YORK, SEPTEMBER 14TH— This, NewYorkers have been saying almost sincethe first nightmare fireball appeared ontheir television screens, has been RudyGiuliani's finest hour.The wartime analogy feels apt. Themayor has offered a grittier, Flatbushflavoredversion of Franklin Roosevelt'sfireside chats. He's been operationsmanager and pastor, diversity-trainingcounselor and dauntless cheerleader, anormally contentious figure suddenlyturned symbol of the city's unity. He'sbeen Winston Churchill in a Yankeescap. "I want the people of New York tobe an example to the rest of the countryand the rest of the world that terrorismcan't stop us," he said on the first day,having scrambled out of a downtownbuilding where he himself was trappedfor several minutes after the first of theTwin Towers dissolved.The mayor is everywhere, all thetime, it seems—visiting Ground Zeroin a white mask and hard hat; at hospitals;phoning radio stations; giving pressbriefings from an "undisclosed location."He often wore an FDNY cap andan EMS windbreaker, tributes to thefirefighters, who've taken catastrophiclosses, and emergency medical workers.He knew without a teleprompterhow many truckloads of debris were removedfrom the attack site, confirmedthe number of body bags ordered, announcedhow many remained missing.He told people where to find sheltersand where to donate blood; he passedout photos of an airliner flight recorderbox so anyone who found one wouldrecognize it ("except it'll be obviouslycovered with soot and dirt").—via Chris Dunford from The WashingtonPost. The cartoon is from a the San AntonioExpress News, via Carol Ferguson."We Stand By You":A Letter HomeE-mail from an officer aboard USSWinston S. Churchill. Approved for releaseby U.S. Navy, sent by Dean ChrisSterling, George Washington University.Dear Dad,Well, we are still out at sea, with littledirection as to what our next priorityis. The remainder of our port visits,which were to be centered around maxliberty and goodwill to the UK, have allbut been canceled. We have spent everyday since the attacks going back andforth within imaginary boxes drawn inthe ocean, standing high-securitywatches, and trying to make the best ofour time. It hasn't been that fun I mustconfess, and to be even more honest, alot of people are frustrated either thatthey can't be home or that we don't havemore to do right now.We have seen the articles and thephotographs, and they are sickening.Being isolated as we are, I don't thinkwe appreciate the full scope of what ishappening back home, but we are feelingthe effects.About two hours ago the junior officerswere called to the bridge to conductshiphandling drills. We were aboutto do a man overboard when we got acall from the Lutjens (D185), a Germanwarship that was moored ahead of uson the pier in Plymouth, England.While in port, the Winston S. Churchilland Lutjens got together for a sportsday/cookout on our fantail, and wemade some pretty good friends.Now at sea, they called over onbridge-to-bridge, requesting to pass usclose up on our port side to say goodbye.We prepared to render them honorson the bridgewing, and the Captaintold the crew to come topside to wishthem farewell.As they were making their approach,our Conning Officer announcedthrough her binoculars thatthey were flying an American flag. Asthey came closer, we saw that it was flyingat half-mast. The bridgewing wascrowded with people as the boatswain'smate blew two whistles—Attention toFINEST HOUR 112/11Port. As Lutjens came alongside we sawthat the entire crew of the German shipwere manning the rails in their dressblues. They had made up a sign thatread, "We Stand by You."Needless to say there was not a dryeye on the bridge as they stayed alongsideus for a few minutes and we cutour salutes. It was probably the mostpowerful thing I have seen in my entirelife and more than a few of us fought toretain our composure.The German Navy did an incrediblething for this crew. It's amazing tothink that only sixty years ago thingswere quite different. It has truly beenthe highest point in the days since theattacks.To see the unity that is beingdemonstrated throughout Europe andthe world makes us all feel proud to beout here doing our job. We are nolonger at liberty to divulge our locationover unsecure e-mail, but we could nothave asked for a finer day at sea.After the Lutjens pulled away andwe prepared to begin our man overboarddrills the Officer of the Deckturned to me and said, "I'm stayingNavy." I'll write you when I know moreabout when I'll be home, but for now,this is probably the best news that Icould send you. Love you guys. »>

DATELINESCHURCHILL CALENDAR 2001AUpmunff uelnme. uu SKR :O JU> iijjruny:. I'taulf u e netd • ->py _•: 'e u:;• tc >'.: '!•/'•• •'. M: .. >,. t14 November: English Speaking I'mun annual Chuidull lecture .it I luilrihjli I'm ulLunJon. by the Ri Hon Chris Paitrn. (.'oni.ni: Dem \e*m in 'l20-"29 l^n 11• 30 November: I2"th birthday celebration. Kenneth RciiJrll Museum of WwM >X JI IINatick. MA. Contact: Suunnc Signun f&Mgmaii'-^mediaonc.ne'.l. tcl. ii«l"^ 6% iM*•30 November: 127th birthday celebration. Hotel Opt,tin uk, WhotJ) 1 .?. \K.I\MUUI:James Mulier ^afiwm^uaa.jl.isLi.eciu). id. \9Q~) 78h-\~n), audn-y. on page ^.2002• September 19th International ("hurt hill LOUUICIKC.Previous plans fur i Mediterranean Cruise in Uaohu have hern >. iDeuiL

Charles Granville Rob MCBERLIN, VERMONT, JULY 27TH— CharlesGranville Rob, 88, a British- born surgeonwho operated on WinstonChurchill and taught generations ofyoung physicians, died today. Dr. Rob,who pioneered techniques for the repairof damaged blood vessels, was one ofBritain's foremost surgeons when theUniversity of Rochester medical schoolbrought him to the United States in1960. He was professor of surgery anddepartment chairman in Rochesteruntil 1978, later teaching in North Carolinaand Bethesda, Maryland, wheremade his permanent home.While at Cambridge, Rob becamea pilot with a reserve commission in theRAF, and in 1941 he was assigned to aparachute brigade as surgical specialist.Air-dropped into Tunisia in 1942, hestarted operating on wounded soldiersunder heavy fire. For his bravery, he wasdecorated on the battlefield with theMilitary Cross. After the war, while stillin Britain, Dr. Rob was regularly calledin as a specialist to tend to Churchill,who was aging and increasingly infirm.His numerous medical papers werepublished throughout the world.Dr. Rob's prescriptions could bequite earthy. At a British Medical Associationmeeting on the surgical treatmentof blood clots in 1957, he saidthat the best painkiller was a stiff drinkof whisky. "We put our patients on bigand rapid doses of whisky up to themaximum tolerance in individualcases," Dr. Rob said. "The best treatmentfor the condition is rest. The bestway to rest is sleep. The best way to getsleep is to relieve pain, and the best wayto relieve pain is to give whisky."—Wolfgang Saxon in The New York Times"Churchill Way," FloridaMANALAPAN, FLA., SEPTEMBER 24TH— ManalapanEstates is a waterfront developmentof seven properties on a 5.7-acreparcel near Miami Beach. The developershave named the entry road"Churchill Way" in memory of SirWinston, "who visited the estate on severaloccasions."Although they say the property wasDATELINESChurchill Way, Manalapan, Floridaformerly the "Vanderbilt Estate," wecan't help wondering if this was part ofthe property owned by Canadian shipowner Frank W. Clarke, whereChurchill rested before delivering theFulton Speech in March 1946. (Clarkeworked for Churchill on the BritishGazette during the 1926 General Strike;after the Quebec Conference in 1943he lent Churchill the use of his lakesidecabin; see the Official Biography8:182.) More details from Ocean & IntracoastalProperties, tel. 561-533-5533.Randy Barber, William Manchester, JonahTriebwasser, 1995 Churchill Conference, BostonLast Lion Still AliveNEW YORK, AUGUST 17TH— The New YorkTimes ran an eloquent lament thatWilliam Manchester has reluctantly concededthat he no longer has theChurchillian stamina required to completehis Churchill trilogy, The Last Lion:"To understand the popular appealof his biography, consider the final sentenceof volume 2: And now, in thedesperate spring of 1940, with the reinsof power at last firm in his grasp, he resolvedto lead Britain and her fadingempire in one last great struggle worthyof all they had been and meant, to armthe nation, not only with weapons butalso with the mace of honor, creating inevery English breast a soul beneath theribs of death.' This is indeed grandiose.Its very sound—echoing Churchill'sprose—makes a claim for his importanceto the last century....It is our misfortunenot to have that struggle again,as told by William Manchester."This drew a reply from MichaelPietsch, Little Brown's publisher, whostates that he and Manchester are discussingbringing in a writer with whomhe could complete the work. "The first250 pages of the third volume are finished,and Mr. Manchester long agowrote an extraordinarily detailed, carefullyorganized set of notes, coded accordingto character, subject and time,complete through Churchill's death.This is part of a vast body of work alreadydone on the tliird volume. I amtalking with writers who might be capableof completing this weighty projectand will present candidates for Mr.Manchester's approval. It is our hopethat in this way Mr. Manchester will beable to oversee the completion of hismagnificent biography, and readers willbe able to read the dramatic and movingstory of Churchill's role in WorldWar II and after."LOCAL & NATIONALChurchill in BritainPORTSMOUTH, UK— The InternationalFestival of the Sea, a four-day spectacle,took place at HM Naval Base, Portsmouthat the end of August. A quarterof a million visitors attended, alongwith 26 Tall Ships and more than 650classic and traditional boats rangingfrom a tiny coracle to the lovinglytended classics including several ofAmerica's Cup yachts.Dominating the exhibition werenumerous Royal Navy vessels and shipsfrom ten other Navies. In pride of placewas USS Winston S. Churchill, at herfirst overseas port-of-call; she attractedmuch interest in the press and on nationaltelevision as well as among thehuge crowds of visitors.On the evening before the Festivalopened, Commander Michael T.Franken and his crew held a receptionon the flight deck to mark their arrivalon the previous afternoon. Among thosepresent were the Lord Lieutenant »»FINEST HOUR 112/13

DATELINESNigel Knocker (r) presents "Sail on, O Ship ofState" to DDG81's captain, Cdr. Mike Franken.of Hampshire, the United States Ambassador,the First Sea Lord & Chief ofNaval Staff, the Commander-in-ChiefUS Navy Europe and the CommandantGeneral Royal Marines.A number of ICS (UK) membershad also been invited. This gave ChairmanNigel Knocker the opportunity tomake a presentation to CommanderFranken: a facsimile of the illuminatedverse "Sail on, O Ship of State," about adozen of which Winston Churchill hadmade up and brought to the AtlanticCharter Meeting at Placentia Bay in August1941; President Roosevelt and heeach signed the copies, each kept one,and a precious few were given to thoseattending. The Longfellow verse hadearlier been sent by the President toChurchill with a note in his own hand:"I think this verse applies to you peopleas it does to us." This sentiment was especiallyappropriate exactly sixty yearsafter the Atlantic Meeting.One delighted visitor to the shipduring the Festival was Mr. PatrickKinna. He had been one of WinstonChurchill's private secretaries for mostof World War II and accompanied himto the Atlantic Meeting and on numeroussubsequent occasions, includingvisits to Roosevelt and Stalin. He wasvery pleased to be presented with a pictureof the ship. Our Patron, LadySoames, also visited the ship atPortsmouth and stayed on board forone night.After Portsmouth, USS Winston S.Churchill sailed north and was due tovisit a number of other ports in theUnited Kingdom and also Dublin andNorway. Her present whereabouts arenow the business of the Navy.AROUND & ABOUTWinston Churchill was the most quoted historicalfigure during the week following September1 lth .... Anent "Operation Enduring Freedom,"Suzanne Sigman sent us this: "Operations,"Churchill said, "ought not to be described by codewordswhich imply a boastful and over-confident sentiment."Their names "ought not to be names of frivolouscharacter. They should not be ordinary words.".... On the September 15th weekend, Chartwell had3,000 more visitors than the same weekend last year; in London, 20,000 stoodvigil at the American Embassy in Grosvenor Square while floral tributes appearedat the Whitehall statue of Franklin Roosevelt.... Toronto Sun columnist PeterWorthington received our 2001 Utter Excess Award for demanding that PresidentBush deliver an on-the-spot fight-on-the-beaches speech, and not be a "griefcounsellor scurrying from airport to airport (Florida, Louisiana, Nebraska) insafety, rather than risking Washington"; and for excoriating his own country forproviding a porous border. Everybody knows why the Secret Service moved Bushabout and it had nothing to do with the President's wishes. If Bush's first remarksdidn't suffice, his later ones did. Churchill, remember, wasn't asked to deliver his"Finest Hour" speech within moments of a disaster. This was certainly the mostignorant article we have come across except in the abodes of the guilty .... The firstNew Yorker we got through to after September 1 lth was Churchill Center AssociateGlenn Horowitz, a prominent antiquarian bookseller known for his qualityChurchill material who fortunately was uptown on September 1 lth .... Glenn saidthe photo of the first plane hitting the North Tower was not accidental: "Note thefireman in battle dress in that frame—hundreds were at the WTC for a trainingexercise and had a camera trained on the tower. They rushed to the scene just asthe South Tower was hit; as many as 300 are dead" .... The towers were amongthe first to be designed to implode rather than topple. An older type of constructionmight have taken many city blocks with it.... Benjamin Netanyahu said thefanatics are working on a nuke, and that we'd better deal with them now .... Aidesto Seattle Mayor Paul Schell were stunned September 12th when they opened anenvelope containing an invitation from New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani. The invitationwas for an October conference on disaster preparedness and included sessionson terrorism, major-event planning and "major building collapses with implications."The location: 7 World Trade Center. $Churchill in WashingtonWASHINGTON, OCTOBER 11TH— Winston S.Churchill, honorary member, trusteeand Churchill Center Associate, delivereda major address today at the NationalPress Club in Washington, D.C.,entitled "The United States, Britain &Europe: The Coming Crisis." He offeredthoughts on the new circumstancesand future for the "special relationship"largely forged by Mr.Churchill's grandfather before, duringand after the Second World War. Byspecial arrangement, Churchill Centermembers attended a pre-address luncheonat the Press Club member rateand immediately after the speech werewelcomed at a private reception withthe speaker.The sponsor of Mr. Churchill'svisit was Churchill Center memberTom Pazzi of Potomac ManagementInc., with assistance from TheChurchill Center. In the evening, Mr.Pazzi arranged a special dinner for Mr.and Mrs. Churchill at Washington's famousWillard Hotel, attended by numerousdistinguished guests. They includedSenator Max Clelland (D-Ga.),Representative Ken Hoekstra (R-ML),columnist Robert Novak, PresidentSusan Eisenhower of the EisenhowerFINEST HOUR 112/14

Institute, J. Willard Marriott, LaurenceGeller, former Pakistan Prime MinisterBenizir Bhutto, and the ExecutiveCommittee of The Churchill Center.Senator Cleland gave a particularlymoving impromptu address, testifyingto Sir Winston's continued relevance inthe 21st century and his deep personalinterest in the work of the Center. Weare most grateful to Mr. Pazzi for hisgenerosity.WashingtonALEXANDRIA, VA., AUGUST 5TH— The WashingtonSociety for Churchill held itssummer picnic/book seminar today atthe home of Susan and Dan Borinsky.It was well attended and members wereriveted by the theme (which five weekslater would prove prescient indeed):"Dealing with Disaster: Churchill andGallipoli." Suggested reading for thediscussion was the first two chapters ofRobert Rhodes James's 1970 book,Churchill: A Study in Failure.Guest speaker Dr. Jeffrey Wallinand program chairman Dr. Chris Harmontogether related the events leadingto this great World War I debacle. Chrisreviewed the beginning of the GreatWar, while Jeffrey described the difficultiesof the British plan and the politicaldecisions which brought about thefailures. Although Churchill was thoroughlyinvolved in some areas of planning,major disagreements left him aneasy target to blame. Success could havechanged the course of history.WASHINGTON, OCTOBER 15TH— Interest inthe Second World War continues tospawn more floods of new books. Today,at the Marvin Center Auditorium,George Washington University, theWashington Society for Churchill assembleda panel of experts to discussstrengths and weakness of the newscholarship, paying particular attentionto how, or whether, they address WinstonChurchill. The panel was impressive.Dr. Ronald Spector, GWU historian,is author of the widely-read Pacificwar history Eagle Against the Sun, andhis new At War At Sea, a 20th centurynaval history. Dr. Eliot Cohen, notedwriter and commentator on war andDATELINESpolitics, directs Strategic Studies forJohns Hopkins University in Washington,and formerly lectured on Sir Winstonat the Naval War College. Dr.David Jablonsky, a retired Army colonel,has been writing monographs and bookson Churchill while teaching at the U.S.Army War College in Pennsylvania. Dr.Williamson Murray, author of numerousWorld War II volumes, has just releasedthe acclaimed A War to be Won,co-written with a fellow historian. Dr.Murray spoke to the Washington Societyat a past event on the war diaries ofField Marshal Alanbrooke. W.S.C.board member Dr. Chris Harmon, whoteaches a Churchill course for MarineCorps officers, chaired the panel. Formore information on Washington areaactivities contact the W.S.C. director,Caroline Hartzler (Hartzlercr@aol.com),telephone (703) 503-9226.LondonSEPTEMBER 19TH— An interesting pair oflectures was held today at the CabinetWar Rooms under the aegis of BBCHistory Magazine. The first was by PiersBrendon, Fellow of Churchill College,Cambridge and until recently Keeper ofthe Churchill Archives Centre there. Hesaid that perceptions of Churchillchanged throughout his career becauseof its great length and its numerous upsand downs. He thought the official biographywas herculean and marvellous,but a chronicle rather than a biography,i.e. facts and not judgment; it was consistentlyuncritical and omitted somediscreditable and weird points. This hadled to revisionists like Rhodes Jamesand Cowling; but recent debunkinghad gone too far, e.g. Ponting, Roberts,Irving and Charmley. But the wormwas now turning and the revisionistswere being revised (e.g. Blake & Lewis).The second lecture was by DavidCannadine {FH 111:13, who said thatWSC had a bifurcated personality,"wonderful, yet impossible." He spokeabout Churchill's power as an oratorand said he was an artist with words,overcoming speech impediments, whichled to his sonorous phrases. WSC'sspeeches were crafted with immensecare and were fashioned in his ownFINEST HOUR 112/15ErratumIn your review of The ChurchillFactors {FH 110:43) you say that"Churchill quoted something to theeffect that when one is about to behanged, 'it concentrates the mindwonderfully.'" I do not know whenand where Churchill may have saidthis, but he would have been quotingSamuel Johnson. When referring tothe poor Dr. Dodds, awaiting executionin Newgate gaol, the great lexicographersaid: "Depend upon it, Sir,when a man knows he is to be hangedin a fortnight, it concentrates hismind wonderfully." Another Johnsonquote used often by Churchill was:"No man but a blockhead ever wrote,except for money."JIM LANCASTER, TURQUEVII.LE, FRANCEThank you for the correction.Churchill had a photographic memoryand often ran off his favorite quotes, notalways with attribution. Your secondSamuel Johnson admonition is referredto frequently by this writer—not, alas,with as much success as WSC. -Ed.style, with influence from Gibbon,Macaulay, Bourke Cockran and LordRandolph Churchill. He quoted fromSavrola (Chapter 10) about the effortand after-effect of speech-making. Healso quoted Herbert Samuel, who saidthat people often voted againstChurchill because he had no judgment,was too prone to believe his own verbosity,and was ill-suited to intimateparliamentary debate. Until 1940 he"failed to inspire trust." —PHCChicagoOAK BROOK, ILL., SEPTEMBER 14TH—Phil and Sue Larson invited ChicagoareaChurchillians to the WyndhamDrake Hotel here tonight for dinnerand remarks by David Druckman, alongtime contributor to Finest Hour, inveteratetraveler to Churchill hauntsworldwide. Much of the evening wasdevoted to reflections of the murderousattacks in New York, and whatChurchill had said in similar circumstances.Contact: parker-fox@msn.comor telephone (708) 352-6825. >»

ICS UK Fine Art AwardsLONDON, JULY liTH— ICS (UK) has initiateda competition for art students atcolleges of further education, which itis intended will become an annualevent. By this initiative the Society isenhancing its aim of educating and inspiringpresent generations through theworks and example of Sir WinstonChurchill. Thanks to generous sponsorshipby The Daily Telegraph it was possibleto offer prizes for the three best entries,which were specifically required tobe representational landscapes. In additionto the cash prizes to individuals,each winner's college received a supplyof art materials donated by Daler-Rowney. The arrangements were expertlycoordinated by the Association ofColleges.This year's awards were presentedat the Cabinet War Rooms by LordBlack, chairman of The TelegraphGroup and an honorary member of theChurchill Center and Societies. Presentwere Lady Soames, Celia Sandys, LordDeedes, President John Plumpton ofThe Churchill Center, Robert Hardyand Elizabeth Nel (who, as Miss Layton,was a wartime secretary to WSCand accompanied him to many overseasconferences).The winner of the £5000 first prizewas 17-year-old Michael Shipley, a studentat St. Brendan's Sixth Form College,Bristol, who submitted a paintingof the Clifton Suspension Bridge. Shipleyaims to combine further fine artsstudy with animation, having alreadymade several studies in the latter field.Equal seconds (sharing a prize of£2500) were Jessie White from MorayCollege, Elgin and Miranda Woonerfrom Bournemouth Arts Institute. Thethird prize of £1000 went to Sarah Fluxfrom Eastleigh College.Churchill at CambridgeCAMBRIDGE, UK— Downing CollegeCambridge will be offering a two-weekcourse entitled "The Churchill Years,"during July 14th to 27th next year. Thecourse director is Eric Grove, one ofBritain's leading naval historians. Fieldtrips to Chartwell as well as ChurchillDATELINESRight: ICS UK Patron LadySoames with honorary memberElizabeth Layton Nel, amember of the Prime Minister'swartime secretariat, whomoved to South Africa withher new husband followingthe war. In 1958 ElizabethNel published Mr. Churchill'sSecretary, a model for booksby members of his staff. It remainstoday one of the mostpopular and sought afterworks about WinstonChurchill in World War II.College are included in the program. Inthe United States the program is offeredthrough the Office of Cooperating Collegesin Eire, Pennsylvania. Interestedmembers should contact Dr. JoannPainter of the Office of CooperatingColleges by calling (814) 456-0757, orby fax to (814) 453-5502.Two-Wheel ChurchilliansAny member with a motorcycle isinvited to join the smallest offshoot ofAbove: First Prize Churchill PaintingContest winner Michael Shipleywith CC/ICS honorary memberLord Black and Shipley's exquisitepainting (left) of CliftonSuspension Bridge, Bristol. Mr.Shipley won a handsome £5000thanks to the generous sponsorshipof Lord Black's Telegraph GroupLtd. The Clifton SuspensionBridge, designed by another famouscigar smoker named Brunei,has been captured here with rareprofessionalism.The Churchill Center, MotorcyclingChurchillians, and perhaps take part infuture group rides. Our membershipcurrently stands at four (two BMWs,two Harleys!). The group has no (separate)dues and membership carries noparticular obligations, nor any legal tieto the Center. Ambitious future rides(Blenheim? Normandy?) are a possibility.Those interested can contact TerryMcGarry (beemerduc@aol.com), telephone(818) 345-5044. M>FINEST HOUR 112/16

