SPRING 2006 • NUMBER 130 - Winston Churchill

SPRING 2006 • NUMBER 130PUBLISHED BY THE CHURCHILL CENTREFOR CHURCHILLIANS WORLDWIDE

THE CHURCHILL CENTRE AND SOCIETIESUNITED STATES • UNITED KINGDOM • CANADA • PORTUGAL • AUSTRALIA®PATRON: THE LADY SOAMES LG DBE • WWW.WINSTONCHURCHILL.ORG®Founded in 1968 to foster leadership, statesmanship, vision and boldness among democratic and freedom-loving peoplesworldwide, through the thoughts, words, works and deeds of Winston Spencer Churchill.BOARD OF GOVERNORSJohn V. Banta • Randy Barber • Paul H. CourtenayGary Garrison • Laurence Geller • Christopher HebbWilliam C. Ives • Judith Kambestad • Nigel KnockerRichard M. Langworth • Philip Larson • James W. MullerCharles D. Platt • Suzanne Sigman • James R. ThomasOFFICERSWilliam C. Ives, President20109 Scott, Chapel Hill NC 27517Tel. (919) 967-9100 • Fax (919) 967-9001Email: wives@nc.rr.comCharles D. Platt, Vice President14 Blue Heron Drive West, Greenwood Village CO 80121Tel. (303) 721-8550 • Fax (303) 290-0097Email: cdp31@earthlink.netSuzanne Sigman, Secretary42 Dudley Lane, Milton MA 02186Tel. (617) 696-1833• Fax (617) 696-7738Email: s.sigman@comcast.netChristopher Hebb, Treasurer1806-1111 W. Georgia St., Vancouver BC V6E 4M3Tel. (604) 209-6400 • Email: cavell_capital@telus.netBUSINESS OFFICEDaniel N. Myers, Executive Director1150 Seventeenth Street, N.W., Suite 307Washington DC 20036Tel. (888) WSC-1874 • Fax (202) 223-4944Email: dmyers@winstonchurchill.orgBOARD OF TRUSTEESAmb. Paul H. Robinson, Jr., Chairman EmeritusRichard M. Langworth CBE, Co-chairmanTel. (888) 454-2275 • Fax (603) 253-6122Email: malakand@adelphia.netLaurence Geller, Co-chairmanTel. (312) 658-5006 • Fax (312)658-5797Email: lgeller@shci.comWinston S. Churchill • Sen. Richard J. DurbinMarcus Frost • Laurence Geller • The Hon. Jack KempChristopher Matthews • The Hon. Celia SandysMichael J. ScullyHONORARY MEMBERSWinston S. Churchill • Sir Martin Gilbert CBEThe Lord Deedes KBE MC PC DLRobert Hardy CBE • The Lord Heseltine CH PCThe Duke of Marlborough JP DLSir Anthony Montague Browne KCMG CBE DFCElizabeth Nel • The Hon. Colin L. Powell KCBWendy Russell Reves • Ambassador Paul H. Robinson, Jr.The Lady Thatcher LG OM PC FRSThe Hon. Caspar W. Weinberger GBEAFFILIATESChurchillians of the Desert; Churchillians of So. Calif.;North Carolina Churchillians, SWSCS Vancouver Island;Washington Society for ChurchillLOCAL ORGANIZATIONThe Churchill Centre is represented by local organizers inAlaska, Arizona, California, Chicago, Dallas, Detroit,Florida, Georgia, Nebraska, New England, New Orleans,North Carolina, Northern England, Ohio, San Antonioand Washington, DC; and is allied with Churchill organizationsin Canada, Portugal, Australia and the UnitedKingdom. Refer to “Datelines” for contacts.INTERNET SERVICESWebsite: www.winstonchurchill.orgWebmaster: dmyers@winstonchurchill.orgLEADERSHIP & SUPPORTNUMBER TEN CLUBLaurence Geller • Willis Johnson • Michael D. RoseMichael J. ScullyCHURCHILL CENTRE ASSOCIATESWinston Churchill AssociatesThe Annenberg Foundation • David & Diane BolerColin D. Clark • Fred Farrow • Mr. & Mrs. Parker H. Lee IIIMichael & Carol McMenamin • David & Carole NossRay L. & Patricia M. Orban • Wendy Russell RevesElizabeth Churchill Snell • Mr. & Mrs. Matthew B. WillsAlex M. Worth Jr.Clementine Churchill AssociatesRonald D. Abramson • Winston S. ChurchillJeanette & Angelo Gabriel • Craig & Lorraine HornJames F. Lane • Barbara & Richard LangworthDrs. John H. & Susan H. Mather • Linda & Charles PlattAmbassador & Mrs. Paul H. Robinson Jr.James R. & Lucille I. ThomasMary Soames AssociatesSolveig & Randy Barber • Gary J. BonineSusan & Daniel Borinsky • Nancy Bowers • Lois BrownNancy H. Canary • Dona & Bob DalesJeffrey & Karen De Haan • Marcus & Molly FrostGary Garrison • Ruth & Laurence GellerFrederick & Martha Hardman • Leo Hindery, Jr.Bill & Virginia Ives • J. Willis JohnsonMr. & Mrs. Gerald Drake Kambestad • Elaine KendallDavid M. & Barbara A. Kirr • Phillip & Susan LarsonRuth J. Lavine • Mr. & Mrs. Richard A. LeahyPhilip & Carole Lyons • Cyril & Harriet MazanskyMichael W. Michelson • Mr. & Mrs. James W. MullerWendell & Martina Musser • Bond NicholsEarl & Charlotte Nicholson • Bob & Sandy OdellDr. & Mrs. Malcolm Page • Ruth & John PlumptonHon. Douglas S. Russell • Daniel & Suzanne SigmanShanin Specter • Robert M. StephensonRichard & Jenny Streiff • Peter J. Travers • Gabriel UrwitzDamon Wells Jr. • Jacqueline & Malcolm Dean WitterBOARD OF ACADEMIC ADVISERSProf. James W. Muller, ChairmanUniversity of Alaska, Anchorage2410 Galewood Street, Anchorage AK 99508Tel. (907) 786-4740 • Fax (907) 786-4647Email: afjwm@uaa.alaska.eduProf. John A. Ramsden, Vice ChairmanQueen Mary College, University of LondonEmail: john.a.ramsden@btopenworld.comProf. Paul K. Alkon, University of Southern CaliforniaSir Martin Gilbert CBE, Merton College, OxfordCol. David Jablonsky, U.S. Army War CollegeProf. Warren F. Kimball, Rutgers UniversityProf. John Maurer, U.S. Naval War CollegeProf. David Reynolds, Christ’s College CambridgeDr. Jeffrey Wallin, The American Academyof Liberal Education________________________________________The Churchill Centre is a worldwide organization andsuccessor to the Winston S. Churchill Study Unit (founded1968) and to the International Churchill Society of theUnited States (founded 1971).The staff of Finest Hour, journal of The ChurchillCentre & Societies, appears on page 4.CHURCHILL CENTRE AUSTRALIAAlfred James, Coordinator65 Billyard Avenue, Wahroonga, NSW 2076Tel. 61-2-9557-7108 • Email: abmjames@iinet.net.auINTL. CHURCHILL SOCIETY OF CANADAAmbassador Kenneth W. Taylor, Honorary ChairmanRandy Barber, President14 Honeybourne Crescent, Markham ON L3P 1P3Tel. (905) 201-6687Email: randybarber@sympatico.caJeanette Webber, Membership SecretaryRR4, 14 Carter Road, Lion’s Head ON N0H 1W0Tel. (519) 592-3082 • Email: jeanette.webber@sympatico.caCharles Anderson, Treasurer489 Stanfield Drive, Oakville ON L6L 3R2Tel. (905) 827-0819 • Email: cwga@sympatico.caThe Other Club of OntarioNorman MacLeod, President16 Glenlaura Court, Ashburn ON L0B 1A0Tel. (905) 655-4051 • Email: jeana@idirect.com________________________________________INTL. CHURCHILL SOCIETY OF PORTUGALJoão Carlos Espada, PresidentInstituto de Estudos PolíticosUniversidade Católica PortuguesaPalma de Cima 1649-023, LisbonTel. (351) 21 7214129Email: jespada@iep.ucp.pt_____________________________________________INTL. CHURCHILL SOCIETY (UNITED KINGDOM)Nigel Knocker OBE, Chairman:PO Box 1257, Melksham, Wilts. SN12 6GQTel. & Fax (01380) 828609Email: nigel@icsuksaf.demon.co.ukTRUSTEESThe Hon. Celia Sandys, ChairmanThe Duke of Marlborough JP DLThe Earl Jellicoe KBE DSO MC PC FRSDavid Boler • David Porter • Geoffrey WheelerCOMMITTEENigel Knocker OBE, ChairmanPaul H. Courtenay, Vice Chairman & Hon. SecretaryAnthony Woodhead CBE FCA, Hon. TreasurerEric Bingham • Robin Brodhurst • Robert CourtsJohn Crookshank • Geoffrey FletcherJohn Glanvill Smith • Derek GreenwellRafal Heydel-Mankoo • Michael KelionAmanda Laurence • Brian Singleton • Wylma WayneALLIES_____________________________________________THE RT. HON. SIR WINSTON SPENCERCHURCHILL SOCIETY OF BRITISH COLUMBIAChristopher Hebb, President1806-1111 W. Georgia St., Vancouver BC V6E 4M3Tel. (604) 209-6400 • Email: cavell_capital@telus.net_____________________________________________THE RT. HON. SIR WINSTON SPENCERCHURCHILL SOCIETY OF CALGARYRichard N. Billington, President2379 Longridge Drive, Calgary AB T3E 5N7Tel. (403) 249-5016 • Email: rnbill@telus.net_____________________________________________THE RT. HON. SIR WINSTON SPENCERCHURCHILL SOCIETY OF EDMONTONDr. Edward Hutson, President98 Rehwinkel Road, Edmonton AB T6R 1Z8Tel. (780) 430-7178 • Email: jehutson@shaw.ca_____________________________________________THE RT. HON. SIR WINSTON SPENCERCHURCHILL SOCIETY OF VANCOUVER ISLANDVictor Burstall, PresidentPO Box 2114, Sidney, BC V8L 3S6Tel. (250) 727-7345 • Email: burst@shaw.ca