RIDDLES,MYSTERIES,ENIGMASSend your questionsto the editorCats Again!Lord Moran (Diary: 512) tells usof a black stray kitten taken in byChurchill and called "Margate," namedto commemorate WSC's October 1953speech at Margate during the ConservativeParty conference following whatwas probably a stroke. (The speech wasa success, proving he had recovered.)Rather touching image—a tiny kittenlies on its back, legs extended, pawingat the edges of the morning newspaper,while the Great Man ponders world affairs.We know, of course, what WinstonChurchill stood for. What doesthe kitten represent?—-Judy Dean, Coordinator, UT ParentsAssociation, Univ. of Texas AustinPerhaps the opposite of Churchill'sBlack Dog?—Mike Campbell, Halifax, N.S.Can anyone tell me what the, quote is where WSC refers tothe ^Mississippi (re: Lend-Lease, Ithink, sometime in 1941)?—Robert Courts, West Midlands, UKAt"This process [Lend-Lease]• means that these two great organizationsof the English-speakingdemocracies, the British Empire andthe United Sates, will have to be somewhatmixed up together in some oftheir affairs for mutual and general advantage.For my own part, looking outupon the future, I do not view theprocess with any misgivings. I couldnot stop it if I wished; no one can stopit. Like the Mississippi, it just keepsrolling along. Let it roll on full flood,inexorable, irresistible, benignant, tobroader lands and better days." Thiswas the closing of Churchill's tribute to"The Few" in his Commons speech of20 August 1940. The full text is avail-REMEMBER WINSTON CHURCHILLWill future generations remember?Will the ideas you cherish now be sustained then}Will someone articulate your principles?Who will guide your grandchildren, your faith and your country?There is an answer.The Churchill Center Associates (page 2) are people who have committed $10,000or more, over five years, all tax-deductible, to the Churchill Center and SocietyEndowment funds earning interest in the United States and Canada.With their help—and yours—those earnings guaranteethat 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 Associateplease contactRichard M. Langworth, Chairman, Board of Trustees(888) 454-2275 • malakand@conknet.comable at winstonchurchill.org/few.htm,but there are some missing words inthe last paragraph.—Chris Dunford, Columbia, Md.Someone, Colville or maybe bodyguardW. H. Thompson, recalled thatafterward, going home in the car, WSCbroke out into a few bars of "O1" ManRiver." Out of tune as usual, but appropriate.—Ed.QPlease be kind enough to clarify^something. In FH110:19 is thesentence, "On the forward deck...is a5-inch, .62 caliber gun..." I have alwaysthought that a "5-inch gun" was agun with an internal diameter of 5inches, and a ".62 caliber gun" was agun with an internal diameter of .62inches. What am I missing?—Joseph R. Abrahamson MD(jabraham @ucsd. edu)AAt last a question I can answer!• Five inches is the bore diameter.A weapon's caliber is its barrel length inbore diameters (i.e., 5 times 62 equals310 inches in barrel length). Usually,the larger caliber the more accurate andbetter range the weapon. Our caliber islarger than previous 5-inch guns (theywere .54) for a couple of reasons; chiefamong those is to have greater pressureinside the breech that a longer barrelwill give you, so that we have a greaterinitial velocity out the barrel.—Cdr. Michael T. Franken, CommandingOfficer, USS Winston S. Churchillf\ #Was Churchill Bipolar?—Anne Gallagher (LtbO3@esc2.net)This has been speculated, butA#• there is scant if any evidence tosupport it. I say "scant" because thereare depressives with a very small percentageof mania or hypomania that isnot easily detected or manifest. Mysense is that when Churchill was "up"it was owed to and not independent ofthe occasion. Even so, I am convincedthat his "Black Dog" was a very realpart of his personality and that it hadstrong genetic roots. There is a lot thatmight be written about the extent ofhis depression, frequency of theepisodes and how profound they werewhen exhibited; but this is grist for along academic paper. Mostly he managedhis depression very well and it wasmore of a dysthymia or Seasonal AffectiveDisorder (SAD) syndrome. Thepalliatives he found for himself weresunlight and bright areas, such as Moroccoand the South of France.—John H. Mather, MD ¥>FINEST HOUR 112/17

SIXTY YEARS ONTHE ATLANTIC CHARTER 1941-2001Proof of its lasting impact can be seen whenever free peoples collaborateto rescue ana skelter people victimized by tyrants or terroristsRON CYNEWULF ROBBINSChurchill appears to have left no written record ofhis first meeting with Roosevelt, during "WorldWar I. This has led to the inevitable conclusionthat the occasion was devoid of any echo in Churchill'scapacious memory. But for their second meetingChurchill insisted on a long and elaborate rehearsal. Hewas the producer and a leading "player."The date was 8 August 1941, three months beforethe Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. The cast: the crew ofHMS Prince of Wales which had taken part in the actionthat sunk the Bismarck. Now Britain's newest battleshipwas cleaving her way at top-speed through the unrelentingheavy seas of the Atlantic to Placentia Bay, Newfoundland,where President Roosevelt eagerly awaited theonset of discussions fateful to the outcome of the SecondWorld War.Humanity's age-old dilemma of how to beat postwar"swords into ploughshares" was to be confronted. Fromthe deliberations of two great statesmen would come aunique proclamation, the Atlantic Charter, dedicated tothe betterment and protection of nations and paving theway for the United Nations. Proof of its lasting impactcan be seen whenever free peoples collaborate to rescueand shelter people victimized by tyrants or terrorists.Roosevelt was astonished at the gap in Churchill'sphenomenal memory concerning their initial introduction.It had taken place in London in July 1918. Churchillwas then a cabinet minister and Roosevelt had attainedthe rank of Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Navy.Boarding Prince of Wales on 4 August 1941,Churchill told aides that the trip would be his "first holiday"since becoming Prime Minister. But there was noreduction in his workload, and the crew were delightedwith the opportunity to observe his tireless devotion toduty. At his comprehensive map room now in the ship heobserved the plotting of menacing U-boats. He shruggedoff the danger with the same disdain that marked hismany wartime voyages. The map room enabled him toMr. Robbins, of Victoria, B.C., is a retired journalist who coveredBritish Parliamentary affairs, and a FH senior editor.keep careful track of the changing fortunes of Britain'shardpressed forces across the globe. He toiled away at officialpapers and concentrated on plans for increasingRoosevelt's support: the United States was not yet at war.The warship soon ran into foul weather. Slowerdestroyer escorts were dismissed to avoid lowering speed,which would have meant late arrival. The majority ofChurchill's land-based advisers had queasy stomachs.Churchill, who revelled in the pitching and rolling, had toresort to prowling through the lower decks to stretch hislegs. He also relaxed now and then by playing backgammonwith Hopkins—whom he failed to beat.Churchill conducted rigorous rehearsals for the conference.Undeterred by the cold and blustery conditions,he strode firmly along the deck to coach Sir AlexanderCadogan, the Permanent Undersecretary of the ForeignOffice, whom he had chosen to play the role of Roosevelt.Cadogan could scarcely conceal his surprise.On the quarterdeck a guard of honour was assembledalongside the Royal Marines band. In obedience toChurchill, Cadogan raised his hat to pretend he had justarrived. Right on cue the Marines struck up "The Star-Spangled Banner." The order, "Present Arms!" rang out.The guard of honour responded proudly. Churchill cameforward and shook hands with Cadogan, who seemedsomewhat awed at what was expected of him. But he wascomposed and dignified on being suitably greeted by theChiefs of Staff. The battleship's officers added their salute.The rehearsal was punctuated with suggestions fromChurchill until he was satisfied the ceremonial would bea worthy tribute to the President of the United States.As Churchill sailed west, struggling to outmanoeuvreHitler's Kriegsmarine, unconquered Britain was scalingdown her traditional freedoms. Censorship had beenimposed and accepted as an essential weapon. Disciplinedsurvivors of incessant German bombing, the Britishresponded to the injunction on official posters: "CarelessTalk Costs Lives." There would be no breach of securityto jeopardize Churchill's Atlantic crossing. Butbecause the Americans were still at peace, presidentialcontinued overleafFINEST HOUR 112/18

OK,osmvof STATE !Sail ott f O Union, . .. . strong and great IHtimamfy wtih all ite feats,Wittt all ttu> \wpe$ ofr .futuref ^,Is tanrfttuf Df eaMess on^th^ fate !The Longfellow verse InM R ROOSEVELT'S MESSAGEto M B CHURCHILL.FINEST HOUR 112/19

Left: Churchill pacing Prince of Wales en route Argentia. Right: WSC with senior service advisers who accompanied him aboard the battleship. Left toright, First Sea Lord, Admiral Pound; Chief of Imperial General Staff, General Dill; Churchill; and Vice-Chief of the Air Staff, Air Marshal Freeman.activities were "fully reported." The White House told thenation that FDR was enjoying a "fishing holiday" aboardthe Presidential yacht Potomac. In fact, he had left theyacht and joined the USS Augusta. Destroyers and planeshad shielded his voyage to Placentia Bay.The destiny of the world depended on the effectivenessof policies agreed on by Roosevelt and Churchill.After the Luftwaffe's onslaughts had failed to breakBritain in 1940, Hitler had invaded the Soviet Union on22 June 1941. Churchill had immediately aligned Britainwith the Russians and arranged the signing of a pact toprovide all possible aid.The far-sighted American Lend-Lease Act wasalready buttressing Britain. Roosevelt amplified this inJuly 1941 by sending U. S. forces to take over the occupationof Iceland from the British. He also ordered navalvessels to patrol sea lanes as far east as Iceland. Churchillquickly hailed the "first rate political and strategicalimportance" of Roosevelt's intervention. The Nazisreceived another punishing blow when Lend-Lease wasextended to the Russians. But it was imperative thatRoosevelt and Churchill meet face-to-face to coordinatefuture moves.The redoubtable Harry Hopkins, Roosevelt's intimatefriend and emissary, was aboard Prince ofWales, having flown to London on July 14th. Frailin body, robust in mind and will, he formed a warm, productivepartnership with Churchill. The modus operandifor Lend-Lease was the main reason for his visit toDowning Street. At the end of an intensive survey of thewar situation, he suddenly suggested that Churchill conferin person with Roosevelt. Broad-ranging talks wouldconsolidate policy. Churchill, jubilantly endorsing theidea, hastened to telephone FDR. In swift accord they settledthe details—location, date, security measures.Moscow was the next stop for Hopkins, but he hadreturned to Britain by plane in time to sail with Churchill.Hopkins was a remarkably accomplished liaisonofficer and diplomat who deserves full credit for his spontaneousand persuasive approach to Churchill. But it mustbe emphasized that previously there had been a foreshadowingof the policy soon to be drawn up and approved byWashington and London to safeguard freedom. Roosevelthad given the developing alliance deep thought and welcomedany initiative Hopkins could provide. Churchillwas obviously in favour of a meeting to ensure the UnitedStates linked hands with Great Britain to destroy Hitler'sdespotism.What principally mitigated against the project wasChurchill's overwhelming preoccupation with the roaringtide of Nazi advance. But Hitler's attack on Russia hadwidened the war rapidly, and the speedy conquest ofRussian territory by the German army sharpened thenecessity for a Roosevelt-Churchill summit to marshalevery resource and unify every counterstroke. Hopkins,with that immaculate sense of timing which endeared himto Roosevelt, had chosen the precise moment to pinpointthe perils of further delay.During his London visit, Hopkins broadcast aninspiring, memorable message to the people of Britain.This writer listened to it with a group of fellow servicemen.He explained that Roosevelt had promised to guaranteethe delivery of American supplies to Britain. "Youare not fighting alone," Hopkins declared, in a voice ringingwith conviction.Almost instant rapport had been establishedbetween Churchill and Hopkins. As they sailed togetherfor Newfoundland, they spent hours in conclave.Hopkins gave a detailed account of his visit to Moscow.The highlight was his favourable impression of Stalin'sdetermination, coupled with Russia's imperative need forhelp to hold back Hitler. Undoubtedly this reinforcedChurchill's opinion that Britain should be prepared toFINEST HOUR 112/20

eappear in compliance withclocks and protocol. Mistsshrouding the hills could notmar the grandeur of the vista.The bay is over 50 miles wide. Indie half-light of early morning,visiting crews admired the endlessshoreline and shadowysplendour of trees crowding thehills. Hitler, a self-confessedcoward in any ship, would havereceived daunting reaffirmationof his sea-fear had he glimpsedthe assembled might of warshipssummoned to protect Rooseveltand Churchill on their outwardand homeward journeys.divert to Russia some of the American materiel previouslyearmarked for Britain. Churchill welcomed Hopkins'soptimistic assessment of Soviet military capability, a derisivecontradiction of the dark pessimism of Sir StaffordCripps, Britain's gloom-and-doom ambassador toMoscow. Cripps had lofty political ambitions, whichalmost always exceeded his prescience and performance.Hopkins was intrigued to discover that the Britishhad undermined Churchill's agreement with Rooseveltthat no journalists would be present to witness their meeting.Brendan Bracken, Churchill's confidant and Ministerof Information, had been guilty of extreme rationalizationin providing berths for H. V. Morton and Howard Spring,two prominent British authors. (Both of them, in theiryounger days, had been journalists.) Spring was fond oftelling former newspaper colleagues how he had been officiallycontacted in a hush-hush manner and invited to goat once on an overseas trip that would last three weeks,destination undisclosed. Nobody believed him. "Haven'tyou heard? There's a war on, old chap," he was told by aWhitehall bureaucrat. Spring's dentures were with hisdentist for repairs, but fame as a novelist had not deadenedhis news instinct. Sans teeth, he rushed aboardPrince of Wales. Those voyaging alongside him have relatedthat he was undeterred by the inconvenience he wasforced to endure at mealtimes!On Saturday, 9 August 1941, under escort now byCanadian destroyers, HMS Prince of Wales drewclose to Argentia, on Placentia Bay alongNewfoundland's south coast. A former fishing settlement,Argentia had been occupied in January 1941 by U. S.marines, who set up the first Lend-Lease base granted byBritain. (Not until 1970 was the base shut down.) Owingto a mistake in time zones, Prince of Wales was 90 minutesahead of schedule. Churchill expressing acute displeasure,compelled the ship to turn about, patrol for a while, thenIn a poignant reminder of which nation was at war,Prince of Wales emerged from the mists in wartimecamouflage, in stark contrast to the sleek Americanvessels arrayed in their peacetime livery of light grey. Withan exchange of salutes and the playing of nationalanthems, Augusta and Prince of Wales anchored alongsideeach other, towering symbols of Anglo-American unity.Churchill boarded Augusta to join Roosevelt. Handshakesand smiles were sunny preambles to more serious matters.Never before had two men commanded such power.Roosevelt invited Churchill to review "off the cuff"the latest developments on the war front for the benefit of25 American key personnel. FDR, the renowned speechmakerand master politician, had looked forward to seeingChurchill in action, so he deliberately presented WSCwith opportunity to display his legendary oratory. The oldcampaigner bolstered confidence with his knack of simplifyingcomplex issues. His sweeping overview spoke ofthe sacrifices called for in pursuit of victory.In the next few days the leaders and their teamstackled a massive agenda. Decisions were wrought thatwould reshape millions of lives. The Far East, and particularlyJapan, had to be dealt with in depth. The MiddleEast and Africa claimed a large share of attention along,including ways to handle Vichy France and the bestmeans of keeping French warships out of German hands.Assistance for Russia was a priority. Churchill hadrecruited the ebullient Canadian, Lord Beaverbrook, totake charge of expediting deliveries to the Soviets. Stalinwas to be informed that ships loaded with supplies werealready at sea and many more could be counted on to provideevery possible aid. Anglo-American representativeswould go to Moscow and collaborate with Stalin'sappointees. A most friendly message, signed by Rooseveltand Churchill, was dispatched to Stalin. It explained policyand stressed that Moscow could rely on unstintedcooperation. >»FINEST HOUR 112/21

There was a discussion on strategy to block theanticipated military moves of Hitler andMussolini. Those present felt that the combinedAmerican and British staffs had the brain-power to outwitany similar round-table effort by the Axis dictators,though a round-table was scarcely the type of structureHitler was likely to employ with Rome and Tokyo.The stature of Roosevelt and Churchill was manifestin the interest they took in details of the Sunday churchparade to be held aboard Prince of Wales. Breaking for aspell in Roosevelt's cabin, they considered hymns and thetraditional routine for a service at sea. "O God Our Helpin Ages Past," Churchill's favourite, was given pride ofplace, followed by Roosevelt's choice: "Eternal FatherStrong to Save." "Onward, Christian Soldiers" wasincluded.Sunday was bright with welcome sunshine.American and British seamen stood not in formal ranks,but mingled as they wished: they spoke the same tongueand knew survival depended on their loyalty and courage.Roosevelt and Churchill were accompanied by theirChiefs of Staff. The magnificent bay and hills resoundedwith hymn singing. Murmured prayers did not neglect tomention the oppressed peoples. It was a scene of unforgettable,heroic dignity. Soon these same Americanswould be in thick of the war, while off Singapore, Princeof Wales and most of her crew would be sent to the bottomby Japanese torpedoes.Morton and Spring, privileged onlookers on Princeof Wales, were precluded from leaping into print until thetwo leaders were securely home again. They remainedunaware that Roosevelt and Churchill were working zealouslyon a communique that would loom large in history.The Atlantic Charter was formulated at an extremely crucialperiod. Roosevelt, although committed in heart andmind to Britain's defence, had done everything he couldpolitically to assist Churchill.In the midst of the proceedings, the President andPrime Minister received tidings that the U.S. House ofRepresentatives had approved by only one vote a bill toextend the Selective Service Act (draft). Churchill, sensitivelytuned to the U.S. situation, had refused to yield totemptation by pressing Roosevelt for a declaration thatthe United States would come in on Britain's side. Theclose vote confirmed his wisdom. Yet, in effect, theCharter was more than a full-blooded affirmation of whatmust be achieved: it warned Germany, Italy and Japanthat the Americans were now in steadfast partnership withthe British. This pseudo-neutrality ended finally when theJapanese bombed Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941 andHitler declared war on the United States.Churchill had to contact Deputy Prime MinisterClement Attlee in London to get governmental blessingfor the Atlantic Charter. At 1:45 a.m. London time on 12August 1941, Attlee called an emergency meeting of the |Cabinet. Two small amendments were ironed out andofficial approval communicated to Churchill.Though Roosevelt originated the idea of theAtlantic Charter, he asked Churchill to write the firstdraft. Several others were sifted through before this finalversion was promulgated:71 he President of the United States of America and thePrime Minister, Mr. Churchill, representing HisMajesty's Government in the United Kingdom, beingmet together, deem it right to make known certain commonprinciples in the national policies of their respective countrieson which they base their hopes for a better future for theworld.First, their countries seek no aggrandizement, territorialor other.Second, they desire to seek no territorial changes that donot accord with the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned.Third, they respect the right of all peoples to choose theform of government under which they will live; and they wishto see sovereign rights and self-government restored to thosewho have been forcibly deprived of them.Fourth, they will endeavour, with due respect to theirexisting obligations, to further the enjoyment of all States,great or small, victor or vanquished, of access, on equal terms,to the trade and to the raw materials of the world which areneeded for their economic prosperity.Fifth, they desire to bring about the fullest collaborationbetween all nations in the economic field, with the objectof securing for all improved labour standards, economicadvancement, and social security.Sixth, after the final destruction of the Nazi tyrannythey hope to see established a peace which will afford to allnations the means of dwelling in safety within their ownboundaries, and which will afford assurance that all the menin all the lands may live out their lives in freedom from fearand want.Seventh, such a peace should enable all men to traversethe high seas and oceans without hindrance.Eighth, they believe that all the nations of the world,for realistic as well as spiritual reasons, must come to theabandonment of the use of force. Since no future peace can bemaintained if land, sea, or air armaments continue to beemployed by nations which threaten, or may threaten, aggressionoutside of their frontiers, they believe, pending the establishmentof a wider and more permanent system of generalsecurity, that the disarmament of such nations is essential.They will likewise aid and encourage all other practical measureswhich will lighten for peace-loving peoples the crushingburden of armaments.FINEST HOUR 112/22In London on September 24th, the delegates of tenAllied nations, including the Soviet Union, proclaimedallegiance to the principles of the Charter.