S P R I N G 2 0 0 6 • N U M B E R 1 3 0Churchill and Canada • by Terry Reardon16 Echoes and Memories of the 22nd International Churchill Conference at Quebec City24 Winston Churchill and MacKenzie King28 Washington, October 18th—Fifth Churchill Lecture and First Seminar for High School Teachers“The Flying Peril”: Winston Churchill and Bombing Policy 1915-195532 Churchill and His Biographer • by Senator John McCain34 Ultimate Churchilliana: The Chartwell Visitors Book • by David HatterAt 224 pages, the Visitors Book is a witness to the comings and goings of the good and the great (and not so great).37 Emery Reves Award and Tribute to Tom Brokaw • by Michael Richards45 From the Canon: The United States of Europe, Part 2 • by Winston S. Churchill41 BOOKS, ARTS & CURIOSITIESRobert Courts reviews two new standard works: Sir Martin Gilbert’s Churchill and America and Robert Lloyd George’s David and Winston ...Get it Right! Richard Langworth on Toast Etiquette for Conferences and Elsewhere ... Dalton Newfield recalls his near-disgrace at the 1971Edmonton Society Annual Banquet ... Another Curt Zoller barrage of Churchill questions ... WSC on the “Senior Dominion of the Crown.”Despatch Box 4 • @ The Centre 5 • Datelines 6 • Local Contacts 9 • UK News 10 • Around & About 11Riddles, Mysteries, Enigmas 12 • Conference Calendar 12 • Wit & Wisdom 13 • Action This Day 14Inside the Journals 33 • From the Canon 45 • Immortal Words 48 • Churchilltrivia is postponed this issue.Cover: “Winston Churchill Painting,” by Sir John Lavery, 1917. Painted at a garden party hosted by Lady Paget (Minnie),Kingston Hill, London. Reproduced by kind courtesy of The Lady Soames LG, DBEPUBLISHED BY THE CHURCHILL CENTREFOR CHURCHILLIANS WORLDWIDE

Number 130 • Spring 2006ISSN 0882-3715www.winstonchurchill.org____________________________Barbara F. Langworth, Executive Editor(blangworth@adelphia.net)Richard M. Langworth CBE, Editor(malakand@adelphia.net)Post Office Box 740Moultonborough, NH 03254 USATel. (603) 253-8900December-March Tel. (242) 335-0615___________________________Deputy Editor:Robert A. Courts(robert.courts@yahoo.co.uk)12 Lyndhurst Close, Harestock,Winchester, Hants. SO22 6NA, UKTel. (01962) 880-216Senior Editors:Paul H. CourtenayJames W. MullerRon Cynewulf RobbinsNews Editor:John FrostContributorsAlfred James, Australia;Terry Reardon, Canada;Inder Dan Ratnu, India;Paul Addison, Winston S. Churchill,Sir Martin Gilbert CBE,Allen Packwood, United Kingdom;David Freeman, Ted HutchinsonMichael McMenamin, ChristopherSterling, Manfred Weidhorn,Curt Zoller, United States___________________________k Address changes: Help us keep your copiescoming! Please update your membership officewhen you move. All offices for The ChurchillCentre, ICS (UK), ICS (Portugal) and ICS(Canada) are listed on the inside front cover.__________________________________Finest Hour is made possible in part throughthe generous support of members of TheChurchill Centre, and with the assistance of theNumber Ten Club, and an endowment createdby the Churchill Centre Associates (listed onpage 2).___________________________________Published quarterly by The Churchill Centre,which offers various levels of support in variouscurrencies. Membership applications maybe obtained from the appropriate offices onpage 2, or may be downloaded from our website.Permission to mail at non-profit rates inUSA granted by the United States PostalService, Concord, NH, permit no. 1524.Copyright 2005. All rights reserved.Produced by Dragonwyck Publishing Inc.D E S PAT C H B O XEMPIRES OF THE MINDJoseph Hern’s “WinstonChurchill and Boston” (FH 127)missed one Boston quotation that Ibelieve stands apart from the rest:“The empires of the future are theempires of the mind.” In my opinionthis prediction should be placedamongst those at the top of the listwhen citing Churchill as a manahead of his time.GEORGE D. O’NEILL, NEW YORK, NYEditor’s response: Indeed that is aprescient line. The full text appearson our website (http://xrl.us/ihyj)and in FH 80 (third quarter 1993).BOMBING THE KURDS?I was interested to read in FH127 Churchill’s opinion on the use of“poison gas” which—according toMr. Ives (@ The Centre, p. 5) andothers (Despatch Box, p. 4) was notnecessarily based upon racial prejudices.But in a related area, I havebeen told that Churchill’s attitudetowards the Iraqi Kurds was littledifferent than Saddam Hussein’s. Atthe University of CambridgeInternational Summer Schools, theprofessor told us that Churchill saidbombing was the best way to copewith the Kurds. These are not theexact words the professor used, butthis is what he meant to say.This was a great shock to meand I should have asked for hissource. Now I have no way to investigatethis. As I am a new member Ido not know whether this mighthave been already discussed in yourjournal. Your response would behighly appreciated.HIRONORI NAKAMURA, KYOTO, JAPANEditor’s response: There are twenty-fourreferences to “Kurds” inChurchill’s writings and speeches,but none of them contains anythingclose to the suggestion that “bombingis the best way to cope with theKurds.” It seems highly unlikelythat he would have taken this view.At the 1921 Cairo Conference, whichFINEST HOUR 130 / 4redrew the boundaries of theMiddle East, Churchill pushed for aKurdish homeland. Here is anexcerpt from Sir Martin Gilbert,Winston S. Churchill, vol. 4, TheStricken World 1916-1922 (London:Heinemann, 1975, 537-38):...officials of the Middle East Departmentdrew up a memorandum forthe use of the Cairo Conference. Itrepresented their collective view ofwhat should be done, and Churchillgave it his full approval....The memorandumurged that the “purelyKurdish areas” in the north ofMesopotamia should not be includedin the new Arab State but that Britainshould help to promote “the principlesof Kurdish unity and nationality,”sending a British Adviser to thearea, and encouraging the Kurds toset up “some form of central Kurdishorganisation.”Churchill’s advisers rejected hisurgings for a Kurdish nationalhome, saying that Britain wouldalways be able to exert a moderatinginfluence in Iraq!Churchill had a distinct appreciationfor the difficulties of minorities.In 1906 as Colonial Undersecretary,he defended the rights ofIndians in South Africa. None otherthan Gandhi, said in 1935, “I havegot a good recollection of MrChurchill when he was in theColonial Office, and somehow orother since then I have held theopinion that I can always rely on hissympathy and goodwill.”Mr. Nakamura replies: I am verygrateful to you for having taken thetime to reply my questions. As youwrite in your e-mail, now I understand,it was not likely at all thatChurchill had that view, even if theattitudes of his generation inVictorian times towards race-issuesare taken into consideration. Thedetails gave me a great relief. Thankyou very much. I hope that theChurchill Centre’s great work andstudy will go on and on. ,