Left: Sunday services aboard HMS Prince of Wales. Churchill, with minor exaggeration, declared in his memoirs that he chose the hymns himself."We ended with '0 God, Our Help in Ages Past,' which Macaulay reminds us the Ironsides had chanted as they bore John Hampden's body to the grave.Every word seemed to stir the heart. It was a great hour to live. Nearly half those who sang were soon to die." Right: Churchill watches Roosevelt steamaway aboard USS Augusta. One can only wonder what was going through his mind as this photograph was taken—but we have a pretty fair idea.Much has been made of the implicit hypocrisy ofChurchill in declaring such sweeping rights ofself-determination which in no way affected hisattitude toward the British Empire. This criticism is certainlyvalid, but tends to magnify the less significant at theexpense of the titanic. Such a declaration by two nations,one not yet at war, was unprecedented in world history.At a news conference Roosevelt was asked ifChurchill had "signed" the Charter. The Presidents reply:"Nobody ever signed the Atlantic Charter. Now, that's anamazing statement." Amazing, too, is the momentum ofhistory which often outruns the intentions and hopes ofthose who make it. The Charter was not an official document,but rather a communique. Its historic achievementrests on the endorsement it received on 1 January 1942,from countries putting their signatures to the UnitedNations Declaration. They pledged themselves to adhereto its every principle.For his part, Roosevelt's faith in the Atlantic Charternever faltered. He once rebuffed its critics with words thatsummed up his creed: "I would rather be a builder than awrecker, hoping always that the structure of life is growingnot dying."NOTES FOR STUDENTS AND READERSPrincipal advisers contributed to the Charter's purposeand phraseology. However, students of Roosevelt andChurchill may spot the paragraphs most attributable toeach leader. For example: "freedom from fear and want"takes us straight to Roosevelt, while "being met together"is clearly Churchillian.A proper perspective on the Placentia conferencecalls for familiarity with Churchill's war memoirs and keenconcentration on his Volume III, The Grand Alliance(London: Cassell; Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company,1950). Among numerous critiques worth consulting, theserepay close reading: The Semblance of Peace: The PoliticalSettlement after the Second World War, by Sir John Wheeler-Bennett and Anthony Nicholls (Macmillan: London,1972); The First Summit: Roosevelt and Churchill atPlacentia Bay 1941, by Theodore A. Wilson (HoughtonMifflin Company: Boston, 1969); 2nd Atlantic Meeting,by H.V. Morton (Methuen and Company: London,1943).Eminent American, Canadian and British professorswrote trenchant and enlightening essays published in acollection entitled The Atlantic Charter, edited byDouglas Brinkley and David R. Facey-Crowther (St.Martin's Press, New York, 1994). The analyses are the outcomeof an international conference of scholars at theMemorial University of Newfoundland to mark the fiftiethanniversary of the Placentia Bay meeting.Acknowledgement is due to Howard Spring, withwhom this writer dined in 1945, who gave a vivid descriptionof his voyage in Prince of Wales. Usually, Spring wasthe personification of modesty, but he did boast about thepleasure he had in walking the deck of the battleship withChurchill, whose conversation showed he was familiarwith Spring's work. Like Churchill, Spring had written forFINEST HOUR H2/23

COVER STORYCHURCHILLS GREATNESSJeffrey Tallin with Juan Williams of Fox NewsFROM SPECIAL REPORT WITH BRIT HUME, FOX NEWS CHANNEL, 4 SEPTEMBER 2001BRIT HUME: As youheard, Stephen Ambrosecalled it a tragedythat William Manchestersays he is not able tofinish his trilogy onWinston Churchill [seealso this issue, page13]. Fox News contributorJuan Williamstalked to Jeffrey Wallinof The Churchill Center here in Washington about Manchester'sunfinished work and about the impact Churchillhad on the world.JUAN WILLIAMS, FOX CORRESPONDENT: Jeffrey Wallin ofThe Churchill Center, thanks for joining us. WilliamManchester, the author of two volumes in a Churchilltrilogy, The Last Lion, has announced that he can't completethe third volume of his study on Churchill. How doyou find this?WALLIN: It's a major disappointment. Manchester is onethe few historians who still writes with a grand sweep.And, as a consequence, of the two strokes he's had, notbeing able to finish it, it's very hard to imagine how anyoneelse will come along and finish it up, although he hasleft a manuscript of a couple of hundred pages or so. Soperhaps there's some hope along those lines.WILLIAMS: Have you met Manchester?Dr. Wallin is President of the American Academy for Liberal Educationand an academic adviser to The Churchill Center. Interview copyright2001 Fox News Network, Inc., reproduced by kind permission.WALLIN: I have."If my father had beenAmerican... I might havegot here on my own!"Drawing a laugh in anotherwise serious speech,Congress, 26Dec4l. L-R:Senator Alben Barkley: actingSpeaker William P.Cole Jr.: WSC: Vice-PresidentHenry Wallace, Presidentof the Senate.WILLIAMS: And what is your impression of Manchester'swork so far?WALLIN: I think it is wonderful. Again, the reason for thatis that we live in an age that is made up by small, detailedhistory. They may be very long, but quite often they gointo such tiny and minute detail that one loses the largepicture. And Churchill was a large man of the 20th century,a man whose own vision was out decades ahead ofmany of his contemporaries. So when a biographer comesto him without a similar vision, often what you get arejust a number of disconnected pieces, and you don't beginto understand the man as he understood himself, which Ithink is the beginning of all good biography.WILLIAMS: Some have argued that Churchill is the mostimportant political figure of the 20th century. Wouldyou agree?WALLIN: I would. There are two reasons for that. First,his stand for freedom. Churchill stood not only to defendBritain, but also to defend freedom for the world.FINEST HOUR 112/24

Second, Churchill managed to embody in himself both alove and display of excellence and deep, abiding democraticconvictions. Quite often you get one or the other,but not both. He had a deep belief in the combined wisdomof the people when it was finally brought to bear onan issue. But at the same time, he never abandoned himselfto the things we see today, where politicians readpolls every day and try to decide where they are going togo based on what people happen to be thinking at anyfleeting moment. And so Churchill is important fordemocracy itself, I think, to show, as Lincoln showed,that great character and great minds can be happy in democraticsocieties and can flourish in them.WILLIAMS: As we sit here in the United States, I'm surethere are some viewers who might say: What aboutFranklin Delano Roosevelt, who was a contemporary ofWinston Churchill's? Wouldn't he qualify as the greatestfigure of the 20th century?WALLIN: The problem with the title "greatest" is thatthere can only be one. If you grant me "great men of the20th century," Roosevelt would certainly be up there.Certainly one can't imagine United States history withouthim, and perhaps one could even say the history ofWorld War II without him. So he was undoubtedly agreat man. Churchill's life spanned a longer period ofboth peace and war. He was involved in the First WorldWar in a responsible position, in the Second World War,and all the great controversies in between them and agood number of them before even World War 1.1 thinkChurchill brings a stronger vision to politics than Rooseveltdid. And I don't mean to detract from Roosevelt atall, who certainly was a great statesman.WILLIAMS: What was the vision that Churchill broughtto politics?WALLIN: Churchill's vision was primarily one of the importanceof human freedom. In many ways, I think ofhim as a 20th century parallel to Abraham Lincoln. Lincolnthought long and hard and deep about what humanfreedom really meant in a way that we don't today. If, forexample, you walk into a classroom and you say, "Howmany of you approve of slavery?" everybody will say,"Oh, no. It's terrible." But ask the question: Why? Whyis it a bad thing? If you can get someone else in yourpower, they work and you eat, as Lincoln said. Lincolnthought that if you couldn't answer that question reallydeep in your soul, you were not able to defend freedom.Churchill's love of freedom comes from the same sourceas Lincoln's. And that is the American Declaration of Independence.He gave a wonderful speech about the Declarationof Independence and the truths that it contained.So I think, when you consider the whole sweep ofhistory, if what you really care about is human freedomand the development of human character from all classesof society—not just the high and mighty class that hecame from himself—then I think Churchill stands outamongst all men.WILLIAMS: Hearing you say that Churchill delivered aspeech on the Declaration of Independence reminds usthat Churchill holds a fascination for Americans, a surprisingfascination given that he wasn't an Americanleader. Why are Americans so taken with WinstonChurchill?WALLIN: Well, partly because he was part American. Hismother, Jennie Jerome, was an American. And so he alwaysconsidered himself a blend of the two. I think thereason he appeals to Americans was his wonderfulspeeches that crystallize an incoherent belief of the people.People can have strong convictions and not be ableto express them clearly and articulately. That's whatChurchill meant when he said he was not the Britishlion, but the voice of the lion. But at the same time, bycrystallizing it, by giving it substance in speech, you createit a little bit, too. I think Americans are drawn to thatkind of rhetoric, because Americans have always seen thiscountry as a "city on a hill," as it used to be called. Thatis, something that stands for a vision beyond itself, a beaconto other countries on how people can live togetherfrom diverse backgrounds in different countries, howthey can pursue freedom, how they can pursue democracyin a lawful manner. Churchill embodied that. Heloved that characteristic about the Americans. And heloved also their spontaneity and can-do attitude. He understoodthe nature of tyranny. He was not overly concernedwhether the tyranny was from the left or theright. He despised the Nazis—or the "Narrzees" as hecalled them.WILLIAMS: He called them the "Narrzees," you said?WALLIN: Yes. He had a way of saying it that was almostlike spitting the word out. He despised the communists.He once said of the communists that the infant Bolshevismshould have been strangled in its cradle. He alsosaid that none of the ideas of communism went far beyondthe idea of the white ant's view of organizing society.It was quips like that that would bring him to the attentionof people all across the world. He loved humanfreedom. He believed that individual human beings werecapable of living their own lives, if well led.WILLIAMS: Jeffrey Wallin of The Churchill Center, thankyou so much for joining us.WALLIN: You are welcome, Juan. I enjoyed being here. M>FINEST HOUR 112/25

How CHURCHILL DIITITFrom September lltn nis words were on every lip.Dr. Stephen Bungay explains now Cnurcliillcrafted tke speeckes that still inspire us todayAbove: "I have done my best to warn the government of the dangerswhich from every side are gathering and growing about our nativeland..." Churchill speaking to the Central and Associated Chambersof Agriculture, London, 23 June 1936. On his right is Leopold Amery{FH111:10.)Dr. Bungay, a member oflCS (UK), is the author o/TheMost Dangerous Enemy: A History of the Battle ofBritain (Aurum Press: 2000), an account of the events ofsummer 1940, and of the role Churchill played in them. Inthe present article, he is indebted to Garry Wills, whosebook, Lincoln at Gettysburg (Simon & Schuster) showshow Lincoln's Gettysburg Address has a structure going backto Pericles and also forms a tightly interlocked linguistic network.The author has followed the visual display techniqueused by Wills on his pages 172-5. Dr. Bungay writes: "It wasWills's book which first gave me the idea of looking atChurchill's speeches in a similar way. Both Lincoln andChurchill were rooted in the same long western tradition ofpolitical rhetoric, and the words spoken by both men attimes of crisis have had a profound and lasting impact ontheir respective nations."toil, tears and sweat"... "we will fight onthe beaches" ... "this was their finest hour" ..."Blood,"never was so much owed by so many to sofew." These phrases, all uttered in the summer of 1940,have almost become cliches, showing that Churchill was amaster of what we now call the sound bite. They havetaken on a life of their own outside the speeches in whichthey first occurred. Yet the power of oratory cannot be reducedto a string of memorable phrases. The sound biteswere embedded in speeches and derived a lot of their originaleffect from their context. The impact of the speecheshas been routinely observed but seldom analysed. Whyhave they become so famous? How did Churchill do it?His oratory was not universally acclaimed at thetime, particularly in Parliament. Indeed it confirmedmany members' suspicions about the soundness of hisjudgment. One Tory MP commented, after the ConservativeParty meeting on 9 October 1940 when Churchillwas made party leader, that he was "a word-spinner, a second-raterhetorician." 1 Churchill had become Prime Ministeron 10 May 1940, against the wishes of the King andFINEST HOUR 112/26

many Conservative MPs who would have preferred theForeign Secretary, Lord Halifax.Oratory was the main instrument he used to maintainhis shaky position in Parliament, to solidify supportin the nation, and to get the war fought.-^ It was a verypersonal instrument, for he employed no speech writers.Churchill was his own spin doctor. 3The style he had developed changed little over theyears and had not always worked. Romantic and verbose,he deployed a vocabulary that was old-fashioned even in1940. Before the war, it had often seemed ridiculously inappropriate.^In 1940, events suddenly rose to the dramaticlevel necessary for Churchillian prose to be worthyof them. Yet his sense of language was always very keenand his use of it precise.One of his Private Secretaries, John Martin, has recalledhow, driving with Churchill along the Embankment,he had casually observed that the windings of theThames were "extraordinary." "Not 'extraordinary,'"Churchill had corrected—"all rivers wind. Rather, 'remarkable.'"Denis Kelly, who helped draft lengthy tractsof the war memoirs, recalls preparing the sentence, "Germanywas isolated and surrounded on all sides." Churchilldrew a line through it, saying: "The word you want is'crushed.'"5The PM's speech in the House of Commons on theafternoon of 18 June 1940 has become one of hismost famous. It gave the Battle of Britain its nameand ends with the phrase which has become shorthandfor the way in which Britain conducted its resistance toHitler in 1940: "their finest hour." Probably unconsciously,it makes creative use of established rhetorical devicesand has a classical pedigree. At times, Churchill'sexact meaning is obscure, but he employs formal linguistictools which have moved and persuaded people since ancienttimes. Few if any of his listeners would themselveshave been aware of this, but the effect was felt by them allthe same. By and large, the less sophisticated his audience,the greater the effect of his words.The June 18th speech lasted for 36 minutes. AsPrime Minister of a National Government, Churchill wasobliged to tell the House what was going on, so he in factdevoted most of the speech to a report on the recentevents of the war. Public opinion surveys conducted bythe Ministry of Information had indicated that there wassome danger of a rift between Parliament and the peopleso, despite his dislike of the relatively new medium ofradio, he was prevailed upon to broadcast to the nation at9:00 that evening. He repeated the speech almost wordfor word.In the Commons, the reaction to Churchill's wordswas muted. His Private Secretary, John Colville, wrotethat "he spoke less well than on the last occasion, and referredmore often to his notes; but he ended magnificently."7 Member of Parliament Harold Nicolson wrote inhis diary that he thought Churchill sounded "ghastly" onthe wireless.^ Newspaper owner Cecil King thought hewas either ill or drunk, and wrote in his diary that it was"the poorest possible effort." 9 Colville's female dinnercompanion that night remarked that it was like listeningto a bishop. 10 Churchill did the whole broadcast whilstsmoking a cigar, which, together with his lifelong difficultyin pronouncing the letter "s," may account for theimpression that he was the worse for drink.Whatever these influential and important people >>1. Andrew Roberts, Eminent Churchillians, Orion Books 1995, 186.2. An account of how he did this can be found in my book on the Battleof Britain, The Most Dangerous Enemy, Aurum Press 2000, 16-26.3. His method of composition and the long gestation period of some ofhis phrases is described by John Colville in Action This Day: WorkingWith Churchill, Macmillan 1968, 68-73.4. The development of Churchill's rhetorical style from its 19th centuryorigins is traced by Frederick Woods in Artillery of Words: TheWritings of Sir Winston Churchill, Leo Cooper 1992, 63-775. Action This Day, 147; Denis Kelly to the editor of Finest Hour, 1989.6. David Irving has put it about that this broadcast, along with the"fight on the beaches" speech of 4 June, was in fact the work of theactor Norman Shelley {Churchill's War, Avon Books 1987, 313, 338).Others, such as Clive Ponting in 1940: Myth and Reality (HamishHamilton 1990, 158) eagerly followed suit. In fact, neither Churchillnor Shelley broadcast the speech of 4th June: parts of it were read outby an announcer with no pretence to be other than who he was. Thespeech of 18 June was broadcast by Churchill and can be heard at theNational Sound Archive in London, ref. 2488-91, preceded by an announcersaying: "Ladies and gentlemen, the Prime Minister." Churchillwas asked by the British Council later in the war to make a recordingfor the U.S., and having rather a lot on his plate, he suggested they usean actor instead. Shelley did the recording, Churchill heard it, wasmuch amused and gave his approval. Shelley told the story in a BBCradio interview in 1978. It is not known for sure when, if at all, hisrecording was used. Its fate remained unknown until the autumn of2000 when Anthony Shelley discovered a disc dated 7 September 1942of his late father doing a Churchill impression, though it is not of anyknown Churchill speech. I am grateful to the late Sally Hine and toSimon Rooks of the BBC Sound Archive and to Chris Mobbs of theNational Sound Archive for helping to sort this out. (See, "That ActorAgain" in Datelines, FH109.)7. Colville, The Fringes of Power (Hodder & Stoughton 1985), 192.8. Nigel Nicolson (ed.), Harold Nicolson: Diaries and Letters, Vol. II(Hodder & Stoughton, 1967), 19 June 1940, 97.9. John Lukacs, The Duel (Bodley Head 1990), 146. Lukacs also citesother critics of Churchill's efforts, including Evelyn Waugh and MalcolmMuggeridge, 148-49.10. Colville, op. cit., 193.FINEST HOUR 112/27

thought, Churchill had captured the nation's heart. Audienceresearch carried out by the BBC at the time showedthat 51% of the population listened to his first broadcastas Prime Minister on 19 May, the percentage increasingwith every broadcast, reaching almost 60% on 18 June,increasing further after that. A Home Office report onpublic opinion conducted the following day records someadverse comments about the delivery, but found that theanxiously awaited speech was considered "courageous andhopeful." 11 One of his political opponents, "Rab" Butler'sprivate secretary Henry "Chips" Channon, admitted thatalthough Churchill left him unmoved, the nation wouldno doubt be impressed. ^ It was impressed enoughthroughout the summer that a Gallup Poll conducted inJuly gave Churchill an extraordinary 88% approval ratingand in October, despite the incessant bombing of Londonthat had begun, 89%. 13June 18th was the 125th anniversary of the Battle ofWaterloo, and the British Army, along with theFrench, had just met its own Waterloo at the hands ofthe Wehrmacht. The evacuation from Dunkirk had endedjust two weeks before, and Britain was expecting to be invadedat any moment. Churchill opened his address by reviewingthe history of the lamentable collapse on the continent,dismissing the search for scapegoats there and thehounding of former appeasers at home. He outlined theforces available for home defence, noting that the existenceof the Royal Navy made a sea crossing a perilousundertaking, and then considered the threat from the air.The "great question," he said, was whether we could"break Hitler's air weapon." He asserted that the RAF,though less numerous than the Luftwaffe, was still verypowerful and had so far proven itself superior. He addressedthe possible impact of bombing, and used the exampleof Barcelona to show that resolute people couldstand up to it. Expressing his conviction that Franceshould continue to resist, he warmed to his theme, screwingup the emotional tension by talking of Britain's senseof comradeship with the French people:If we are now called upon to endure what they havebeen suffering, we shall emulate their courage, and iffinal victory rewards our toils, they shall share thegains, aye, and freedom shall be restored to all. Weabate nothing of our just demands; not one jot or tittledo we recede. Czechs, Poles, Norwegians, Dutch, Belgianshave joined their causes to our own. All theseshall be restored. ^Here for the first time Churchill stops reporting onevents and addresses themes which recur throughout all ofhis speeches. These themes are like leitmotifs which, takentogether, spell out his political vision. They form a simple,coherent whole which could be expressed as five propositions:(1) We face a monstrous evil which is a threat to thewhole world.(2) If we can stand up to it, we will save not onlyourselves, but the whole of mankind.(3) Our ultimate goal must be victory, for this is anevil so virulent that it must be utterly extinguished.(4) The road to victory will be long and hard, andinvolve much pain and sorrow...(5) ...but if we support each other and stick together,we can do it.This was the message he delivered again and againthat summer: to Parliament, to the British people, to theoccupied countries of Europe, and—crucially—to theUnited States.Having conjured up the picture of a prostrate Europe,he ended by drawing all his themes together in acoda of 180 words. These words have given the Battle ofBritain its name, though unlike the "Battle of France," inthe original transcript "battle" was referred to in the lowercase, for it was not yet the title of an event. 1 5 The wordsmake it clear that whatever was to come it was not about afew aeroplanes having some dogfights. 16 They also definean integral part of what it has meant to be British for thetwo generations after the one which heard it broadcastthat summer evening—and may now, perhaps, assume anadded resonance:What General Weygand called the Battle of France isover. I expect that the battle of Britain is about to begin.Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilisation.Upon it depends our own British life, and the11. Lukacs, op. ck., 184 & 148.12. Quoted by John Charmley, Churchill: The End of Glory (Hodder &Stoughton 1993), 418.13. See Richard Lamb, Churchill as War Leader (Bloomsbury 1991), 74and Laurence Thompson, 1940: Year of Legend, Year of History (Collins1966), 140.14. The full text is readily available. I have used the version firstpublished and compiled by Randolph Churchill from Into Battle (Cassell1941), 225-34.15. Some subsequent printings of the speech have nevertheless projectedhindsight onto the text by capitalising the "Battle of Britain."See for example David Cannadine, ed., Blood, Toil, Tears and Sweat:Winston Churchill's Famous Speeches (Cassell 1989), 177.16. At the time, of course, Churchill did not know that the battlewould take place exclusively in the air, and in his mind the phrase atthis time encompassed all German military activity directed against theBritish Isles, including a possible invasion. He stated explicitly that noinvasion could take place before the RAF was "overpowered," but fromthe perspective of 18 June there was no guarantee that this would beanything other than an opening phase.FINEST HOUR 112/28

long continuity of our institutions and our Empire. Thewhole fury and might of the enemy must very soon beturned on us. Hitler knows that he will have to break usin this island or lose the war. If we can stand up to him,all Europe may be free and the life of the world maymove forward into broad, sunlit uplands. But if we fail,then the whole world, including the United States, includingall that we have known and cared for, will sinkinto the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister,and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of pervertedscience. Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties,and so bear ourselves, that if the British Empire and itsCommonwealth last for a thousand years, men will stillsay, "This was their finest hour."The basic message was: "We are going to be attacked.For our own and everybody else's good we havegot to resist. So let's get on with it." This is not very inspiring;indeed it is more than a little unsettling. The wayChurchill conveys the message does not simply adorn it—it utterly transforms the content.Part of the power of the argument derives from itsstructure, which is complex. Formally, it makes constantuse of groups of three phrases and of contrastivepairs. These devices are the most frequently usedby speakers seeking to gain audience approval and are regularlyemployed by politicians today. 1 ' 7 Churchill's use ofthem is best shown visually. The threes are numbered andthe contrastive pairs lettered.The three battles: (1) What General Weygand calledthe Battle of France is over. (2) I expect that the battle ofBritain is about to begin. (3) Upon this battle dependsthe survival of Christian civilisation.The three threats: (1) Upon it depends our ownBritish life... (2) ...and the long continuity of our institutions...(3) ...and our Empire.The two contrasts, them and us: (A) The whole furyand might of the enemy (B) must very soon be turned onus. (A) Hitler knows that he will have to break us in thisisland (B) or lose the war.The alternatives before us: (A) If we can stand up tohim, (1) all Europe may be free and (2) the life of theworld may move forward (3) into broad, sunlit uplands.(B) But if we fail, (1) then the whole world, including theUnited States, including all that we have known and caredfor, (2) will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age mademore sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lightsof perverted science.The consequence: Let us therefore (1) brace ourselvesto our duties and (2) so bear ourselves that (3) if theBritish Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousandyears, (4) men will still say, "This was their finest hour."The triplets and pairs in the sentence structure aredeepened by the embedding of a further contrastas he lays out the alternatives, and the rhetoricalpattern is disrupted by an additional clause in the penultimate("and perhaps more protracted") and final sentences("if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for athousand years"). Both of these disruptions, which preventthe underlying pattern from becoming too regularand formulaic, are presented as interpolated reflectionsand as uncertainties ("perhaps" and "if"). In this way, theyadd strength to the certainties otherwise stated.If we look at the text semantically rather than structurally,we find a dense, self-referential system which isrendered compelling by the logic of its development. Sentencesrefer back to each other and describe an overallmovement of expansion and contraction 1^ (italics and underliningsare this writer's):The situation and the Cause: (la) What GeneralWeygand called the Battle of France is over, (lb) I expectthat the battle of Britain is about to begin, (lc) Upon thisbattle depends the survival of Christian civilisation. (Id)Upon it depends our own British life, and the long continuityof our institutions and our Empire.What must now inevitably happen: (2a) The wholefury and might of the enemy must very soon be turned onus. (2b) Hitler knows that he will have to break us in thisisland or lose the war.What this implies about our behaviour and ourchoices: (3a) If we can stand up to him, all Europe may befree and the life of the world may move forward intobroad, sunlit uplands. (3b) But if we fail, then the wholeworld, including the United States, including all that wehave known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of anew Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted,by the lights of perverted science.The consequence: (3c) Let us, therefore, brace ourselvesto our duties and so bear ourselves that, if theBritish Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousandyears, men will still say, "This was their finest hour."The first three sentences are linked by their referenceto battles. The first is located in France in the immediatepast. The second, following on from it, is located inBritain in the immediate future. The third sentence is ashock, for it links this second battle to "Christian civilisation."This battle will not be simply for territory, but for aset of moral values. It will not only be for space, but >»17. In his study of political rhetoric, Our Masters'Voices (Methuen1984), 57-73, Max Atkinson identifies the most commonly used devicesfor gaining audience approval as the "list of three," "unfavourablereferences to them and favourable references to us," and the use of"contrastive pairs."18. In his brilliant Lincoln at Gettysburg (Simon & Schuster 1992),Garry Wills demonstrates that the Gettysburg Address is similarly interlocked.I have here followed the visual display technique used byWills on pp. 172-75. The parallels with the Gettysburg Address do notend here, nor are they fortuitous.FINEST HOUR 112/29

for time as well, for losing it could both annul the pastand threaten the future.The fourth sentence pivots on the pronoun "it" tointroduce those to whom the message is sent: "us." "We"are those being summoned, those from whom action isdemanded, upon whom all depends. Some form of thefirst person plural occurs no fewer than eleven times. Theforce of "their finest hour" is strengthened by the twist inperspective it represents, for "they" are of course "us." Theshift from first to third person is a shift from what "we"must do to how others will judge us, which is the only reward"we" are offered by Churchill: to be honoured in historyby future generations, not just by immediate descendants,but by "men" as a whole—the judgement the worldwill make of the British. It is deliberate myth-making, as ifHomer were addressing the Greek army before Troy andpromising that their deeds, if worthy, will always be recountedand marvelled at. Churchill promises his countrymenthe opportunity of future epic fame as the onesure gain into which to transform what is otherwise forthem simply the avoidance of loss.In defining the threat, Churchill states who isthreatened and so names "us"—"Britain," "British" and"our Empire"—and repeats and amplifies it in the finalsentence: "the British Empire and its Commonwealth."What is threatened is not just another European countryakin to those already lost, but a global Empire. This concretizesthe assertion that the outcome of the battle wouldaffect "the whole world," but also reminds the audiencethat Britain could call upon resources no other Europeancountry could muster in opposing its foe.This was not idle: Canadian troops were already inBritain, and within Fighter Command, fully 10% of thepilots were from Commonwealth countries. A further10% were from the occupied countries of Europe, and theUnited States. Against the sacrifice he is demanding of"us" are ranged three areas of civilisation: "France," "allEurope" and "the United States." The first is lost, the secondsubjugated but with the possibility of becoming free,the third threatened. These three, together with "theBritish Empire and its Commonwealth," constitute"Christian civilisation," which is threatened by and antitheticalto "a new Dark Age." Thus, places embody moralprinciples and the fates of all hinge on the central place inthe text: "this island"—the 73rd and 74th words out of180, roughly in the middle.The movement of the first section is expansive,going from concrete to abstract; the second section movesback again to the concrete, and the third moves steadilyoutwards until it embraces global space and past and futuretime. For the duration of an "hour," the one whichthe British are summoned upon to make their finest, "thisisland" is placed in the centre of human history.In this way Churchill builds the whole passage onthree contrasts of extent. The first is the contrast in the extentof time between the past of the Dark Ages and thepossibly "protracted" future, as opposed to the "hour" inwhich "we" are called upon to do our duty. The second isthe contrast in space between "all Europe" and "theUnited States" on the one hand and "this island" on theother. The third is the contrast between the number ofpeople affected in "the whole world" and "us." This underlyingthought was to resurface in a different and morepointed form on August 20th, when the air fighting wasat its height, when "we" became embodied in "the few."There is a further contrast built in to sections 3a and3b. The phrase "move forward into broad, sunlit uplands"implies free, upward movement into light. "Sink into theabyss of a new Dark Age" implies involuntary, downwardmovement into darkness. The term "sunlit uplands" isprobably an echo of a phrase from H.G. Wells's The Discoveryof the Future, in which Wells refers to "the uplandsof the future." Churchill read Wells avidly, and thethought of describing fighter pilots as "the few" may alsohave been triggered by a passage in Wells's novel The Warin the Air, where Wells observed that in air warfare thebalance of military efficiency was shifting back "from themany to the few." Churchill kept a store of phrases in hisencyclopedic memory like fragments of tunes in the mindof a composer, and at some point they would emerge infull form. 19Whilst the structure of these 180 words is complexand multivalent, the language is remarkablysimple. Three-quarters of the words aremonosyllables. Only twelve are polysyllables and of thesehalf are used to express the length of the "continuity ofour institutions," the length of the new Dark Age "mademore sinister and perhaps more protracted by the lights ofperverted science," and the duration of "the British Empireand its Commonwealth."The "lights of perverted science" is one of those expressionswhich suggests more than it says. It conjures upthe image of a Bosch painting of Hell, with a vile experimentbeing conducted on some victim in a dark corner. Itwas prescient indeed, but in 1940, Mengele and his likehad not yet been unleashed on the concentration camps.The phrase was stored in Churchill's mental sketchbookand resurfaced in a radio broadcast given on 24 August1941 about his meeting with President Roosevelt, whichmakes his meaning more clear. Hitler, he commented,"has weapons and machinery for grinding down and19. In commenting on the speech, Colville noted in his diary that hewas amused Churchill brought in Marvell's lines: "He nothing commondid or mean, Upon that memorable scene," "because he has beenrepeating it [sic] consistently and often for the last fortnight. Last Saturdayhe came out with it several times in the course of the eveningand could not resist quoting it to the American Ambassador on thetelephone while demanding assistance from the U.S." (op. cit., 192).FINEST HOUR 112/30

holding down conquered countries which are the product,the sadly perverted product, of modern science." 20The third section of the June 18th speech is moreconsciously rhetorical and abstract than the firsttwo. It can in fact be read as a reversal of a formalGreek funeral oration, an epitaphios, from which the word"epitaph" derives. The most famous was that given by Pericleson the burial of the dead after the battle ofMarathon. 21 An epitaphios contained two main sections:the praise of the dead (epainesis) and advice for the livingiparainesis). In the epainesis, the dead were praised byclaiming that they were worthy of their ancestors (progonoi),that their shared ancestry came from the earth ofAthens {autochthones), that they were trained to heroismipaideia), and that the city's norms were heroic {politeia).The valour of the fathers {arete) is matched by the sons. Inthe subsequent parainesis, the living are admonished to becomforted that the dead have won honour and to provethemselves worthy of the fallen {paramythetikon and protreptikori).Churchill has produced an inverted epitaphios bycalling on the living to be heroes for their descendants. Heanticipates the future epitaphios of those currently living inwhich it will be said that "this was their finest hour." By"bracing themselves to their duties," the fathers of futuresons are to be worthy of the norms of the past (progonoi)in which withstanding tyranny was simply a duty {paideiaand politeia) and by their bearing {arete) defend the presentand so link the past and future of the people of "thisisland" {autochthones) in such a way that descendants willbe comforted that "we" have won honour {paramythetikon)and will then seek to be worthy of "us" {protreptikon).This inversion is to be expected, as Churchill wasspeaking before the battle, not after it as Pericles was. Incouching his appeal to the audience as an appeal to duty,Churchill suggests that what is needed is not heroism orindeed anything out of the ordinary, but simply what peoplewould expect of others and themselves. Such a call hadbeen made before as battle approached. Nelson raised thesignal "England expects that every man will do his duty"as he sailed towards his enemy off Cape Trafalgar. Theecho is faint, but it is still there. 22So it is that Churchill has pre-created historical memory.He turns the battle into memory before it hasbegun, lifting it into almost cosmic significance. Hisobject was not truth but persuasion. Fighting die batde wasa choice and some members of the government were morethan ready to choose otherwise. Although formallyChurchill presents us with a choice, die systematic rigour ofhis argument effectively precludes all but one option: tofight-Churchill is most definite where he knows least. Hecould not possibly know whether Hitler actually knewthat "he will have to break us in this island or lose thewar." Where he could have been certain, he hedges. Hedid know that the Battle of Britain was about to begin. Hesays so. He conjures up the horrors of Nazism, of whichhe was utterly convinced, with a temporising "perhapsmore protracted," as if peering through a glass, darkly.Perhaps the most remarkable thing about this text isits uncanny accuracy. It is a rhetorical tour de force, but itis not "mere" rhetoric, for its substance is as telling as itsstyle. Churchill himself commented after the war:All these often-quoted words were made good in thehour of victory. But now they were only words....Hitler'sneed to finish the war in the West was obvious. He wasin a position to offer the most tempting terms. To thosewho like myself had studied his moves it did not seemimpossible that he would consent to leave Britain andher Empire and Fleet intact and make a peace whichwould secure him a free hand in the East of whichRibbentrop had talked to me in 1937 and which washis hearts desire....Can one wonder that astute calculatorsin many countries, ignorant as they mostly were ofthe problems of overseas invasion, of the quality of ourAir Force, and who dwelt under the overwhelming impressionof German might and terror, were not convinced?...Rhetoricwas no guarantee. Another administrationmight come into being....Doubts could be sweptaway only by deeds. The deeds were to cornedThe insight into the political and strategic situationof the time shown by this famous Churchill speech is extraordinarilypenetrating. Form and content have becomea distinction without a difference. It is an achievement ofthe highest order. M>20. The Unrelenting Struggle: War Speeches by the Right Hon. WinstonS. Churchill C.H., M.P., compiled by Charles Eade (Cassell & Co.Ltd. 1942), 234.21. In the following analysis I am once more indebted to Garry Wills.The Gettysburg Address forms a literal epitaphios. For a fuller accountof its elements as summarised below, see Lincoln at Gettysburg, 58-62.Wills also provides a translation of Pericles s epitaphios in Appendix III.Greek orators also made generous use of contrastive pairs and polarities,as all orators have done throughout the ages.22. Nelson's signal, like Churchill's speech, did not enjoy universal approvalat the time. Once again, it was the most sophisticated who wereleast impressed. Whilst the hoisting of his complex set of flags on HMSVictory prompted great cheers from the common seamen, Nelson's second-in-command,Collingwood, was irritated enough to remark,"What is Nelson signalling about? We all know what we have to do!"See Tom Pocock, Nelson (Pimlico 1994), 325.23. Churchill, The Second World War, vol. II, Their Finest Hour,Chartwell Edition (London: Educational Publishing Co. 1956), 174-75.FINEST HOUR 112/31

125-100-75-50 YEARS AGO125 Years Ago:Autumn 1876 • Age 1"I Have the Crownof England in My Pocket"Safe in the care of his nanny, Mrs.Everest, infant Winston was blissfullyunaware of the tempest swirlingaround him. His father, Lord RandolphChurchill, was reaping that autumn theharvest he had sown in the spring. Theproblem had arisen when Lord Blandford,Randolph's older brother and heirto the Dukedom, became involved inan illicit affair with Lady Aylesford—whose husband, like Lord Randolph,was a close friend of the Prince ofWales. Lord Aylesford had been travelingwith the Prince in India when theinfidelity was disclosed to him in a letterfrom his wayward wife.A public divorce was threatened byLord Aylesford and Lord Randolph unwiselyintervened on his brother's behalf.As Winston's son Randolph laterwrote: "Accordingly [Lord Randolph]took upon himself to call on thePrincess of Wales. He was accompaniedby a young newly created peer, Lord Alington.They pointed out to thePrincess that it would be undesirablefor divorce proceedings to be institutedand they asked her to tell the Prince tostop Aylesford continuing with his divorceplans. At the same time, LordRandolph let it be widely known thathe had in his possession certain letterswhich the Prince of Wales had writtento Lady Aylesford; and Sir CharlesMichael McMenaminLord Randolph Churchill in 1876Dilke recollected that he said: 'I havethe Crown of England in my pocket.'"The Prince was incensed to hear ofLord Randolph's visit to his wife, and ofwhat Celia Sandys accurately characterizesin her biography of her grandfather'schildhood as "barely disguisedblackmail." The royal displeasure wasoccasioned, in part, because the Prince'sletters demonstrated that her dalliancewith Blandford was not the first instanceof infidelity by Lady Aylesford,i.e., the Prince had preceded Lord Randolph'sbrother.In the event, Prime Minister Disraeliwas asked to intervene, and persuadedLord Randolph's father, theDuke of Marlborough, to become theViceroy of Ireland. Lord Randolph leftwith him as his unpaid private secretary,an assignment which effected the exileof Winston's parents from Court andSociety for over three years.100 Years Ago:Autumn 1901 • Age 26"A Particularly Interestingand Rather Amiable Figure"Acentury ago Churchill was huntingstags in Scotland with the Kingwho, a quarter century earlier, had ostracizedhis father. He spent most ofNovember and early December huntingand shooting as well. In between, hegave a series of speeches highly criticalof the government's prosecution of thewar in South Africa.On 4 October he criticized thegovernment's offer of amnesty for Boerswho had surrendered by 15 September.By that time, the British had defeatedthe Boer armies in set piece battles andoccupied their capital towns. But, asChurchill observed, "[I]t was one thingto defeat the Boer armies and quite anotherto conquer the Boer people." NoBoers had surrendered by 15 September,exposing the government toridicule and abuse in European newspapers;"...what disquiets me, for it is ofserious and alarming import, is that theGovernment in August should haveknown so little of the real situation inSouth Africa," Churchill said.Churchill attempted to absolve thegovernment of some of its responsibility,blaming instead the miliary counselthey were receiving: "All war is a prolongedmuddle, and when a Governmentembarks on war it has to put itselfin a great degree into the hands of itsmilitary advisers. And these military adviserssometimes give very peculiar andcontradictory advice."In November, Churchill received aletter from the popular science fictionwriter and socialist, H.G. Wells, whoselatest book Churchill had criticized."That you should find my estimate ofthe rapidity of development excessive,"FINEST HOUR 112/32

125-100-75-50 YEARS AGOWells wrote, "is simply due to the differencein our social circumstances. Youbelong to a class that has scarcely alteredinternally in a hundred years. Ifyou could be transported by somemagic into the Household of your ancestorsof 1800, a week would makeyou at home with them....But of thefour grandparents who represented mein 1800 it's highly probable two couldnot read & that any of them would findme and that I should find them as alienas contemporary Chinese. I really donot think that your people who gatherin great country houses realize the paceof things."In a second letter a few days later,Wells wrote: "It will interest metremendously to make your acquaintance.To me you are a particularly interesting& rather amiable figure....Ispeculate whether you anticipate thatwhen you are sixty you will be in orupon a Conservative Party with a Liberalopposition & an Irish Corner in aBritish or Imperial Parliament & if notwhere you expect to be."75 Years Ago:Autumn 1926 • Age 51"Lapped up like CatsDrinking Cream"Churchill was preoccupied with mediatingan end to the coal strike,something which did not happen until20 November. Despite his anti-laborreputation, Churchill was far moresympathetic to the miners' plight thanother Tories. But he saw both sidesclearly, including the fact that an earliergovernment subsidy had been soughtby the owners solely to buy labor peace.As Sir Martin Gilbert writes: "Havinggone much further in his efforts at mediationthan several of his colleagueswanted, and having exposed himself totheir anger, Churchill was disappointedby the miners' refusal to accept hiscompromise, and became increasinglyangry at the attitudes now adopted byboth the miners and the owners. Bothsides, he believed, had only been preventedfrom reaching a settlement becauseof extremists in their ranks."This is illustrated by Churchill's responseto a young Conservative MP,Robert Boothby, who had written WSCencouragingly on 9 October. Churchillreplied: "The Miners get 10 l/2d out ofevery shilling of profits calculated on anagreed basis. If this is not good enoughfor them, they ought to find somethingelse to do. There are twelve hundredthousand living on the same coal-outputwhich sustained a million twentyyears ago. There are too many miners.In trying to divide work they have dividedwages. Anyhow the rest of thecountry is not going to pay a shilling tokeep the miners on an artificial level. Somuch for the economics."In a speech on 28 October, WSCsaid: "I am going to tell you a secret. Iam not in favour of the mine owners orthe miners. I am against both. They arethoroughly unreasonable in the attitudethey have taken from beginning toend....Both sides lapped up the [coal]subsidy like cats drinking cream andthought no more of the future thanthose domestic animals...."Earlier that month, to the Instituteof Actuaries in London, Churchill gaveone more of his many prescientspeeches in the Twenties. Using statistics,he forecast what England wouldlook like in 1970: "[w]e will see a smallincrease in the total population, a verymarked increase of aged persons, an increaseparticularly in women after middleage, and an actual decline in theproportion of adult males. But let usnot be discouraged. Science and civilizationwill bring with them, if diey areproperly used, compensatory resources."50 Years Ago:Autumn 1951 'Age 76"Hanging in the Balance"Churchill kicked off his fourteenthGeneral Election Campaign with aspeech on 2 October at the stadium inLiverpool, where he set the tone forwhat was to become a bitter campaign:"I never had the same feeling—no, noteven in the war—that I have now thatthe future of our country is hanging inthe balance....A mood of deep anxiety,mingled with bewilderment, oppressesthe nation."In a radio broadcast on 8 October,Churchill summed up the party differences:"Our opponents say: 'The morecontrols and restrictions we have thenearer we approach the Socialist ideal.'The Conservatives say: 'The fewer wehave the better for a vigorous and expandingBritain.' The difference betweenour outlook and the Socialistoutlook on life is the difference betweenthe ladder and the queue. We are forthe ladder. Let all try their best toclimb. They are for the queue. Let eachwait in his place till his turn comes."The Socialists retaliated with anasty campaign accusing Churchill ofbeing a warmonger, but the tactic probablybackfired. In the election, althoughthe Conservatives lost the popular voteto Labour by less than 250,000 votesout of over 28 million, they won 321seats in Parliament to Labour's 295.Winston was back.Churchill set about with great energyto put together his new cabinet,naming himself once more as Ministerof Defence, on which he addressed theHouse December 6th. In the debatewhich followed, Churchill rose to paytribute to his opposite number,Emanuel Shinwell, the former Ministerof Defence: "We have our party battlesand bitterness...but I have always feltand have always testified, even in momentsof party strife, to the Rt HonGentleman's sterling patriotism and tothe fact that his heart is in the rightplace where the life and strength of ourcountry are concerned. Tonight he hasmade a speech which was the moststatesmanlike, if he will allow me to sayso, that I have heard him make in thisHouse in those days that we have gonethrough. I am so glad to be able to saytonight, in these very few moments,that the spirit which has animated theRt Hon Gentleman in the main dischargeof his great duties was one whichhas, in peace as well as in war, added tothe strength and security of our country."Churchill might have said histheme was: "change the tone." $5IFINEST HOUR 112/33

ALANBROOKE AND CHURCHILLEasily visible on secure plinths above all swirls or pettinessare two heroes. One is a first-class general, probably tbe bestChief of Imperial General Staff Britain ever knew. The other, loomingevenlarger, is a soldier-turned-statesman, who probably saved the West.CHRISTOPHER C. HARMONAlan Francis Brooke 1served for five years asChief of the ImperialGeneral Staff. Britain's highest-rankingarmy officer, hewas the closest military adviserto Prime Minister Winston S.Churchill. Accordingly, in thelate Fifties, when he publishedhis World War II diaries, TheTurn of the Tide and Triumphin the West, they were somethingof a scandal for theirpungent, even brutal wordsabout Churchill. Many wereoffended that so famous astatesman could be accused ofboorishness, peevishness, andstrategic lunacy by a generalwho had served him so long.Historians had a differentcriticism of the originalvolumes, notably their heavyediting by the historian ArthurBryant. Experts have longwondered what had been cut,what had been changed or obscured. 2 Now they know.In the new War Diaries, editors Alex Danchev andDaniel Todman include the full original diaries and theshort passages Alanbrooke added after the war. Inevitablythe new edition renews British attentions to the differencesbetween the Field Marshal and Prime Minister.Dr. Harmon is an academic adviser to The Churchill Center, a boardmember of the Washington Society for Churchill, and a Professor ofInternational Relations at Command & Staff College, Marine CorpsUniversity. He thanks Drs. Mark Jacobsen, Larry P. Arnn, and PatrickGarrity for their improvements to this essay.Read anew, however,the entries seem to show thatit was the strains and stormsof war—more than WinstonChurchill—that made thesetimes so hard on Alanbrooke,whose utter exhaustion seepsthrough his prose. Penned forhis wife, ostensibly with no intentof publication, the diarieswere a steam vent for dealingwith pressure.He was known for selfcontrol,power, and determination;but writing privately,in late hours of interminabledays, Alanbrooke permittedhimself anger, fatigue, anddespair. The result is deeplypersonal, and sometimes petulant,as full of grousing as abook of Ernie Pyle cartoons,but with little saving humor.Churchill's "black dog" of depressionwas a pup comparedto Alanbrooke's.So "uncut" an edition fails to show the full man.While doing great things, Alanbrooke wrote often of pettythings— a nd a few major obsessions. The difference betweenthe significant Field Marshal and the introspectivediary writer is due in part to the "vent" the diaries provided,and in equal to the "friction of war." And Alanbrooke'sprivate whinings involved many impressive figuresbesides Churchill.George Marshall may be America's senior militaryman, but in these pages it is "almost impossible to makehim grasp the true concepts of a strategic situation." In-FINBSTHOURII2/34

stead he will "hedge and defer decisions until such time ashe had to consult his assistants. Unfortunately, his assistantswere not of the required calibre " The assistantsincluded Dwight Eisenhower, a charming, adept and"hopeless" general. "He literally knows nothing of the requirementsof a commander in action," wrote Alanbrooke:"...a very, very limited brain from a strategic pointof view." ^More upsetting, at least to the British, battle-hardenedUK officers are equally inept at strategy. John S. V.Gort, commander of the British Expeditionary Forcerushed to France in 1939, is charming and good, but his"brain has lately been compared to that of a glorified boyscout!....[H]e just fails to be able to see the big picture." 4General Sir Harold Alexander, who was admired byChurchill, has "many fine qualities but no very greatstrategic vision....It was very doubtful whether he was fitto command his Army" in North Africa. What about asecondary theater like India? No—he "has not got thebrains." Lord Louis Mountbatten, Chief of CombinedOperations, is "quite irresponsible, suffers from the mostdesperate illogical brain, always producing red herrings." 5With senior military men so appalling, one must expecta mere politician to be still worse, and Churchillobliges: "temperamental like a film star" and "peevish like aspoilt child," often picking up on "some isolated operationand without ever really having looked into it, setting hisheart on it." Churchill presses so hard for invading Sumatra(as a first step to recapturing Singapore) that Alanbrookebegins "to wonder whether I was Alice in Wonderland,or whether I was really fit for a lunatic asylum Idon't know where we are or where we are going as regardsstrategy, and I just cannot get him to face the true facts!"WSC has "no long term vision....In all his plans he livesfrom hand to mouth. He can never grasp a wholeplan His method is entirely opportunist. My God howtired I am of working for him." 6No one has doubted that Alanbrooke himself had astrong sense for military strategy. No one saysotherwise. Of Germans he was usually an astutejudge: of when they would move on Belgium and Holland;when they might strike East at "Russia" (as he andChurchill invariably called the USSR); and how Hitlerwould sequence the use of air bombing and amphibiousforces against England. Towards the end he suggested thatHitler might commit suicide (ten days before it happened).7 His approach to strategy was sober, thoughtful,and successful, and should be respected today for its pragmatismand internal logic.An important consequence of Alanbrooke's approachwas to slow down the Americans, and even Mr.Churchill, from too early a launch of the cross-Channelinvasion. 8 The Prime Minister's ugly memories of the inadequatelandings in World War I at the Dardanelles haveoften been mentioned as the reason he slowed down theAmericans; these diaries depict Alanbrooke as even morecautious, slowing down Churchill.Alanbrooke's views on other choices were often theresult of his strategic focus. The British were pumpingconsiderable military aid into Turkey, but when he attendeda high-level covert visit to Adana in early 1943,Alanbrooke showed only modest interest in Turkish collaboration.While praising Churchill's witty speeches andhandling of the meetings, Alanbrooke scorned his oppositenumber, a Turkish field marshal, for having "no conceptionof the administrative aspect of handling armies."Postwar additions to the diary pages dwell mostly on socially-awkwardmoments of that trip, including the timeAlanbrooke annoyed his hosts by staring out the windowat a wild bird. 9Encounters with birds often merited a sentencefrom this serious ornithologist and hunter. Such notes reflecthis relief in the ways he could be diverted from hiswar, and doubtless they would interest his wife Benita.Certainly it was not because birds are a safer subject towrite on than secret military matters. Each of the manylittle books making up this diary was illegal; top secretsdripped from all; any would have been a prize for an Axisintelligence officer.Winston Churchill is the figure most often pokedwith Alanbrooke's pen. There are at least three reasons forthis. The first is bureaucratic: there was a civilian Secretaryof State for War who outranked Alanbrooke, but this personage,Sir Percy James Grigg, appears remarkably uninfluentialon war policy and was utterly ignored by war historians.Alanbrooke thought him a prince, but this couldbe in part because Grigg kindly left him alone. »1. Field Marshal Lord Alanbrooke, War Diaries,1939-1945, eds. Alex Danchev andDaniel Todman (London: Weidenfeld &Nicolson, 2001, £25), pp. 249, 360; hereinafterDiaries. The title of Field Marshal wasearned in January 1944. Later his givenproper names were collapsed into "Alanbrooke"when he was made a Viscount, afterthe war. Members may purchase the book for$28 from The Churchill Center Book Club,PO Box 385, Contoocook NH 03229.2. Two examples of historians criticizing the 4. Diaries, pp. 18, 7, 14.Bryant edition are the fine talk Dr. WilliamsonMurray offered to the Washington Society for 5. Diaries, pp. 384, 216, 357, 715.Churchill in that city on 2 April 1998, and therelevant paragraphs of Gerhard Weinberg's im- 6. Diaries, pp. 450, 532, 515; see also 521pressive essay "Some Thoughts on World WarII," in The Journal of Military History, 56 (Oct. 7. Diaries, pp. 12, 15, 30, 35, 145-46, 685.1992), pp. 659-68; my copy was courtesy ofMr. Mark Whisler.8. Diaries, pp. 284-85 et. seq.3. Diaries, pp. 351, 350, 669. 9. Diaries, pp. 373-75.FINEST HOUR 112/35