P R E S I D E N T ’ S L E T T E R@ THE CENTRECONGRATULATIONS all round, from “the husband of the singer” toeveryone who contributed, in front of and behind the scenes, to theTwenty-Second International Churchll Conference in Quebec City.Another International Churchill Conference is history, and we whoattended were surrounded by it. The superb Quebec City setting,Virginia and Bill Ives at Quebecthe venerable Hotel Frontenac, and the panel presentations andspeeches dealing with the monumental events of 1943 and 1944 Quebec meetings,“Quadrant” and “Octagon,” combined for another memorable Churchill conference. Post-conferencecomments and reactions of the attendees amply attest to its success, which could not have beenachieved without the tireless efforts of the team from ICS/Canada, the member volunteers who registeredand otherwise looked after our members and guests, and, of course, The Churchill Centre’sstaff in Washington and its editor in New Hampshire. Even the weather cooperated when required,although there was some serious disagreement as to who should receive the credit.It is always risky to single out anyone for special mention when so many did so much. Notbeing risk averse, let me mention Lady Soames and Solveig Barber as two participants who addeddashes of lively color to the typically more subdued demeanors associated with most of us at theseevents. Our Patron’s energetic participation in all aspects of this event, from the seven-hour pre-conferenceBoard of Governors meeting and the lengthy dinner that followed it, to the departure brunchon Sunday, underscores once again how much The Churchill Centre relies on her active patronage.And Solveig didn’t just beautifully sing the National Anthems, and other period pieces, as she hasdone at past conferences. Attired in a World War II uniform, she read with personality and verve amost interesting letter home, written by a secretarial participant in the 1943 Quebec Conference.Additionally, she found time to record beautiful renditions of songs from yesteryear, and to havethem for sale at the Conference to benefit the Centre.The ambience, fellowship and intellectual stimulation so evident at this 22nd annualConference is what The Churchill Centre’s members and frequent attendees have come to expect.And rightly so. Our gatherings have long been one of the cornerstones of the worldwide Churchillcommunity, and shall remain so. Electronic communication, I must ruefully admit, has its place. Butthe warm embrace, the firm handshake, the wry smile, the twinkle in the eye of a jokester, the candorencouraged by unhurried conversation, and the taste of a good port blanketed in rich cigarsmoke simply cannot be communicated through cyberspace; but they all can be experienced at ourannual conferences.Detailed planning for the 2006 Chicago Conference and the 2007 Vancouver Conference iswell advanced. Thereafter, The Centre’s annual conferences will be held in New England, GreatBritain, San Francisco, Washington D.C. and Ottawa in that order. For those of you who have neverattended one of our conferences, may I suggest you do yourself (and yourspouse) a real favor by doing so? I have known legions of attendees whopraise them, and have never known anyone who regretted coming.FINEST HOUR 130 / 5