That leaves Alanbrooke, Britain's leading military adviser,with exactly two civilian bosses in direct line above him:Minister of Defence and Prime Minister, both of themwith the same name: Winston S. Churchill. *0Another reason for the criticism of Churchill ishigh-minded and strategic, if not necessarily correct.Alanbrooke felt that this admittedly great man had nostrategy; as late as December 1941, when Alanbrooke becameC.I.G.S., he remained "appalled" by the "lack of adefinite policy....Planned strategy was not Winston'sstrong card. He preferred to work by intuition and impulse."11 Proving he does possess a sense of humor, Alanbrooketwice formulates the problem as antithesis: "Godknows where we would be without him, but God knowswhere we shall go with him," says an entry for 1941.Three years hence he writes: "Without him England waslost for a certainty, with him England has been on theverge of disaster time and again."^A third irritation Alanbrooke had with the PrimeMinister was quite the opposite of strategic indecision: incertain narrow corridors, Churchill was focused to a fault,sinking his bulldog teeth into a particular idea or operationthat appealed to him. Whenever anyone pointed outhow much this laser-focus neglected or damaged otherimportant military matters, the bulldog would shake hishead fiercely and keep grinding. Examples include snatchingGreek islands and liberating Norway.What Alanbrooke never adds to such accounts ofconference room combat is that Churchill would neveroverrule the Chiefs of Staff when they agreed among themselves.Arguing, testing and debating were part of propercivilian oversight. Alanbrooke missed the point. Hethought he was saving Britain from wild variants of harebrainedstrategies.Alanbrooke's diaries are remarkably silent aboutmost of the many things these two war horsesagreed about. Both believed Germany must bedefeated before Japan. Both emphasized Mediterraneanoperations, where British and Allied troops retook NorthAfrica, Sicily, and southern Italy. Both felt in 1943 and1944 that Alexander's army in Italy was neglected andcondemned to fighting without real offensive power byvarious Pacific ventures and the unnecessary plan to invadesouthern France (Dragoon). Both believed in what istoday called "joint warfare," and pushed air power.Churchill and Alanbrooke admired some of thesame generals, especially Montgomery, and certain aggressivedivision commanders. They were alike in keepingDominion politicians stewing on the back burner; eachshowed hostility toward any Dominion parliamentarianwho seemed displeased by the direction of the war. And ofcourse, Churchill and Alanbrooke both wearied of thewar's leading Frenchman, Charles de Gaulle.Disagreements on strategy were but one part of thestiff-lipped Alanbrooke's heavy censure. He was equallyspicy about Churchill's friends and associates. Media magnateLord Beaverbrook, a long-time adviser to Churchill,is derided as a political hack whose interventions in cabinetare self-interested and slippery—almost devilish. Alanbrookefurther disapproves of the Canadian's love ofstrong whisky. Since Churchill himself drank daily, it issurprising that there are only three or four places wherethe diary criticizes his practice, while three other personagesare labeled outright drunks: American Admiral King,Australian Commander in Chief General Blarney, and seniorSoviet General Voroshilov. Among other Churchillcronies Alanbrooke cordially resented were BrendanBracken, Admiral Sir Roger Keyes, and scientific adviserFrederick Lindemann. Friendly ministers such as the Conservatives'Anthony Eden and Labour's Ernest Bevin, ormore supple men, were thought to be enlisted by the PMin using cabinet sessions to assail the military for doingtoo little or making mistakes.There are several intriguing omissions. For all thearguments during and after war provoked byChurchill's fascination with "the Ljubljana Gap,"Alanbrooke says almost nothing about it. There are onlythree days when he mentions the strategic concept, whichenvisioned landing near Trieste and marching northwestinto Slovenia, skirting the highest Alps, entering theDanube Valley, and reaching Vienna. This could be a fineend run on the Germans, Churchill thought, and a way tosave Austria from Soviet occupation. When the Sovietssurprisingly support the Gap proposal in February 1945,Alanbrooke writes with relief that he was able to suppressfurther discussion! 13 The Ljubljana Gap proposal wasthus another case in which the Prime Minister yielded tohis generals.Another absence in the diary is unsurprising, for itwas not debated by military men during the war. It doespoint to the differences in viewpoint which may grow upafter a war is safely won. Dresden was familiar to the educatedas a marvel of architecture and high German culture,and is familiar to late 20th century Westerners as asymbol of wartime apocalypse, or "war crimes," describedwith astonishment by novelist Kurt Vonnegut in SlaughterhouseFive. But in the Diaries, Dresden appears onlyonce: two months after the firestorm made by British and10. When Churchill was Chancellor of theExchequer, he came to know Grigg, a proficientcivil servant, and may have made himSecretary of State for War to handle the financesof that department while the P.M./DefenceMinister managed the larger matters.II. Diaries, p. 207.12. Diaries, pp. 207, 590. One could say theentire war was the verge of disaster.13. Diaries, pp. 591-92, 655-56.FINEST HOUR 112/36

Reviewing plans for the invasion of Italy, Algiers, 1943. Churchill is surrounded by (l-r) Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden; C.I.G.S. General Sir AlanBrooke; Air Chief Marshal Tedder; Admiral Sir Andrew Cunningham; and Generals Alexander, Marshall, Eisenhower, and Montgomery. Returning fromthis meeting, WSC learned that the Germans had shot down a commercial plane because spies had seen it boarded by a heavy man with a cigar.American bombers, on 20 April 1945, Alanbrooke wrotethat "The Russians are now moving properly and itshould not be long before we meet up with them on theBerlin-Dresden front." In length and meaning, this quietsentence carries the full view of most military men workingover maps at the time. Much earlier the town hadbeen identified as one of 58 "built-up areas" to be attacked.Then it appeared on a January 1945 short list ofcities in the way of the advancing Red Army. Intelligencereports differed as to whether Axis armor was transitingthe Dresden area, before or after its leveling. If soldierssaw the damage, they probably thought of how bomberscould do in safety the grim work of urban war that mighthave killed thousands of Allied infantrymen. 1^Despite being Churchill's senior military commanderand adviser, Alanbrooke seemed disinterested in thepolitical issues of the war. As he was absent at the earlysummits with Americans, it is not surprising that hemakes no mention of the Atlantic Charter or the Declarationof the United Nations. But he also has nothing to sayabout the early 1943 Casablanca trip and its "UnconditionalSurrender" declaration, which concerned Eisenhower,Churchill, and others during the war and later becamethe subject of books. 1 5 There is nothing about concentrationcamps or genocide, nor on the contentiousplan by the U.S. Treasury Secretary to "pastoralize" postwarGermany. Poland's agony is reflected, though narrowly,in frequent short notes about military-to-militarydealings with such Poles as Lt. General "Wladyslaw Anders.Alanbrooke gives Stalin reserved expressions of admiration—verydefensible if one writes only as an analystof strategy, and only about the years after 1941. Most ofthe Asian side of the war gets short shrift. In that it mirrorsthe British sense that they should focus on the Europeantheater. The same concentration is evident inChurchill's own papers of the period 1942-1946. 16 >»14. Diaries, p. 685. There is also remarkablylittle about Dresden in the official British orAmerican strategic bombing surveys; ChristopherC. Harmon, "Are We Beasts?" Churchilland the Moral Question of World War II "AreaBombing,"Newport Papers #1 (Newport, RI:Center for Naval Warfare Studies, Dec. 1991).15. There is nothing in the Diaries except alate, vague reference at p. 703. The books areby Everett Holies (1945); Anne Armstrong(1961); and Raymond O'Connor (1971).16. My statement about Churchill does notapply to his WW2 history, but to his papers ofthe years specified and held in The ChurchillArchives Centre at Churchill College, Cambridge.On a second matter: David Fraser,Alanbrooke's biographer, sees a difference »FINEST HOUR 112/37

Perhaps the explanation of Alanbrooke's view on politicsis that he was a very traditional military man.He longed to leave things political to politicians,while he breathed and fought in the realm of high strategy—wherehe expected full support from ministers. Thisis somewhat predictable for a military purist; it is alsogood doctrine according to SunTzu {The Art of War). Butit is bad Clausewitz.A successful general and a veteran of the Napoleonicwars, the Prussian Clausewitz, in his famous book, OnWar, warned officers that all war operations are to somedegree permeated by political factors. What modern historyappears to suggest—what even Mao Tse-tung accepted—isthat Clausewitz had the best advice for stateswhose entire populations are being mobilized for war, atleast on matters of civil-military relations and the makingof strategy. In this matter, Winston Churchill was Clausewitzeanand well ahead of Alanbrooke. "The distinctionbetween politics and strategy diminishes as the point ofview is raised," Churchill wrote. "At the summit true politicsand strategy are one." 1 ''Alan Francis Brooke was a splendidly able soldier.Ironically, irritated with others for not seeing the big militarypicture, he himself erred in thinking it was his dutyto control "grand strategy." That requires the involvementof dozens of foreign governments, armies, and navies, andnearly all branches of government. On every working dayfrom 1943 through 1945, committees around Whitehalltoiled over vexed issues: housing, food imports, currency,governing postwar Germany, captured war materiel, repatriationof prisoners, France, even the fate of Istria atopthe Adriatic Sea. Wanting little part in such things, Alanbrookeabsorbed himself in the making of British interserviceconsensus, the arranging of military partners, andcrushing the Axis everywhere it dared fight on.That Alanbrooke was a superior warrior we knowfrom his achievements. His diaries show deep concern andthoughtful judgment on many difficult military problems.It is unseemly to be overly fascinated by the diaries' underside.His whinings do not make him a child, any morethan his ejaculation about Churchill being childish makethe Prime Minister less of a man. Each deserves his statue.And Alanbrooke knew it. One of the things the diariesshow, in original form and when their author addedto them after the war, is how often he checked his ownworst passions, and implored the reader to pardon hisharshness about Churchill. Typical of such interventionsare words of 30 August 1943: after strong criticism ofChurchill, he reflects that future historians will have troublesquaring such failings with this man of "...most marvelousqualities and superhuman genius...." ^On VE Day, as a happy mob filled London, Alanbrookeand other senior leaders were received at BuckinghamPalace. He then rode in a staff car which inched alongto the Home Office. There a balcony had been readied sothe crowds could cheer the Prime Minister, the Cabinet,Alanbrooke and the other Chiefs of Staff. A longtimefriend told him: "I watched you getting into your car thismorning from the window with a crowd looking at you,and none of them realizing that beside them was the manwho had probably done most to win the war against Germany...[But] I do, and lots of people do...." Alanbrookerecords this with gratitude and then deftly adds: "[T]hepublic has never understood what the Chiefs of Staff havebeen doing in the running of the war. On the whole thePM has never enlightened them much." 19Some say Churchill's celebrated war memoirs didnot adequately praise Alanbrooke. The point is a sensitiveone given that, already in 1944, the Prime Minster hadhurt him by withdrawing earlier assurances that Alanbrookewould command "Overlord." When war ended(under Attlee's Labour government) he was given a verysmall monetary reward; later, per custom, he retired athalf a field marshal's salary. Quickly he was reduced to livingin a cottage beside what had been his home. He hadto sell his precious illustrated books on wild birds.20 Littlewonder that the field marshal later decided to edit his diarieswith Arthur Bryant and publish their inner thoughts.They sold well, and added to his fame. But it is less clear ifthey added to his respectability.These diaries are an important possession and enlighteningto read. Their strength however is thesignificance of Alanbrooke, not the introductorymaterials of editors Danchev and Todman. They makeseveral useful observations, including the point thatChurchill and Alanbrooke had a tragic tendency to underestimateeach other. They observe that the diary was a toolfor Alanbrooke's "recovering possession of himself" andsoldiering on into another day.But the editors also commit some blunders. Whichof them imagined that it would be funny to follow up theirtwelve well-composed pages on "The Cast"—mini-biographiesof important figures like Molotov, Harriman, Eden,and Attlee—with similar paragraphs in the same typefaceon five of the wild birds mentioned by Alanbrooke? The16. continued...between Alanbrooke and Churchill on Asianstrategy, described in his essay "Alanbrooke,"in Churchill's Generals, ed. John Keegan (NewYork: Grove Weidenfeld, 1991), pp. 98-99.17. This passage could have been written byClausewitz or Churchill; it appears inChurchill's The World Crisis, vol. 2: 1915(London: Thornton Butterworth Ltd., 1923),p. 21.18. Diaries, p. 451.19. Diaries, pp. 688-89.20. Introduction to the Diaries, p. xxiv.FINEST HOUR 112/ 38

eader thus moves with incredulity from subsections on"The Soldiers" to "The Politicians" to "The Birds." This isflippancy, not history. And there is more to come.Visit to the front, 21st Army Group HQ, August 1944. L-R: Generals Dempsey and Brooke,WSC, General Montgomery, Field Marshal Smuts.Danchev and Todman do not adequately addressthe character of the "restored" materials in the diaries.They scorn Bryant, who, they say, "emasculated"the record and made "artful confections." But theysay little to nothing about what this full text tells us thatwe did not already know—beyond indicating Bryantdropped the worst personal attacks. Is that all? Probablythere is more. Here, systematic analytic work would havehelped the new edition much more than forays into disparagementof thefirst editor and thefashionably-modernhunt for "feet ofclay" on politiciansand generals.Another problemwith the introductorymaterials isthat they may wellmake errors at thevery moment theyboast of straighteningout the record.The editors flatlydeclare Gen. Montgomeryand Churchill"infantiletyrants." It is notthat they acted intemperately at some midnight meeting,or that Alanbrooke considered one or the other 'puerile'on some occasion, but that they are "infantile tyrants."There is an unqualified editors' reference to "Churchill'smoral degradation." That is not anything Alanbrookesaid, but words of the editors about a man whose sevendecades in the public eye included fewer questionable momentsthan many congressmen or parliamentarians havein no time. We are told of Churchill's "black dog" but weare not told the words don't appear in this diary. The editorssay Churchill "scrambled into supremacy" in 1940, abrainless untruth that should not efface the drama of justhow Britain's government did change in those remarkabledays of May.Some of these excesses may be the editors' real views;some could be the strained interpretation of a chance remarkby Alanbrooke. An example of the latter is the editorsconclusion that Alanbrooke wished Churchill dead.They write a paragraph, 21 shaping insinuation until it be-gins to look like an argument, and then spring their oddconclusion. The reader waits, entry after entry, for the diariesto reveal evidence that could have inspired their fantasy.There is none.Their best hope is an incident in the Canadianwilderness, 25 August 1943. An overworked CIGS,thrilled by the prospect of several days of quiet fishing, isthunderstruck to see the Prime Minister and a colonelamble out of the woods. Telling the story marvelously, thediary says, "I could have shot them both." This can be readas a joke or a cuss. It is inconceivable diat so slender a linecould allow Alanbrooke's new editors to write, as a generalproposition, that by 1943 "the diarist had wished himdead." But that iswhat the editorstell us. 22Is their gravestatement hangingon that one fishingline? Probably,for nothing else inthese diaries canpretend to justifythe obscenethought that Alanbrooketrulywished Churchilldead. Three pagesafter the storyabout the fish thatgot away, Alanbrookestates thatnot for anything on earth would he have missed thechance to work for Churchill. 23eaders might expect any edition of a historical figure'sprivate diaries to be a little too generous totheir subject. This 2001 presentation will never becalled generous to anyone, including Alanbrooke. Thatmay save Danchev and Todman from the criticism leveledat Bryant's edition; but they have made mistakes of theirown. Perhaps they believe that since Alanbrooke's wordsexpose him, in certain moments, as nasty, or "all toohuman," he will look relatively better if the introductiondepicts Churchill as far worse? If that was the intendedapproach, it fails.Easily visible, on secure plinths above all swirls ofpettiness, are two heroes. One is a first-class general, probablythe best Chief of Imperial General Staff Britain everknew. The other, looming even larger, is a soldier-turnedstatesman,who probably saved the West. $5able corollary of the unspoken thought..."21. Danchev & Todman, introduction, p. xviii.It is clear their argument is failing when insteadof evidence they tell us to accept an "unspeakfishtale on p. 448 of the Diaries.22. See the introductory essay, p. xviii, and the 23. Diaries, p. 451.FINEST HOUR 112/39

"Democracy is no Harlot"In the "Person of the Century"hoopla, Globe & Mail columnist RickSalutin wrote that Churchill "helpedlaunch the Cold War by sending Britishtroops to Greece to crush the anti-Naziresistance." Dear oh dear...In April 1941, the Allies wereforced to withdraw from Greece. Thatautumn, a communist-dominated resistanceorganisation called the NationalLiberation Front (EAM) was formed.In April 1942, EAM formed the PeoplesLiberation Army (ELAS), whichbegan recruiting guerrillas. Anothergroup under Zervas (EDES), originallyrepublican, was strongly anti-Communist.No group had contact with theGreek government in exile in London.In autumn 1942, the first BritishMilitary Mission was parachuted intoGreece to aid die guerrillas. On 4 July1943, the King of Greece broadcast that ageneral election would be held soon afterliberation, and that the exiled Greek Governmentwould resign in order that abroadly based administration could beformed. But opinion in Greece favoredmore immediate action.When Italy surrendered in September1943, ELAS was able to acquire mostof the Italian equipment, and quicklygained military supremacy. Churchill,worried about a communist coup, wroteGeneral Ismay: "Should the Germansevacuate Greece, we must certainly beable to send five thousand British troopswith armoured cars and Bren gun carriersinto Athens....Their duty would be togive support at the centre to the restoredlawful Greek Government....Once a stablegovernment is set up, we should takeour departure."In February 1944, the British missionestablished an uneasy truce betweenELAS and EDES. With Sovietarmies on the Romanian border, EAMdecided to act. They challenged theTsouderos government, which resigned,and the leader of the Greek Social DemocraticParty, Papandreou, took officeon April 26th. Some agreement wasmade with EAM to support a coalitiongovernment.In August 1944 the British madeready to send troops to secure Athensfor the government to be set up. Inearly September, the Germans began towithdraw. British troops moved in duringearly October as the Germanspulled out. On November 15th, Athenswas declared a military area, and BritishGeneral Scobie was given authority toorder all ELAS troops to leave it.EAM revolted and, on December3rd, communist supporters collidedwith police and civil war began. ELASquickly gained control of the city, exceptfor its very centre, where Scobie'stroops began to counter-attack. !In the British House of Commons, jSir Richard Acland, the leader and soleMP of the Commonwealth Party, called [for a vote of confidence in the Government.On December 8th, Churchillspoke against the Acland amendment inthe House (extracts follow):"Who are the friends of democracy,and also how is the word "democracy"to be interpreted? My idea of it is thatthe plain, humble, common man, justthe ordinary man who keeps a wife andfamily, who goes off to fight for hiscountry when it is in trouble, goes tothe poll at the appropriate time, andputs his cross on the ballot-paper showling the candidate he wishes to beelected to Parliament—that he is thefoundation of democracy. And it is essentialto this foundation that this manor woman should do this without fear,and without any form of intimidationor victimisation. He marks his ballotpaperin strict secrecy, and then electedrepresentatives meet and together decidewhat government, or even, in timesof stress, what form of government,they wish to have for their country. IfFINEST HOUR JI2/40that is democracy I salute it. I espouseit. I would work for it...."One must have some respect fordemocracy and not use the word toolightly. The last thing which resemblesdemocracy is mob law, with bands ofgangsters, armed with deadly weapons,forcing their way into great cities, seizingthe police stations and key points ofgovernment, endeavouring to introducea totalitarian regime with an iron hand,and clamouring, as they can nowadaysif they get power [interruption] toshoot everyone who is politically inconvenientas part of a purge of those whoare said to have collaborated with theGermans during the occupation...."Democracy is not based on violenceor terrorism, but on reason, onfair play, on freedom, on respecting therights of other people. Democracy is noharlot to be picked up in the street by aman with a tommy-gun. I trust thepeople, the mass of the people, in almostany country, but I like to makesure that it is the people and not a gangof bandits who think that by violencethey can overturn constituted authority,in some cases ancient Parliaments, Governments,and States...."We march along an onerous andpainful path. Poor old England! (PerhapsI ought to say "Poor old Britain!")We have to assume the burden of themost thankless tasks, and in undertakingthem to be scoffed at, criticised, andopposed from every quarter; but at leastwe know where we are making for,know the end of the road, know what isour objective....If I am blamed for thisaction I will gladly accept my dismissalat the hands of the House....I shall callupon the House as a matter of confidencein His Majesty's Government,and of confidence in the spirit withwhich we have marched from one perilto another till victory is in sight, to rejectsuch pretensions with the scornthat they deserve...."Thirty members opposed the Government,nearly 300 members votedconfidence. "Here again," wroteChurchill, "was a moment in which theHouse of Commons showed its enduringstrength and authority." {The SecondWorld War, Volume 6, Triumph andTragedy, British Intervention in Greece.)—Mike Campbell M>

EMINENT CHURCHILLIANSCnurcnill Center and Society LeadersnipBernie Webber, ICS (Canada)Bernard Webber, Presidentand Chief Executive Officer11 f i lie Insurance Information Ceniiiof Canada, has been active inihi Canadian technology industryu senior levels for 30 years. TheIK C is a national technology andmlurmation organization whosemember companies provide morethan 95 percent of the private andpublic property and casualty insurancesold in Canada. Here, Bernie'sconcentration has been on revitalizingthe technology thrust ofproperty and casualty associations. Prior to his arrival at theIICC in 1997, he was President and CEO of the Facility Association(FA), Canada's P&C residual market for automobile insurancecoverage. Over a span of 26 years he has held a numberof senior positions with the Ontario Civil Service.Bernie Webber was President of the Other Club of Ontariofrom 1992 through 1999; its twice-yearly "Evenings withSir Winston" are often hosted by Bernie at his club, the historicRoyal Canadian Military Institute. He was also finance chairmanfor the 1994 Calgary and 1997 Toronto Churchill conferences,where he played a critical role in keeping those expensiveevents in the black.Any note about Bernie really must include his wifeJeanette, who has been the faithful membership secretary ofICS Canada for several years. Jeanette receives, checks, stuffs,stamps and posts Finest Hour and other publications to membersfrom the Maritimes to the Yukon. Jeanette and Bernie areboth very active in our joint dinners with the Albany Club ofToronto, planning the event and paying tribute to Churchill.They also attend most international conferences and werelooking forward to San Diego as this was written.Bernie is known to have an encyclopedic memory ofthings Churchillian and is the person we go to whenever a referenceis needed. His hobby is book collecting—Churchill andthe Royal Navy, particularly World War II.Bernie has also contributed his time and expertise to avariety of Salvation Army endeavours. He is past chairman oftheir Advisory Council on Corrections and Justice in MetropolitanToronto, past chairman of the Advisory Council ofBroadview Village, and is currently chairman of the Correctionsand Justice Advisory council at the national level. He ischairman of the Board of Directors of Radio Station CJRT(91.1 FM), and a mentor with the Rotman Mentorship Programat the University of Toronto.Bernie and Jeanette are a warm, giving couple committedto ICS Canada and Sir Winston's legacy. —Randy BarberFred LocWood, ICS (UK)Fred grew up in the West Ridingof Yorkshire during the dire years of theDepression, but was allowed to stay at school until the age of16, when he sat for an examination that resulted in his appointmentto the War Office as a clerical officer. This was a"reserved" occupation when war broke out in 1939, but Fredevaded his exemption and secured a cadetship and then a commissionwith the 4th Indian Division (famous in the EighthArmy as the "Red Eagles"). Itwas in North Africa, during theheadlong pursuit of Rommel,that Fred experienced the magicof Winston Churchill: "Addressinga group of us somewheresouth of Tripoli he concluded,'You nightly pitch your westeringtents a day's march nearerhome!' I was hooked!"After the war Fredclimbed through the Civil Service in various appointmentsranging from managing Ammunition Procurement to negotiatingterms for die employment of civilians by the Forces on theEuropean Continent. "In another appointment in the War OfficeI was responding to the decisions of WSC in his secondAdministration and, on one occasion, had to bat for him on adistinctly sticky wicket!"A spell with NATO as its man in London, and frequentvisits to Norfolk, Virginia, consolidated Fred's connection withthe USA. NATO also sent him to the Flag and General Officers'course at the U.S. Navy Postgraduate College in Monterey—anexperience he drew upon when called upon to contributeto the syllabus of the UK National Defence College.After more years in the Ministry of Defence (as deputyto a General responsible for deployment of the Army worldwide),Fred became, "most surprisingly," the UK Government's"response" to a request from the Sultan of Oman for an officialto help put the Omani Defence Ministry in order.There followed 14 very satisfying years in Oman. Fredlikes to sum them up by the British Embassy's citation for hisCBE, which concluded: "By his hard work, skill and good humour,he has contributed enormously to the maintenance andthe close and warm relationship between Oman and Britain inthe defence field."Fred retired from that employment in 1993 and was retainedfor some years as a consultant by British firms that didbusiness in the Persian Gulf region.He is now fully retired aftersixty years of working life.When Nigel Knocker assumed chairmanship of ICSUnited Kingdom, he asked Fred to join his Committee, sincethe two had worked together in several capacities in Oman.Fred accepted with alacrity: "I had long been aware of thetremendous significance of Churchill's life, and the opportunityto help project his values into the future was too good toj miss."FINEST HOUR 112/41

THE PEOPLE'S RIGHTS-.OPPORTUNITY LOST?What would nave happened hadChurchill s Liherals succeededin their original plan ror rerorm?Andrew MacLarenwho, towards the end of the 19th century, had examinedIn 1970, Jonathan Cape published a new edition of Churchill'sthe paradox of the age in his Progress and Poverty. Hisrare work, The People's Rights (Woods A16). We have recentlyprinciples had a major impact, first upon the radicals ofcome across a copy containing an eight-page publisher's pamphletScotland and Ireland, including Campbell Bannermanwe had never seen before, the contents of which we publish herewith.The author owned a first edition he had bought new inhimself, and later upon the policy of the Liberal Party.1910, possibly the copy Cape used for the offprint. Mr. MacLaren Henry George propounded that whilst people(see biographic note) was Labour MP for Burslem during 1922-45- have the right to possess what they produce, or receive inHis argument is akin to that of Malcolm Hill in Churchill: HisRadical Decade, reviewed in Finest Hour 108:38. —Ed.The republication of any Churchill work after sixtyyears is an event commanding widespread publicinterest. Such attention is owed the rich dessert ofThe People's Rights, last published at the culmination ofthe election campaign of 1909/10, when the speechesfrom which Churchill compiled the book were delivered.Many a reader will find himself astonished thatso vivid a portrayal of one of the great men of our timeshould have lain so long out of print. Yet modern readerswill miss much of the value of the book if it is read onlyfor the brilliant and sometimes surprising insight into thisvital stage of Churchill's political development.For the principles and aspirations set out here arenot those of the individual, but the life force of the greatmovement that reached its zenith in the Liberal Governmentsof Sir Henry Campbell Bannerman and HerbertAsquith that followed the landslide Liberal victory of1906. If one dares to summarise the purpose and vision ofLiberal leaders of that time, it was to bring in a society inwhich the poverty and social injustice of the previous centurywould be eradicated without diminishing the libertyand independence of the individual. The incentive wouldremain to develop his abilities to the full for the good ofhimself and of the community.In seeking and proclaiming the steps which wereto be taken, Churchill and the other leaders of the radicalwing of the Liberal Party encountered fierce oppositionfrom powerful vested interests, even within their own party,and in particular from the House of Lords. Thestruggle with the Lords, following their rejection ofthe so-called "Peoples Budget" in 1909, led ofcourse to the introduction of the Parliament Act.Churchill himself had crossed the floor ofthe House in 1904 on the Free Trade issue andhis passionate advocacy of Free Trade found brilliantexpression in the 1909 speeches. It was notlong however before he became the equally ferventand conscientious exponent of other greatLiberal causes, many of which are now little remembered.Apart from Free Trade, the great economicand social issues were taxation and the alleviationof poverty. The Liberals were concerned toremove the basic cause of the problem—not justto mitigate its undesirable effects.It was the American economist Henry Georgeexchange for their work, there is no such right to privateownership of the elements upon which all depend—air,water, sunshine and land. Indeed, George held the right ofaccess to these basic elements as strong and equal as theright to life itself, and that if private ownership of basic elementsis permitted, suppression and exploitation of oneclass by another is inevitable. The consequent injusticemust become more acute as the community develops.Thus it became a major point of Liberal policy toshift taxation from production, and to raise taxation uponthe value of land, on the basis that this value, as witnessedby the tremendously high prices even then demanded forcommercial land, is created not by any individual but bythe existence and work of the whole community. A naturalsource thus arises from which the community maymeet its growing needs without discouraging productionor inhibiting the growth of earnings.The justice and practicality of this propositioncan rarely if ever have enjoyed a more brilliant advocatethan Winston Churchill, and today's reader is left to wonderhow different might be the present state of Britain hadthe forces of social change pursued these principles totheir enactment. As it was, the great power and intellectualprowess of the Liberal Movement, which had commandedworldwide admiration for the breadth and nobilityof its vision, was soon to be dissipated by war, internalfeuding and the fear of Bolshevism.Under the cruel heel of war and unemployment,Britons came to value security more and independenceless. The emphasis in social advance shifted to the massiveprovision of public benefits, and the increasing interven-FINESTHOUR 112/42

tion of the State in almost every area of human activity.The two World Wars and the great depression betweenthem severed, to a great extent, the line of liberal thoughtthat had developed over the previous century.Of Churchill himself, one can only feel that hewas fated to be the great war leader. Certainly, oppositionto communism and later to the rise of European tyranniesdominated the remainder of his political life. It is perhapsironic that a reason so often given for his dismissal in1945 is that he was not capable of dealing with socialproblems, and thus was unfit to be a peacetime leader.The People's Rights tells a very different story andcomes now not as a document of historic interest but as achallenge to politicians, indeed to the entire electorate, toconsider again the causes of poverty and the basic issues ofsocial and economic justice. Perhaps current disillusionmentwith politics springs from a sense that if justice inthe community can only be achieved at the expense of individualliberty, the price—especially in terms of ever-increasingtaxation and bureaucracy—is too high to pay.As a proposition that justice in the communityand the freedom of the individual are complementary andthat taxes may be raised without undermining either, ThePeoples Rights comes as a major contribution to currentpolitical and economic thought. Indeed it deserves a placein the annals of man's struggle for freedom and yearningfor a society in which the genius of every person would benurtured and the liberty of every person respected.Biographic Note: Born in Glasgow in 1883, AndrewMacLaren was active in the Scottish Liberal Partyand was working with the United Committee for the Taxationof Land Values in London when Churchill sent forcopies of Henry George's works at the time of the greatbattle over the "People's Budget." He was in 1970 one ofthe few alive who could speak from personal and intimateknowledge of the events and personalities of that time. AsLabour Member for the Burslem Division of Stoke-on-Trent, MacLaren was a fervent advocate of Land ValuesTaxation and Free Trade and—to the consternation ofmany socialist colleagues—fiercely opposing the WelfareState and nationalisation of industry as an alternative todealing with the basic causes of poverty and injustice. M>"Whatever happened to the International Churchill Society?"FUNDING THE CHURCHILL CENTERAt a recent meeting, several present asked "whathappened to the International Churchill Society ofthe USA?" ICS/USA has become The ChurchillCenter. The name change was appropriate, we reasoned,since the organization had grown—from a society of peopleinterested in Churchill to a major institution, includingthem but dedicated to impressing Churchill's thoughtsand deeds on young people through programs of teachingand publishing. The UK and Canadian organizations arestill ICS, but at least one of them is thinking of becominga "Churchill Centre" in its own right.Five years ago we set out to create a multi-milliondollar endowment. To date the amount pledged is $2 millionand the amount in hand approaches $ 1 million. Thismoney is never spent, but invested to sustain the Center'swork through its earnings. This year it will add about$50,000 to the Center's budget. All of this success is dueto the Churchill Center Associates (see next spread), whohave donated or pledged from $10,000 on up to the endowmentfund. All members of our Board are Associates.Greater yet is the fact that we have an endowmentnow taken seriously by individuals to whom wehave appealed for very large gifts. We are just now formalizingtwo major gifts from two such individuals, earmarkedfor specific projects—electronic teaching throughour website and publications.This new support will allow us to build the infrastructurewe now lack. Administrative expenses have littleappeal compared to far-reaching projects like the Internetand publications, which extend the Churchill saga far andwide, particularly among young people. But the administrationmust still be done. Thus, support for educationalprograms frees up part of our annual regular income topay an administrative director to direct programs, conferencesand the membership office—tasks that have heretoforefallen almost exclusively to volunteers.If you are already one of the Churchill Center Associates,you have our deep gratitude. If you are not, wewould welcome your participation. A telephone call toour special number for Associates, (888) 454-2275, willdisclose how this can be done in an almost painless way,all donations being, of course, tax-deductible by Americancitizens. We are 20% of the way home. We continue torely on you for your faith and your generosity.If you cannot help in that way, there is an otheropportunity: our annual Heritage Fund appeal, which isan important part of our everyday expenses, everythingfrom stamps to Internet fees. That appeal was recentlymailed to American members with our 2000 Annual Report.You can pledge by telephone—even use Visa or Mastercard.All Heritage Funds are completely tax-deductible.The number to call is (888) WSC-1874. continued >»FINEST HOUR 112/43

2001 Heritage FundA Special Request to American MembersOur Annual Report, which you have recently received, shows excitingprogress toward our goal of advancing Churchill's principlesof leadership among the future leaders of our country and the world.As always, your annual donation to our working funds is responsiblefor much of this. We cannot do it without you!Your annual subscription covers only about one-fourth of our expenses.We are as active as we are—particularly through seminars andsymposia— only because of the continuous, generous and repeated supportof our members.Last year, we enjoyed a very successful Heritage Fund Appeal: 172donations, a total of $26,485, average per donation $154. In launchingour 2001 appeal, we wish to express gratitude to those who helped us somuch last year. Their names are listed here. Our deepest and most sincerethanks to each and every one.As you plan your end-of-year charitable donations, we hope youwill again consider The Churchill Center. A dollar, or ten, or one hundred,or one thousand, goes so much further with us than the big charities—becausewe have only one modest goal: impressing the life andwork of Winston Churchill firmly on the 21st century.Please help! If you had not already done so, please send whateveryou can afford to The Churchill Center, 8016 McKenstry Drive, LaurelMD 20723. Remember that all donations are 100% tax deductible, andthat 75^ out of every dollar we spend is spent on programs.SINCERE THANKS TO THOSEGENEROUS MEMBERS WHOSUPPORTED US LAST YEAR:Number Ten Club ($1000-up)MRS. NANCY H. CANARYMS. JANE FRASERMR. & MRS. RICHARD A. LEAHYMR. GEORGE M. MIDDLEMASMR. JACK MOSELEYDR. MALCOLM I. PAGEMR. CHARLES D. PLATTDR. PETER T.SUZUKIFriends of Dal Newfield ($500-999)MR. RONALD D. ABRAMSONMR. RICHARD ANDREWSMR. GARYJ. BONINEMR. JAY S. GOODGOLDMR. ROBERT L. HALFYARDMR. & MRS. D. CRAIG HORN"X"Friends of Dal Newfield (cont'd.)MR. RICHARD ZIMBERTChartwell Associates ($200-499)ANONYMOUSMR. HERBERT P. BENNMR. CHARLES C. CORNELIOMR. EDWARD DECMR. LEE A. FORLENZAMR. ANDREW J. GUILFORDMR & MRS. RICHARD LANGWORTHMR. RONALD A. LEBOWITZMR. J. WILLIAM LOVELACEMR. GERARD P. LYNCHMR. RICHARD J. MAHONEYDR. JOHN H. MATHERMR. W STUART McKEEMR. DICKSON McLEAN, JR.DR. FORREST C. MISCHLERMR. DANIEL N. MYERSMR. MICHAEL RIVKINMR. EDWIN F. RUSSELLChartwell Associates (cont'd.)HILLEL SAMISCHGORDON SANTEEMR. FREDRICK J. SHEEHAN, JR.MR. JACK D. SHINNEMANDR. DANIEL & SUZANNE SIGMANMR. FRED W. TEGARDENMR. JAMES R. THOMASMR. L. PETER VAN DE GOHMMR. JASON P. WISEMR. MICHAEL L. YOUNGMANHeritage Fund Sponsors ($100-199)MR. ROBERT E. BAGGOTTMR. DOUGLAS P. BEALLMR. JAMES B. BENNETTCOL. RICHARD W. BERGSONMR. WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY, JR.MR. JAMES D. COLTMRS. CHRISTINE D. CURRIERMS. LINDA WOODBURY DEALMR. SAMUEL D. DODSONJUDGE WILLIAM E. EUBANKMR. EDWARD W. FITZGERALDMR. GEORGE GEISINGERMR. PAUL R. GREHLMR. HUGH M. HADLEYMR. DAVID A. HANDLEYMS. STEPHANIE C. HARTMR. JOHN C. HASSETTMR. STEVEN F. HAYWARDMR. JAMES L. HILLMR. & MRS. GERALD KAMBESTADMR. MAX L. KLEINMANMR. EVERETT W. LADD, JR.SUSAN FOX & PHILIP P. LARSONDR. TERRENCE W. LEVECKMR. RICHARD S. LOWRYMR. & MRS. FRANK C. MARSHALMR. JOHN DAVID MARSHALLJOHN McCORMACKDR. LAYTON McCURDYDR. & MRS. MARK S. MESKINMR. L. A. MILLERCOL. FELIX G. MILLHOUSEMRS. DEBRA MONCADAMR. ROBERT P. ODELL, JR.DAVID E. OLSONDR. WILLIAM L. PHELPSDR. JOHN E. PODZAMSKYMR. R. EVAN QUENONMR. AUSTIN D. RINNEMR. LEONARD ROBBINSFINEST HOUR m/44

Heritage Fund Sponsors ($100-199)MR. DOUGLAS S. RUPERTBENJAMIN & SHIRLEY SCHWIMMERMR. ALAN SHAWMR. L. NEAL SMITH, JR.MR. ZELIG STRAUSSMR. REESE TAYLORMR. DANIEL L. TREACYDR. JOSEPH E. TROIANIMR. BRONSON TWEEDYMRS. KATHLEEN J. UTZDR. DAVID H. WATSONDR. ALLEN P. WEBBMS. ELEANOR J. WEBERMR. NORMAN E. WESTMR. JAMES T. WILLIAMSMR. L. MARK WINEHeritage Fund Contributors (to $100)DAVID G. ABRAMOWITZMR. ROBERT B. ADELMANMR. MICHAEL S. ALLENMR. STEPHEN H. ALTENDEREERMAURICE BAIRD-SMITHPROF. DONALD G. BAKERMRS. KAREN I. BAKERMR. RICHARD BATCHELDER, JR.MR. & MRS. WILLIAM E. BEATTYDR. MICHAEL A. BERKMR. DAVID R. BILLINGSLEYDR. SUZANNE G. BOWLESMR. JEFFREY H. BOWMANMR. DAVID M. BRIGHTMR. THOMAS E. BRINKMAN, JR.MICHAEL W.BURNSMR. L. THOMAS CAULFIELDMR. R. G. CHAMBERLAIN, JR.MR. HOWARD R. CLEMENTSMR. RALPH M. CLEMENTS, IIIMR. HOWARD A. COHENMR. GEORGE COWBURNMR. R. BRUCE CRELINMR. JOSHUA DAVIDSONMR. D. GEORGE DAVISMR. ROBERT H. DUNNMR. DAVID C. ELKSMR. GEORGE FALLET, RE.MR. GEORGE A. GERBERMR. JOHN L. GIBSONMRS. GAIL R. GREENLYMR. JAMES H. GRESSETTE, JR.MR. RAINES Y. GUINNMISS MARTHA S. HALLIDAYHeritage Fund Contributors (cont'd.)JIMHANSENDR. LEE S. HARRISDR. ROBERT G. HAUSERMR & MRS. STEPHEN R HOLSTADDR. LEE S. HORNSTEINMR. DONALD E. JAKEWAYALAN P. JONES, JR.MR. DAVID S. KAPLANMR. W. QUINN KELLYMRS. MARIANNE M. KERWINMR. PAUL S. LEAVENWORTH, JR.MR. ALFRED J. LURIEMR. JOHN J. MAREKMR. MARKW. MEDWIGMR. WAYNE W. MONTNEYMR. COLEMAN W. MORTONDR. JOHN B. NANNINGAMR. JOSEPH L. O'CONNORTONY AND SIGNE OAKLEYMR. STEPHEN W. POGSONMR. CHARLES QUINNMR. FRANK B. ROBARDS IIIRADM. PAUL W. ROHRER, USNMR. JOHN R. SAPPMR. DOUGLAS E. SCHALLERDR ARTHUR M. SCHLESINGER, JRMS. CATHERINE A. SOMERSLTC. ANDREW J. STATHISMR. AUSTIN J. STIBBECHARLOTTE THIBAULTPROF. JONAH I. TRIEBWASSERMR. LOWELL TUTTMANJOSEPH P. VILLASANAMS. MARY L. WALKERMS. SUSAN C. WARNERMR. JEROME K. WELSCH, JR.C. DOUGLAS WELTYFATHER ERIC B. WILLIAMSCHARLES R. WOLPOFFContributors toThe Endowment FundWinston Churchill Associates$50,000 and aboveICS UNITED STATESTHE CHURCHILL CENTERTHE ANNENBERG FOUNDATIONDAVID & DIANE BOLERMR. COLIN D. CLARKMR. FRED FARROWMR. & MRS. PARKER H. LEE IIIMICHAEL & CAROL McMENAMINDAVID & CAROLE NOSSRAY L. & PATRICIA M. ORBANWENDY RUSSELL REVESELIZABETH CHURCHILL SNELLMR. & MRS. MATTHEW B. WILLSMR. ALEX M. WORTH, JR.Clementine Churchill Associates$25,000 to $49,999RONALD D. ABRAMSONWINSTON S. CHURCHILLJEANETTE & ANGELO GABRIELD. CRAIG & LORRAINE HORNJAMES F. LANEMR & MRS. RICHARD LANGWORTHDRS. JOHN & SUSAN MATHERLINDA & CHARLES PLATTAMB. & MRS. PAUL H. ROBINSONJAMES R. & LUCILLE I. THOMASMary Soames Associates$10,000 to $24,999SOLVEIG & RANDY BARBERGARYJ. BONINEDANIEL & SUSAN BORINSKYNANCY BOWERSLOIS BROWNNANCY H. CANARYDONA & BOB DALESJEFFREY & KAREN DE HAANRUTH & LAURENCE GELLERFREDERICK & MARTHA HARDMANGLENN HOROWITZMR. & MRS. WILLIAM C. IVESJ. WILLIS JOHNSONMR & MRS. GERALD KAMBESTADELAINE KENDALLRUTHJ.LAVINEMR & MRS. RICHARD A LEAHYCYRIL & HARRIET MAZANSKYMICHAEL W MICHELSONMR. & MRS. JAMES W. MULLEREARLE & CHARLOTTE NICHOLSONBOB & SANDY ODELLRUTH & JOHN PLUMPTONJUDGE DOUGLAS S. RUSSELLSHANIN SPECTERROBERT M. STEPHENSONRICHARD &JENNYSTREIFFPETER J.TRAVERSGABRIEL URWrrZDAMON WELLS, JRJACQUELINE & MALCOLMDEANWITTER £FINEST HOUR 112/45