DATELINESBEAUX-ARTSST. PETERSBURG, FEBRUARY 1ST— The RussianAcademy of Beaux-Arts created a bronze statueof Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin to mark the60th anniversary of the Yalta conference,which commenced on 4 February 1945. Thestatue is refreshingly unique, based on noknown photograph. The Churchill statue isimpressively lifelike.Quotation of the Season“If deep causes of division are to beremoved from our midst, if all our energiesare to be concentrated upon theessential task of increasing our strengthand security, it can only be because of lofty andunselfish ideals which command the allegiance ofall classes here at home, which rouse their echoesin the breasts even of the dictator-ridden peoplesthemselves, and stir the pulses of the Englishspeakngrace in every quarter of the globe.”—WSC, FREE TRADE HALL,MANCHESTER, 9 MAY 1938YALTA SCULPTURE: The three leaders are very accurately depicted from their appearancesin 1945, and it seems to us that the expressions say a great deal.BOOKS FOR LARRYDALLAS, NOVEMBER 15TH— Parker Lee andSheryl Hamlin responded to ourappeal for Churchill books (NovemberChartwell Bulletin) to replace those lostby Cdr. Larry Kryske at his Mississippihome in Hurricane Katrina. Then JayPiper weighed in with the offer of hisentire Churchill library! “As a retiredU.S. Navy Master Chief Petty OfficerI feel I must throw a line to Cdr.Kryske. I will be happy to donate mylibrary to him.” We are so grateful foryour great kindness!Three generous CC members havehelped replace a terrible loss. If anyoneelse lost books in the Katrina deluge,please contact the editor, and we willsee what we can do!HESP VOLUME VLONDON, SEPTEMBER 6TH—Historian andmember Andrew Roberts has taken onthe daunting task of picking up whereChurchill’s History of the English-Speaking Peoples left off, at the dawn ofthe 20th century, by publishing a fifthvolume to add to Churchill’s four. Itwill trace the main events of the 20thcentury chronologically, with WSC adominant figure.But Roberts departs from theapproach of the original: “Churchilltold stories like King Alfred burningthe cakes as though they were true,”he explained of a famous myth inVolume I. “He had a very broadminded view when it came to evidence,which I don’t think any historianwould get away with today.“Equally, I’m not going to adoptthe grandiloquent style. He mighthave got a Nobel Prize in literature,but I don’t think you can get awaywith that kind of thing any longer.“It’s not going to be a polemicalbook. I don’t think they can be sustained—it’smuch easier to write athousand words of polemic than athousand pages. It’s not going to haveany overt political bent.” But Robertswill be upbeat: “I think the Englishspeakingpeoples did pretty well inthe 20th century. The astonishingthing is that they ended the centuryas powerfully as they began it.”John Charmley, author of thecontroversial but always interesting(FH 79-81) Churchill: The End ofGlory, guesses that “Andrew Robertswill cock a snook at modern historiansand go for Churchill’s old-fashionedview. We now have much moreaccess to ‘history from below,’ butChurchill was an elitist and Andrewisn’t exactly known as a non-elitist.[Neither are you, John! —Ed.]Churchill would have approved ofAndrew’s audacity because he wasaudacious himself. I’d imagineChurchill at the centre of events inthis book.” Audacity, that’s it!FINEST HOUR 130 / 6

DIDN’T HE SELL INSURANCE?LONDON, FEBRUARY 10TH, 2005— Manyteenagers think Winston Churchill wasan insurance salesman because theyhave seen TV ads for the ChurchillInsurance Company, reports Metro.Grandson Winston Churchill, speakingat the opening of the ChurchillMuseum, said, “Young people arecompletely ignorant about his role inWorld War II because history teachingis so poor in this country. I’m appalledhow abysmal, for the most part, teachingis—it makes one want to despair.How many of the younger generationknow that Britain was responsible forfreedom in Europe today? How manyknow it was not Germany thatdeclared war on Britain but Britainthat declared war on the Nazis? Howmany know it was not WinstonChurchill who declared war, butNeville