Was Churchilla Flasher?Andrew RobertsChurchill's War,by David Irving,Volume 2:Triumph in Adversity,London:Focal PointPublications,1064 pages,£25 ($40),member price$32.Admirers of Sir Winston Churchillcan breathe a huge sigh of relief.For 14 years since the publication ofDavid Irving's first volume onChurchill they have been waiting to seewhat new conspiracies the right-winghistorian might have managed to digup in the hundreds of archives fromwhich he has worked, but in this thickhymn of hate it is clear he has notmanaged to land one single significantblow on the reputation of Britain'swartime leader.All the old accusations are trottedout: that Churchill was a rude, lying alcoholicwho concealed Japan's intentionto attack Pearl Harbour from theAmericans, was behind the murder ofBritain's ally the Polish leader GeneralSikorski, wanted to flatten Rome, andso on. There are even a few new andMr. Roberts is the author of EminentChurchillians (reviewed FH85:38 and 95:4),and Churchill, Embattled Hero (FH 90:35), andis a member of ICS(UK). The above is excerptedfrom a review in The Daily Telegraphand published here by courtesy of the author.ifoOKS,& CURIOSITIESequally groundless ones: according tothis volume Churchill was also a flasherwho enjoyed exposing himself to foreignstatesmen, was responsible for tippingoff the Nazis to the fact thatBritain had broken their codes, andasked MI6 to assassinate Britain's otherally, General de Gaulle. I have counteda dozen new accusations in this volume,most of which would be laughableif they were not so foamingly presented,complete with 160 pages ofnotes that are alleged to back them up.Yet when, for example, Irvingclaims that the then Queen Elizabeth(now the Queen Mother) supportedHitler's peace offer in 1940, and thatthe proof is to be found in Box Number23 of Lord Monckton's papers atthe Bodleian Library in Oxford, I recalledfrom my own work on Moncktonthat that particular box has neverbeen open to historians. The Bodleianconfirmed to me that Mr. Irving hasnot so much as seen the box, let aloneopened it. Many of Irving's assertionsare contradictory. If Churchill "invariablyput the interests of the UnitedStates above those of his own countryand its empire," why did he not warnthe Americans of what was about tohappen in Pearl Harbour? If Mr. Irving'sviews on Auschwitz are correct—that Jews were not being systematicallykilled there—why should Churchill beheld to account for not ordering theRAF to bomb Auschwitz?Mr. Irving consistently wants itboth ways, but winds up getting neither.Despite the book's (surely ironicallymeant) subtitle, Irving sees no redeemingfeatures in the man who hadthe temerity to defeat Adolf Hitler.Churchill's funniest jokes are dismissedas "jibes." The imperative need to meetPresident Roosevelt in late 1941 to coordinatea post-Pearl Harbour globalmilitary strategy against Germany andJapan is explained in terms of thePrime Ministers "desire to hobnob atthe highest levels." He is accused ofwinning the war "in spite of himself."Yet whenever the evidence for Irving'sclaims is minutely examined by someonewho has also visited the samearchives and handled the same originaldocuments, it fails to justify the claimshe makes.The selective quotation is legion.When Irving claims Churchill wishedto "eliminate" de Gaulle, whatChurchill in fact recommended to hisCabinet colleagues was that theyshould consider whether they should"eliminate de Gaulle as a political forceand face Parliament and France uponthe issue." Irving's entire Pearl Harbourtheory rests upon an obvious misreadingof the diary of the permanentunder-secretary at the Foreign Office,Sir Alec Cadogan.When Irving writes thatChurchill was of "partly Jewish blood,although safely diluted," he is simplybeing repulsive. When he claims thatChurchill "was ambivalent about whyhe was really fighting this ruinous war,"he is ignoring the evidence of dozens ofthe finest speeches ever delivered in theEnglish tongue, which explained toBritain and the world between 1939and 1945 in utterly uncompromisinglanguage precisely why Nazism had tobe extirpated for human civilisation tosurvive and prosper. When he writesthat the Duke of Windsor was forcedto leave Portugal in August 1940 atBritish "pistol point," Irving is simplywrong. Irving's profession of "shock"that Churchill turned a blind eye to hisdaughter-in-law Pamela Harriman's affairsis based on a failure to appreciatethe mores of Churchill's class and time.Churchill's supposed desire "to seeRome in flames" is utterly disproved byhis message to Roosevelt that "weought to instruct our pilots to observeall possible care in order to avoid hittingany of the Pope's buildings in thecity of Rome."This is the way the history of theSecond World War would have beenwritten if the wrong side had won,about the man, ironically, who preservedthe right of freedom of speech.FINEST HOUR 112/46

CHURCHILL CENTER BOOKCLUB MEMBER DISCOUNTS:To order: list books and prices,add for shipping ($6 first book, $ 1each additional in USA; $10 minimumelsewhere, air more). Mail withcheque to Churchill Center , POBox 385, ContoocookNH 03229USA. Visa or Mastercard welcome;state name, numbers and expirationdate and sign your order."By Skips Alone VCurt Zoll erLord Kitchener and Winston Churchill:The Dardanelles Commission, Volume I,1914-15, edited by Tim Coates. London:The Stationery Office "UncoveredEdition" series, 2000, 216 pp., £6.99.The CC Book Club will place one orderfor this work. Will readers desiring acopy please advise the editor but sendno money, we will bill you.In 1917 the British government issuedthe Dardanelles Commission First Reportand Supplement and later dieDardanelles Commission Final Report,Parts I and II. The same government hasnow released a two-volume abridged versionin its "Uncovered Editions" series, aterm for "historic official papers whichhave not previously been available in apopular form."Volume I reviews the circumstancessurrounding the conception, executionand failure of the plan to sailthrough the Dardanelles to the Sea ofMarmara, arrive off Constantinople andforce Turkey to surrender "by shipsalone." The account is presented in narrativeform, interspersed with quotationsfrom some of the witnesses appearing beforethe Commission.The Dardanelles had previouslybeen forced in February 1807, whenGreat Britain sent a fleet under AdmiralDuckworth to open the straits in case ofnecessity to act offensively against theTurks during the Napoleonic wars.Duckworth broke through and enteredMr. Zoller produces Fffs "Churchilltrivia" columnand is completing a new bibliography ofworks about Churchill, to be published byM. E. Sharpe late this year or in early 2002.the Marmara with negligible losses. Aftereleven days the British warships returneddown the straits, enduring heavy casualtiesfrom the now stronger Turkish batteries.Floating mines did not then exist.Additional discussions on this subjectwere held during the Boer War, byLord Fisher in 1904, and by the Committeeof Imperial Defence in 1906.During World War I, after Turkey joinedthe side of the Central Powers in November1914, Churchill reconsidered thepossibility as a way to defend Egypt bycompelling Turkey to surrender.What finally triggered the issuewas a request by the Russian military authorities,in January 1915, for relief ofthe pressure on Russian troops in theCaucasus. Lord Kitchener, the Secretaryof State for War, prompdy gave an affirmativeanswer on his own initiative,promised to make a demonstration, andinformed Churchill, then First Lord ofthe Admiralty, that while the Army couldnot spare any men, the Navy shouldmake the effort. On 16 February, Kitcheneragreed to send a large body oftroops, including the 29th Division, as aback-up if needed to support the navalattack; four days later he delayed theirdeparture, and the troops did not departuntil March 1 Oth.Based on the final report of theCommission to the Parliament, there was! considerable lack of communications betweenthe decision makers and the militaryexperts. There existed no joint militaryand naval staff to investigate, plan,and support the operation. Kitchener| never discussed the plan with his GeneralStaff, acted as his own Chief of ImperialGeneral Staff, and essentially operated asa one-man war department. Churchillheld extensive discussions with Lordi Fisher, his First Sea Lord, and believed hehad Fishers full support until May 1915,when he became aware of Fisher's strongobjections. Sir Arthur Wilson and SirHenry Jackson, naval experts in the Admiralty,disagreed with the plan, but didnot voice their opinion to Churchill because"it was not their concern."Finally, the War Council, consistingof Prime Minister Asquith, ForeignMinister Sir Edward Grey, Chancellor ofthe Exchequer Lloyd Gorge, Secretary of; State for India the Marquess of Crewe,the Lord Chancellor Lord Haldane,Churchill and Kitchener seemed to haveacted on several decisions without inquiringabout critical issues. There were nodiscussions about staff work on suchquestions as the availability of troops,and the ability of naval vessels satisfactorilyto destroy the Dardanelles forts.The War Council assumed that ifthe Navy was unsuccessful in the attemptto force the Dardanelles, the ships couldwithdraw without military or politicalimpact. Lord Fisher and Admiral of theFleet Sir Arthur Wilson, who regularlyattended the War Council, said they didn'tvoice their concern about the plan because"they were not specifically askedabout their opinions." Sir James WolfeMurray, Chief of the Imperial GeneralStaff, who also regularly attended theWar Council, was not kept informed byLord Kitchener. When the War Councildecided, on 13 January 1915, that "theAdmiralty should prepare for a naval expeditionin February to bombard andtake the Gallipoli Peninsula with Constantinopleas the objective," the decisionwas made without adequate examination,planning and understanding of themilitary situation.Kitchener delayed the dispatch ofthe troops for three weeks without informingChurchill or the War Council—an action which continued to show thelack of coordination and communicationbetween the participants and decisionmakers and contributed to the ultimatefailure. In fact the War Council did notmeet at all during the week leading up tothe naval attack on 18 March 1915, analmost incredible lapse of leadership.The Commission report criticizedChurchill as "having advocated the attackby ships alone before the War Council ona certain amount of half-hearted and hesitatingexpert opinion, which favoured atentative or progressive scheme, beginningwith an attack on the outer forts"and found that he should have assured"that the views of the naval advisers wereclearly put before the Council."The Commission had three dissenters.Andrew Fisher, an Australian MP,dissented from the majority report's conclusionthat "naval advisers should haveexpressed their views to the Council,whether asked or not, if they consideredthat the project...impractical from thenaval point of view." Fisher said naval »FINEST HOUR 112/47

"By Ships Alone"...advisers should express opinions onlywhen invited to do so. Another dissenterwas Sir Thomas Mackenzie, who implieddiat Churchill was responsible for die advisersnot voicing dieir opinions. A thirdmember, Liberal MP Walter Roch, deliveredan extensive dissenting memorandum,stating that "Churchill should haveconsulted die Board of Admiralty," that"he failed to present fully to die WarWOODS CORNERDavid Druckman & Mark WeberA Trove of ChurchillianaDavid Druckman has brought to ourattention several collections of well knownworks which include more Churchill materialthan the casual browser may realize.The Anglo-Saxon ReviewLady Randolph Churchill's fabuloushardbound literary magazine sold for$5 a copy and lasted ten issues (1899-1901). The Anglo-Saxon featured the bestliterary and society writers of its age. Eachcopy was bound in exquisitely tooledleather. The magazine is known to containan important, rarely seen Churchillwork, "British Cavalry" (volume 8). Butthere is also an unsigned favorable pieceabout Churchill (by his mother?) in volume3, and Lady Randolph's letters fromthe Boer War, sent from her Hospital shipthe Maine (volume 5).The Book of Public SpeakingFirst Edition. London: Caxton1915. This excellent collection of greatspeeches is a mine of material that can stillhelp guide and instruct public speakers byillustrating how the masters of oratory doit. The book is commonly seen in five volumes,but there is also a seven-volumeedition which contains seven speeches byChurchill, one by Lord Randolph, andperorations by Theodore Roosevelt, MarkTwain, Kipling, Gladstone, Dickens,William Jennings Bryan, Washington,Woods Corner is a bibliophile's column namedin memory of Frederick Woods, the first bibliographerof Winston S. Churchill.Council the opinions of his naval advisers,and this failure was due to his ownstrong personal opinion in favour of anaval attack."In this writers opinion, Churchill'saction showed initiative and leadership inthe absence any leadership from a jointmilitary and naval planning staff, whichshould have been tasked by the WarCouncil to investigate, plan and supportthe operation. $Lincoln and many more.Public speakers will also appreciatethe thick collectionsof segues, jokes and punchlines contained in volume 7. Not commonlyseen, but not expensive, this workis a superb addition to the comprehensiveChurchill library. Here is a list of theChurchill speeches by volume/page number.*Speeches with asterisk do not appearin Winston S. Churchill: His CompleteSpeeches, edited by Robert Rhodes James,New York: 1974. (Volume:page)1:295* Welsh Characters (IMar 1911)2:83* The Press, lOJun 19093:32 Liberalism vs. Socialism, 4May 19085:64 Deny, llFeb 19135:151 Naval Volunteers, 14Dec 19126:235* Inauguration of a New Building,2Feb 19146:312* Responsibilities of Office, 20Feb 1912About BooksOur column on news and travels inthe bibliophile world by former editor DaltonNewfield was always eagerly greeted;herewith it revives with the help of MarkWeber, who with his wife Avril travels toEngland regularly in search of Churchill.In April we drove north towardsCambridge, with our first stop at the oldbookstore in Saffron Walden. Nothingscarce or expensive was sighted, but thesun appeared for a delightful pub lunch ata tiny village just north of Bishops Stortford,where again a listing in The GoodPub Guide proved accurate. Later that afternoon,we were fortunate to visit DavidThomas, author of the book on Churchilland his Parliamentary constituency, Memberfor Woodford, who is better known as anaval historian. He has published a dozentitles over 40 years. We had a few of hisFINEST HOUR 112/48early works and were pleased to havethem signed. David was also active inWoodford politics and had delightfulmemorabilia from a time when the Toryfaithful considered it a national priority toensure that WSC was returned to theHouse each election.The next day we drove south towardsPortsmouth in order to view someChurchill books at a small local auctionhouse. Their condition was poor, so wepassed; they went instead to an obsessivepurchaser for whom the buying experienceseems to count more than the worthof the goods. At Portsmouth's W Robinson,the books were stacked in great pileson the floor, obstructing access to manyof the shelves. Nonetheless, careful diggingin an aisle too narrow for turning resultedin a boxful of treasure, the best ofwhich was a volume V of the Official Biography.After another yummy publunch, we called in at the home of L. L.(Tom) Thomas, whose house is named"Savrola." Tom has a fantastic collectionof Churchilliana, books, and magazines,so it's always a treat to see his gems.The Sunday bookfairs were busybut the offerings uninteresting. Onedealer tipped me to The Second World Warin a special binding. I found these under adealer's table, already sold before the fairhad opened. It was the special publisher'sfull black leather bindings, one of 100presentation sets. This dealer had obviouslynot read the editor's Connoisseur'sGuide, as he had priced them at just £80.They had been acquired from an old ladywho had worked at Cassell's for 50 years.A day was spent in Central London.A pleasant lunch in the City withChurchill Center governor and associateDavid Boler preceded an afternoon visitto consign a few books to Sotheby's. Welearned that there was not a political salethis summer, but the July Sale of EnglishLiterature did have a selection ofChurchill material.We all thought that the Official Biographywas completely out of print.Heinemann must have discovered someold copies in a warehouse, because we discoveredsome brand new copies of volumeIV in a remainder shop on CharingCross Road. Unfortunately they had onlytwo left when we got there. I offered tobuy as many more as he could obtain, buthave not heard from the proprietor. $5

INSIDE THE JOURNALSChurchill and the American Presidents;Dill did more than dally...Abstracts by Cnris HangerRiccards, Michael P., "Waging theLast War: Winston Churchill and thePresidential Imagination," PresidentialStudies Quarterly, 16(2), 1986,pp. 213-23.Winston Churchill's effect on U.S.presidents has been anythingbut uniform or clear-cut. His nameand tenacity of purpose were frequentlyinvoked by presidents in supportof decisions, often compromisingand confusing the context of a currentsituation with very different times.To Woodrow Wilson, Churchill'sarguments in support of the League ofNations seemed less an argument forthe League than a buttressing of Britishnaval strength. While serving in cabinetposts during and after The GreatWar, Churchill fought HerbertHoover's plan to feed hungry Belgians,believing that to do so would take theburden of feeding off the Germans.Churchill's opposition to disarmamentduring the inter-war years ledhim to be depicted as an extremist. Butwith the advent of war in 1939, WSC'sseemingly overblown rhetoric aboutHitler began to be more appreciated.His peculiar style of leadership, onceconsidered self-centered and bellicose,was now regarded as inspiring, confident,and infectious.President Truman's relationshipwith Churchill was sometimes strainedbut overall positive and deferential toChurchill's reputation as a veneratedAllied leader.President Eisenhower knewChurchill best, if imperfectly. He madefrequent use of Churchill's support togain support for his initiatives. ColdWar events were fraught with pitfalls,and Eisenhower made wise use ofChurchill's opinions and counsel whenhe thought it possible.Presidents Kennedy, Johnson,and Nixon invoked Churchill and hislegacy when facing seemingly similarevents. However, this usage oftenstrained the context of Churchill'sstatements and views. Kennedy, whodeeply admired WSC and his legacy,made frequent, successful use ofChurchill's arguments, especially toblunt Republican criticism thatKennedy was weakening in the face ofCommunist expansion.Johnson was less successful in hisattempt to place the Vietnam War in aWorld War II context, an aberration ofChurchill's legacy. However, WSC's effecton President Nixon was substantial.Nixon gave Churchill's "Sinews ofPeace" speech credit for awakening hisappreciation of the Communist threat.Presidents, like others, fail to appreciatethe danger of taking WSC's responseto earlier events out of context.Danchev, Alex, "Dilly-Dally", or Havingthe Last Word: Field Marshal SirJohn Dill and Prime Minister WinstonChurchill. Journal of Contemporary) 2 4 4Churchill gave Sir John Dill thenickname "Dilly-Dally" duringDill's tenure at the War Office to denotehis view of Dill as "hidebound,devoid of imagination, extravagant ofmanpower, and slow."The perception was that Dill wasunable to "stand up to the Prime Minister."Lord Ismay wrote that this wasDill's chief defect. There was also a perceptionthat Dill was in ill health, understandablydistracted by his wife'slengthy, terminal illness and eventualdeath in December 1940, shortly afterChurchill appointed Dill Chief of theImperial General Staff.Another aspect of the Churchill-Dill relationship was the lack of personalaffinity between the two. A personalcomponent was essential toChurchill's reliance and trust in his senioradvisers, civilian or military.Dill's problems were in contrastwith those of Admiral Sir DudleyPound, who spoke his mind toChurchill directly. Dill preferred topresent his points in long memorandacontaining carefully crafted arguments.He lacked the verbal acuity whichChurchill appreciated. Dill's successor,General Brooke, rapidly learned thisand mastered the technique of argumentwith Churchill.But the charge that Dill was unableto confront Churchill does notwithstand scrutiny. The beginnings ofthis inaccuracy started with Churchillhimself and, over the course of the Warwas stated so repetitiously that it tookon a life of its own.Most difficult to understand wasDill's role as resident liaison in Washingtonfrom January 1942 until hisdeath in November 1944. He actuallyserved several functions: personal representativeof Churchill in WSC's capacityas Minister of Defence; and asrepresentative of the collective Britishchiefs of staff; and as head of theBritish Joint Staff Mission. However,Dill complained that while he wieldedpower to make suggestions, and hadplenty of influence, he had no powerto make decisions.Dill functioned as something ofan amateur ambassador, and did sowith spectacular success, as evidencedby the praise heaped on him by PresidentRoosevelt and others. Dill's deathcame as a tremendous blow to theAmericans. General Marshall went sofar as to tell Admiral Pound that hedoubted "if he [Pound] or your Cabinetassociates fully realize the loss youhave suffered." Dill's role came to beseen as a guarantor of British commitments,and of special concern, a guarantorof Churchill himself.Dill's critical position was his influenceon contemporary attitudes andexpectations. His unique function aschief military representative of Britainhas not yet been fully explored. $5FINEST HOUR 112/49

CHURCHILL ONLINEDid the Allies Fear a Soviet Scuttle?Correspondence over "Listserv Winston"The Churchill Center maintains an internet listgroup that allows you to communicate with 500"peopleworldwide on any Churchill subject. Subscriptions are free. To subscribe, send the two word messageSUBSCRIBE WINSTON, followed by your name, to: listserv@vm. marist.edu and then follow theinstructions you receive back. The listgroup is maintained for us by kind courtesy ofMarist College. Ifyou have any problems, email our host, Prof. Jonah Triebwasser (jonah.triebwasser@marist.edu).PointDavid Kennedy's Freedom fromFear (612) states: "Even larger anxietiesproliferated about Soviet intentions. Inmidsummer 1943 Stalin had withdrawnhis ambassadors from bothLondon and Washington. InSeptember came rumors that theGermans had extended a peace feelerto Moscow through Japan stimulatinganew the fear of a separate settlementin eastern Europe before a secondfront had even opened in the west.One observer detected "an atmospherealarmingly reminiscent of that whichhad preceded the Molotov Ribbentroppact of August 1939." There's a footnoteto Foreign Relations of the UnitedStates (1943) and Sherwood, Rooseveltand Hopkins, 734.CounterpointIn 1943, Stalin fumed over thefailure of FDR and Churchill tolaunch a second front, and wrote thema message full of contempt. Sherwoodstates (697): "Undoubtedly [Roosevelt's]timing of the [UnconditionalSurrender] statement at Casablancawas attributable to the uproar overDarlan and Peyrouton and the liberalfears that this might indicate a willingnessto make similar deals with aGoering in Germany or a Matsuoka inJapan." Stalin's fuming occurred afterCasablanca—so evidently FDR'sproclamation didn't satisfy him.Here are excerpts from Stalin's letterto Roosevelt, 11 June 1943:Correspondence Between theChairman of the Council of Ministers ofthe USSR and the Presidents of the USAand the Prime Ministers of Great BritainDuring the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945, Moscow: 1957, II: 64-65.You will doubtless recall that thejoint message of January 26, sentby you and Mr Churchill, announcedthe decision...to divertconsiderable German ground andair forces from the Russian frontand bring Germany to her knees in1943. Then on February 12 MrChurchill communicated on hisown behalf and yours the specifiedtime of the Anglo-American operationin Tunisia and the Mediterranean,as well as on the west coastof Europe...in August 1943.Now, in May 1943, you and MrChurchill have decided to postponethe Anglo-American invasion ofWestern Europe until the spring of1944....Your decision creates exceptionaldifficulties for the SovietUnion, which, straining all its resourcesfor the past two years, hasbeen engaged against the mainforces of Germany..and leaves theSoviet Army, which is fighting notonly for its country, but also for itsAllies, to do the job alone, almostsingle handed....Need I speak of thedisheartening negative impressionthat this fresh postponement of thesecond front and withholding fromour Army, which has sacrificed somuch, of the anticipated substantialsupport by the Anglo-Americanarmies, will produce in the SovietUnion—both among the peopleand in the Army?As for the Soviet Government, itcannot align itself with this decision,which, moreover, was adoptedwithout its participation and withoutany attempt at a joint discussionof this highly important matterand which may gravely affectthe subsequent course of the war.Sherwood (734) says this madeChurchill "so angry that he sent[Stalin] a scorching cable to whichRoosevelt would never have agreed hadhe been given a chance to read it inadvance." Sherwood is incorrect.Churchill sent FDR the cable (C-310)on 12 June (see Kimball, Churchilland Roosevelt: Their Complete Correspondence11:245-47), and it is not"scorching." The toughest line in it is:"It would be no help to Russia if wethrew away a hundred thousand menin a disastrous cross-channel attacksuch as would, in my opinion, certainlyoccur if we tried under present conditions...."Churchill accompanied itby a dispassionate note to FDR (C-309), saying Stalin's reaction couldhave been anticipated and, that he wasready to go anywhere anytime to a BigThree meeting. ("I am practising everyday with my pistol to make headagainst the mosquitoes.")Roosevelt responded, "I heartilyapprove of your reply" (R-289,Kimball, 261) and wrote Stalin onJune 20th: "What the Prime Ministercabled you has my full accord."(Moscow Correspondence, 66).Churchill's cable is excised from theSoviet Correspondence. Surprise!Kimball (11:259-60) notes thatFDR wished to meet Stalin, butSherwood states (734): "TheRoosevelt-Stalin meeting was postponedindefinitely. It was fortunatethat Hitler did not know how bad therelations were between the Allies atthat moment, how close they were tothe disruption which was his onlyhope of survival." Does this suggestthat Stalin contemplated a separatepeace with Hitler in 1943? What hethought about the Anglo-Americansseems to be nothing compared to whathe thought about Hitler.PointA list subscriber questionedwhether Churchill was in agreement inprincipal with the "UnconditionalSurrender" proclamation by >»FINEST HOUR 112/50

Recipes ixom No. 10:Creme Doria (Cucumber Soup)by Georgina Landemare, Churchill family cook, 1940s-1950supdated and annotatedfor the modernkitchen by BarbaraLangworth (b_langworth@conknet. com)Sir Winston did not care for thick or creamy soups, but therest of the family were fond of them. When Mrs. Landemareserved something like this delicious cucumber recipe hewould have consomme.Creme Doria1 large cucumber [make sure it is not waxed]1 large shallot2 Tb butter2 Tb raw rice1 quart [32 oz] chicken stock3 Tb cream1 beaten egg yolkSalt and pepperLeave rind on cucumber. Chop up cucumber and shallots;fry very lightly in butter till soft. Season well [I used whitepepper] add the rice, then one quart of good chicken stock.Cook for half an hour. Puree in a food processor or blender[be careful because the hot liquid will tend to overflow]. Returnto pan, add the cream and slowly blend in the yolk.Keep warm, but do not boil.Balls of cooked cucumber can be put in before serving. M>Churchill Online...Roosevelt at Casablanca, and whetherthis prolonged the war, etc.I believe one of the aims of"Unconditional Surrender" was tokeep the Soviets on the same path asthe Anglo-Americans and steer themaway from an alternate path, such as aseparate peace with Germany. I believethe Allies would have been remiss(based on what was known then, notnow) in not considering the possibilityof Hitler and Stalin finding terms for aceasefire. Hitler, for example, couldhave offered Stalin strategic withdrawalto the Bug River. By 1944-45, ofcourse, Hitler had nothing left totempt Stalin.It's easy now to understand inhindsight that no German-Sovietaccord was possible in 1943: but Ithink that Stalin's loyalty to them wasa huge concern for Roosevelt andChurchill up until the third or fourthquarter of 1943, and that they worriedover keeping him in the war. I believe"Unconditional Surrender" kept everyoneplanning for the same outcomesand reminded the leaders that theyshared common goals. I believe itshortened the war. Can anyone seriouslyimagine the Allies having productivetalks with Hitler or Tojo?CounterpointSherwood/Kimball offer littleevidence that Roosevelt and Churchillfeared Russia would deal with Hitler,even in 1943. Their concern seemed tobe keeping Stalin a partner rather thanan independent contractor. After seeinghalf of European Russia fall to theGermans, would Stalin have madepeace with them? Stalin did like toneedle FDR and WSC, but when theyerupted he backed off. This worked toa certain extent: e.g., though he didn'tget the Second Front in 1943, he didget the Anglo-Americans to pull upwell to the west in 1945.Did Unconditional Surrendershorten or lengthen the war? Manyhistorians say Germany would havebeen more willing to come to termsearlier, removing the Fuehrer in theprocess, had surrender been less than"unconditional." Still, Hitler had anannoying way of surviving plots. ReJapan, some say they were ready tosurrender before the bomb, providedthey could keep the Emperor. Which,in fact, was allowed (so their surrenderwas not unconditional). But this possibilitywas not taken seriously byTruman, who had to make the cataclysmicdecision to use the bomb. $FINEST HOUR 112/51FINEST HOUR 112/51

KEEPING THE MEMORY GREEN.LEADING CHURCHILL MYTHS(2) "An actor read Churchill's wartime speeches over the wireless.'SIR ROBERT RHODES JAMESIn "Ampersand, "Finest Hour 110:47, ToddRonnei listed18 common Churchill myths, while in the letters columnWilliam Roeder suggested we undertake a booklet, WinstonChurchill: Setting the Record Straight. We continue hackingaway at the weed growth. This article is adapted fromFH 92, including later information in FH 109.On June 4th, 1940 in the House of Commons, atthe darkest moment in British history, WinstonChurchill made one of the greatest speeches inthe annals of oratory. It galvanised a hitherto skepticalCommons, and its superb use of language and spirit ofdefiance affected not only his fellow-countrymen butechoed around the world, not least in the United States.Wars are not won by speeches, but they are by leadership,and that speech gave the authentic voice of a confidentleader who wanted to lead.It was his fourth speech as Prime Minister. Hisaccession to the position had been controversial, and infact was by default. He was viewed with hostility in boththe principal political parties.It opened prosaically enough with a factualaccount of the French collapse, the evacuation atDunkirk, and preparations for home defence. But he thensaid his government was determined to "ride out thestorm of war, and to outlive the menace of tyranny, if necessaryfor years, if necessary alone."This single sentence hushed the Commons. Hewent on:Even though large tracts of Europe and many old andfamous States have fallen or may fall into the grip ofthe Gestapo and all the odious apparatus of Nazi rule,we shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end, weshall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas andoceans, we shall fight with growing confidence andgrowing strength in the air, we shall defend our island,whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on thebeaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, weshall fight in the fields, and in the streets; we shallnever surrender, and even if, which I do not for a mo-The late Sir Robert Rhodes James contributed to The ChurchillCenter's first Churchill Symposium, resulting in the book Churchill asPeacemaker. His Churchill: A Study in Failure 1900-1939 remains astandard work on Churchill's pre-World War II parliamentary career.ment believe, this island or a large part of it were subjugatedand starving, then our Empire beyond the seas,armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carryon the struggle, until, in God's good time, the newworld, with all its power and might, steps forth to therescue and the liberation of the old.Churchill had made, and was to make, muchgreater speeches; but none of them had the impact of thisbrief peroration. His immediate audience was stunned,and then erupted into a prolonged ovation.From this great event a remarkable mythologyhas developed and prospered. Its origins came from DavidIrving in his malevolent Churchill's War, Volume I, publishedin 1987, p. 313:That evening the BBC broadcast his speech after theNews. The whole nation thrilled, not knowing thatChurchill had refused to repeat it before the microphone.A BBC actor — "Larry the Lamb" of the Children'sHour — had agreed to mimic the prime minister beforethe microphone, and nobody was any the wiser.The actor who claimed to have read the speechwas Norman Shelley. Irving's sole authority was Shelleyhimself, although, as it will be seen, under curious circumstances.It was a very dramatic allegation, particularlyfrom that source, and intrinsically deeply suspect, butsomehow it became an established fact, accepted unthinkinglyby later biographers and historians, including JohnCharmley, Clive Ponting and, astonishingly, even PhilipZiegler, who is in an entirely different league. In 1991Irving went even further, claiming that "several times in1940 millions of radio listeners were tricked into believingthat they were hearing Churchill's voice"; Pontingrepeated Irving's apparently authoritative statement thatthis happened on several occasions.The sheer improbability of this story in itselfshould have alerted serious historians, but it was my lateAll Souls colleague D.J. Wenden who spotted the firstclues to this falsehood. For one thing, there was noChurchill broadcast on June 4th; the newsreader readextracts on the evening radio news.Then there was the interesting point that Irvingclaimed he had interviewed Shelley in December 1981;but Shelley had died on 22 August 1980! Also, althoughFINEST HOUR 112/52

AND THE RECORD ACCURATEa minor point, Shelley had not been "Larry the Lamb" in"Toytown," but "Dennis the Dachshund," as those of mygeneration could have told Irving.Problems then arise from the records, HaroldNicolson lamenting that it was necessary to bullyChurchill into broadcasting, and, referring to a June 18thbroadcast, "he just sulked and read his House ofCommons speech over again." Nicolson was InformationMinister at the time. Churchill never liked broadcasting,but there is no evidence whatever that he was replaced byanyone, and speech researchers have confirmed this.But Shelley consistently claimed that he hadmimicked Churchill's voice for radio. The unlikelihood ofthe BBC's employing an actor to replace its outstandingteam of newsreaders was grotesquely improbable in itself.As Vita Sackville-West wrote to Nicolson of the June 4thspeech on the radio, "Even repeated by the announcer itsent shivers (not of fear) down my spine."Iwas immensely fortunate in getting to know C.H.Rolph, by correspondence only, alas, in the last year ofhis life. His wife had been a script-writer in the BBC'sFeatures and Drama Department, and, through her,Rolph had come to know Shelley well; indeed, Shelley wasRolph's best man at the latter's wedding in 1947.Shelley, whom Rolph regarded, but with someaffection, as something of a mountebank, fancied hisChurchill impersonation, although Rolph thought itcompared poorly with the real thing. But a commercialcompany wanted a recording of the "fight on the beaches"speech, and asked Shelley to do it. Churchill was consulted:"He wasn't much interested," Rolph recalled, "butsaid he would raise no objection."The problem was compounded by the fact thatthe BBC bought the Shelley spoof. Rolph was astoundedto hear it when Robin Day chose it for one of his DesertIsland Discs. "I heard that," Rolph wrote, "and I know itwas Norman Shelley's voice. His Churchill impersonationwas never quite as good as he thought it was, and I recognised(for the umpteenth time) the spots where he failed.""This is the true version about the Shelley-Churchill thing," Rolph wrote. "Not very important, Isuppose, but it could well go down as yet another boguslittle version unexposed."The story surfaced again in 2000 in a column byunrepentant Communist Alexander Cockburn, and TheObserver reported that Shelley's son had uncovered an actual78 rpm BBC recording. The recording bore a homemadelabel dated 7 September 1942, but this did not stop TheObserver. "Proof that some of Winston Churchill's mostfamous radio speeches of the war were delivered by a standinhas emerged with the discovery of a 78 rpm record...."Allen Packwood of the Churchill Archives Centrereplied that "there is simply nothing in our collections toprove it. But if Shelley recorded the speech on 7 September1942, as the record label says, why did he do it? Churchilloriginally delivered the speech over two years earlier, and didnot broadcast it (portions were read by a BBC announcer).Churchill did record the speech himself—at Chartwell afterthe war—and it was ultimately released by Decca Records....the time lag makes it clear that Shelley did not record thespeech to be broadcast when German invasion was imminent....Itis a huge leap to say, just because there is evidencehe recorded this Churchill speech in 1942, that he deliveredBBC broadcasts in the summer of 1940."Even this turned out to be the reddest of red herrings,as Mr. Packwood later related: "It now emerges thatthe [Shelley] recording is not the 'fight on the beaches'speech, but is concerned with events in North Africa in1942. I have tried, using Rhodes James's Complete Speeches,to match the text to an actual speech by Churchill, but havebeen unable to do so."Did Norman Shelley ever record the "fight on thebeaches" speech? In this issue (page 27) Stephen Bungaynotes that "Churchill was asked by the British Council laterin the war to make a recording for the U.S., and havingrather a lot on his plate, he suggested they use an actor instead.Shelley did the recording, Churchill heard it, wasmuch amused and gave his approval. Its subsequent fate isunknown, but there is no evidence of its having been used inBritain." Or anywhere else, as far as we can determine.C. H. Rolph was wrong in thinking that the storywas "not very important," because it has becomepart of the ugly tapestry of denigration ofChurchill, of which Irving was the first practitioner, hislead followed by others who also claim to be reputable historians.Some of this so-called "revisionism" is subtle,much of it less so, like the malicious and ludicrous exaggerationof his drinking, which ignores all the testimonyto the contrary by those who worked closely with him.Witnesses to the truth include a secretary who was withhim for 30 years; and Desmond Morton, whose associationwith Churchill went back to the First World War,during the inter-war years, and throughout the Second.Churchill was indeed fallible, and part of his fascinationfor historians and biographers lies in this very fact. Itwas true that he hated broadcasting, and, except on rareoccasions, was not very good at it. A great actor needs anaudience; sitting alone in a studio in front of a microphonedid not inspire him. But the fact is that he did it,and no one else did it for him. $FINEST HOUR 112/53

CHURCHILLTRIVIABy Curt Zoller (zcurt@earthlink.net)rESTyour knowledge! Most questionscan be answered in back issues ofChurchill Center publications but it's notreally cricket to check. Twenty-four questionsappear each issue, answers in the followingissue. Categories are Contemporaries(C), Literary (L), Miscellaneous (M), Personal(P), Statesmanship (S) and War (W).1177. In 1920 Lord Lee of Fareham gavewhat country house to the nation for theuse of its Prime Ministers? (C)1178. When WSC wrote his wife, "...theworld is gone mad-& we must look afterourselves-8t our friends," to what did herefer? (L)1179. What vessel was first named "WinstonChurchill," with his permission? (M)1180. Why was Churchill unable to remainFirst Lord of the Admiralty afterMay 1915? (P)1181. Ireland's De Valera was invited toLondon 19 October 1921 to settle theIrish question. What were Churchill'srecommendations for a settlement? (S)1182. Who is the Commanding Officerof USS Winston S. ChurchiM (W)1183. In 1921 WSC's cousin, Lord HerbertLionel Henry Vane-Tempest, diedand WSC inherited what estate? (C)1184. Whom did WSC select as literaryagent for his biography of his father? (L)1185. To whom did Churchill say, "Youmust have four children: one for mother,one for father, one for accidents and onefor increase"? (M)making students learn English? (L)1191. How did Churchill and George Vdiffer concerning promotion of Admiralsto the rank of Admiral of the Fleet? (M)1192. Name the Churchill family motto. (P)1193. Whom did Churchill send toTurkey before WW1 as an adviser totrain and organize the Turkish Navy? (S)1194. To what regiment was Churchillattached in World War I? (W)1195. What did Sir Ernest Cassel giveChurchill as a wedding present? (C)1196. To whom did Churchill donate hiscollection of books on his father and onthe First Duke of Marlborough? (L)1197. Who became Supreme AlliedCommander Southeast Asia in 1943? (M)1198. When was Sir Jacob Epstein's bustof Churchill sculpted and cast? (P)1199. What was the unimplementedstrategic plan, Operation Culverin? (S)1200. What was the operation codenamed"Moonlight Sonata"? (W)1201. In The World Crisis Churchillwrote, "...when I left the Admiralty onMay 1915 the...only one of my colleagueswho paid me a visit of ceremonywas the overburdened Titan whose disaprobationhad been one of the disconcertingexperiences of my youth." Towhom did he refer? (C)1202. What was the name of the firstbook Churchill sat down to write? (L)ANSWERS TO LAST TRIVIA(1153) His grandmother the Duchess of Marlboroughwrote to him after reading Savrola.(1154) The Chartered Surveyor Institutionwas founded in 1868. (1155) The LabourParty received more votes in 1951. Nevertheless,Churchill became Prime Minister, winning321 seats to Labour's 295. (1156)Churchill pushed Leo Amery, who later servedas First Lord of the Admiralty, into the pool atHarrow. (1157) During the Berlin Conferencespeech in Parliament on 25Feb54, Churchillsaid, "Patience and perseverance must neverbe grudged." (1158) Churchill's rationale forthe Dardanelles campaign was that "the bestway of defending Egypt was an attack onsome or part of the coast of Asiatic Turkey."(1159) Actor Norman Shelley claimed to havegiven Churchill speeches on the radio. (1160)G. M. Trevelyan was denied access to theMarlborough papers while Churchill wasworking on Marlborough. (1161) Churchillhad bought Pol Roger Champagne since1908. (1162) In a 1912 speech in BelfastChurchill declared, "The Irishmen overseas...are now the most serious obstacles to Anglo-American friendship." (1163) Churchill wascorrect about German air strength. By 1939Germany had 4320 first line aircraft to 1660British. (1164) WSC commented about reconqueringthe Sudan in The River War.(1165) Churchill called Gandhi a "seditiousMiddle Temple lawyer" and a "fakir." (1166)WSC wrote about the Mahdist revolt in TheRiver War, 1898. (1167) He considered PolRoger, 44 avenue de Champagne, Epernay,"the world's most drinkable address." (1168)Lord Randolph opposed Irish Home Rule;Winston favored it. (1169) Churchill wascalled "a Malay run amok" for urging theGovernment to redouble the Royal Air Force.(1170) WSC considered battles "the principalmilestones in secular history."1186. Where is Churchill's daughterMarigold buried? (P)1187. In 1915, what were Churchill'spredictions regarding the Balkans? (S)1188. When was Churchill told to leavethe Admiralty? (W)1189. What Leader of the House resignedwhile Churchill was attending theCairo Conference in March 1921? (C)1190. In My Early Life (A Roving Commission),what did Churchill say about1203. Churchill left several cats at 10Downing Street when he retired. Who finallycaused them to be removed andtaken to Hyde Park Gate? (M)1204. In April 1922, an injured WSCcouldn't play polo for the rest of the year.What happened to his ponies? (P)1205. After becoming Chancellor of theExchequer, Churchill adopted a reformprogram. What were its four objectives? (S)1206. What was Churchill's commentwhen told of the fall ofTobruk in 1942?(1171) Churchill referred to PresidentWoodrow Wilson during WW1 peace negotiations,when he wrote, "it is difficult to combinecharity and party strife." (1172) The lastof his books published during Sir Winston'slifetime was The Unwritten Alliance, a compilationof 1953-59 speeches, published 1961.(1173) Churchill retained the positions ofMinister of Defence and Prime Minister.(1174) The person who commented onChurchill's "mixed gifts" was Prime MinisterStanley Baldwin. (1175) Lord Trenchant proposedthat Mesopotamia be held by air power.(1176) Lloyd George was for hanging theKaiser, while Churchill was against. $!FINEST HOUR 112/ 54

AMPERSANDA compendium of facts eventually to appear as a reader's guide.RESIDENCES OF WINSTON S. CHURCHILL 1874-1965Compiled by Richard M. LangworthOfficial residences (5) such as Admiralty House and Downing Streetare listed only for the periods the Churchills actually resided there.Residences asterisked (*) are London addresses which carry the blue historicalplaque. (It is not clear whether the Churchills fully vacated Hyde ParkGate during the 1951-55 Premiership.)Included are temporary quarters, such as the Ivor and Freddie Guest residences,used between homes; and holiday rentals: Pear Tree Cottage (occupiedfor summer holidays at the outbreak of World War I); Hoe Farm, whereChurchill learned to paint; and "Hosey Rigge," rented by WSC during theoverhaul of Chartwell, which he nicknamed "Cozy Pig."Key references are Speaking for Themselves: The Personal Letters of Winstonand Clementine Churchill, by Mary Soames; and the official biography,Winston S. Churchill, by Randolph S. Churchill and Sir Martin Gilbert.London Primary ResidencesCharles Street (1874-1879).The Little Lodge, Dublin (1877-1880).29 St. James's Place (1880-1883).35A Great Cumberland Place (1883-1900).105 Mount Street (1900-1905): Winston's first bachelor flat.12 Bolton Street (1905-March 1909): the first house ever of his own.*33 Eccleston Square (Spring 1909-April 1913).^Admiralty House (April 1913-May 1915).41 Cromwell Road (June 1915-Autumn 1916): co-rented with Winston'sbrother Jack (John Strange Spencer Churchill) and their families.*33 Eccleston Square (Autumn 1916-Spring 1917).16 Lower Berkeley Street (September-November 1918).1 Dean Trench Street (rented from early 1919 to early 1920).*2 Sussex Square (March 1920-January 1924): destroyed in the Blitz,f 11 Downing Street (January 1924-April 1929).113 Eaton Square (April 1929 into 1932)*11 Morpeth Mansions (long-term lease, 1932-September 1939).^Admiralty House (September 1939-July 1940).510 Downing Street & Number Ten Annexe Quly 1940-July 1945).*28 Hyde Park Gate (October 1945-January 1965).510 Downing Street (December 1951-April 1955).Country HousesLullenden, East Grinstead, W. Sussex (Spring 1917-Autumn 1919).Chartwell, Westerham, Kent (April 1924-January 1965).Temporary and Holiday Quarters22 Carlton House Terrace (Spring 1909): loaned by cousin Freddie Guest.Pear Tree Cottage, Overstrand, near Cromer, Norfolk: (Summer 1914).21 Arlington Street (May-June 1915: loaned by Ivor Guest.Hoe Farm, Godalming, Surrey (Summer 1915).16 Lower Berkeley Street (Autumn 1918).3 Tenderden Street (Autumn 1918)Templeton, Roehampton (Winter 1919-Spring 1920): with Freddie Guest.Hosey Rigge, Westerham, Kent (1923-1924): rented by WSC. «Glossary Items Wanted!For our upcoming Reader'sGuide (left) we wish to include a glossaryof terms non-Britions might notunderstand: "Fleet Street," "backbencher,""by-election," "rating andderating," 10 and 11 Downing Street.Has anything like that ever puzzledyou? Let the editor know!More on MaccabeesIn "Winston Churchill Edits theBible!" ("Wit & Wisdom" last issue)concerning Churchill's quote fromMaccabees ("As the will of God is inheaven..."), Barbara Langworth says"Churchill used the King James Bible,which contains the Apochrypha." Butthe Book of Maccabees is not in mycopy, and I am almost certain thatthere aren't two different King Jamesversions. What gives? —Kelly MintonBarbara Langworth referred to"The Holy Bible, King fames Version"offered on the Internet by the ElectronicText Center, University of Virginia,which contains the Old and New Testamentswith the Apocrypha (on the net:http:lletext. Virginia, edulkjv. browse, html).ETC states: "Although the writingsknown as the Apocrypha are often notincluded in Protestant Bibles, they weretranslated and included in the originalKing James Bible of 1611, and they areoffered here for use by interested readers."Evidently Churchill had read or remembereda version of the King Jamescontaining the Apocrypa. M>"Send for Churchill":The 1951 Campaign PinThe WashingtonSociety forChurchill offersthis finely enameledreplica of thepin Churchill's supporterswore in the electionwhich made himPrime Minister again in1951. The craftsmanship is asignificant improvement on the original—crisp, clear and bright. US $10 or theequivalent postpaid. Cheques to WSC, c/oDan Borinsky, 2080 Old Bridge Road#203, Lake Ridge VA 22192.wFINEST HOUR 112/55

IMMORTAL ADVERTS"A pessimistsees the difficultyin everyopportunity;an optimistsees theopportunityin everydifficulty."STRATEGICHOTELCAPITAL77 WEST WACKERSUITE 4 600CHICAGO . IL 6060 1312.6585000www.shci.comSure, business looks lousy this year, but wechoose to look on the bright side. Here's tothe inevitable success of our industry.A Churchill Center Associate, hotelier Laurence Geller, was asked in August for an ad for his hotel association magazine.With almost uncanny prescience, Mr. Geller created this admirable model for any business in the wake of September 1 lth.