Chamberlain?”BOOS FROM THE SATIATEDLONDON, NOVEMBER 2ND— Reacting to aDaily Express poll as to whether thenew Churchill Museum is a good idea,S. Wright of Lincoln writes: “Quitefrankly, I’ve had about as much as Ican take of Churchill, Hitler and theSecond World War. Hardly a weekgoes by without yet another televisionhistory show about the war. Howmany more times can historians andTV producers rake over the cold ashesof a conflict which ended sixty yearsago? Perhaps young people are so ignorantabout history because it is soomnipresent that they have closedtheir minds to it.”THEY BOOED IN ’42, TOOLONDON, JUNE 14TH— CorrespondentJimmy Moon, a veteran of the EighthArmy, explained to the Daily Mail whytroops booed Churchill on 8 August1942, when he stopped in NorthAfrica on his trip to Moscow to meetStalin: “We Desert Rats of 1940 vintagebooed him as he drove pastbecause we had just learned that hehad sacked our commander, GeneralClaude Auchinleck, one of the finestdesert generals [who] on July 27th hadwon the first battle of El Alamein. [See‘Churchill and the Western DesertCampaign,’ FH 128:18.] Churchilldemanded that Auchinleck attackRommel’s positions, but he refused,saying he had to make up his losses inmen and equipment and would beready by September. Churchillreplaced him with General Gott, whowas killed as he went to take up hispost. WSC turned to the self-opinionatedand abrasive Montgomery, whorefused to attack until October 23rd,when he had assembled an army superiorto the enemy, and even then henearly lost.”“DEAR MR. SHELMERDINE,LONDON, JUNE 30TH— “My original ambitionwas to become a journalist andwar correspondent, as was my fatherbefore me. Indeed, that is what I didfor my first eight years after leavingUniversity at Oxford and before enteringParliament in 1970. Yours sincerely,Winston S. Churchill.”Clearly this is from the presentWinston Churchill to DominicShelmerdine, who compiled MyOriginal Ambition simply by writingfamous people and asking what theyfirst aspired to be. Except that this letteris pictured in The Daily Recordalongside a photo of Sir Winston.YOU MISSED ITLONDON, OCTOBER 21ST— ElevenMorpeth Mansions, the formerLondon duplex of Winston Churchill(FH 127:8) sold for close to its £2 millionasking price. Bill Roedy, vicechairman and president of MTVNetworks International, bought thehouse, according to the seller, PeterSheppard. [Mr. Roedy immediatelyannounced that he was presenting theflat to ICS/UK. Just kidding, alas!]The apartment, on the fifth andsixth floors overlooking WestminsterCathedral, is where Churchill metwith MPs opposing NevilleChamberlain’s policy of avoiding adirect conflict with Hitler. TheLIGHT AND AIRY, Morpeth Mansions is agem of a flat, looking out uponWestminster, a perfect eyrie for aCassandra brooding on trouble to come.Churchills owned the premises duringWinston’s 1930s “Wilderness Years,”when he was excluded from office.The flat measures 2,758 squarefeet with four bedrooms, two bathroomsand three interconnectingreception rooms. Mr. Sheppard, chairmanof the Catholic Herald, a UKweekly, had owned the duplex for tenyears and listed it in early 2005.—TROY MCMULLEN, WALL STREET JOURNALFOOTSTEPS TO CHARTWELLLONDON, APRIL 13TH— Beginning today,BBC4 ran an eight-part series, “In theFootsteps of Churchill,” written andpresented by Richard Holmes, authorof the accompanying book by thesame title (reviewed, FH 128:37).“History for me has always been asmuch about the heart as the head,”says Holmes. “I didn’t want to do justanother survey of a life that is alreadywell documented, but instead to get afeel for his time and, in particular, theplaces he visited.” Holmes took acomprehensive journey, beginning >>FINEST HOUR 130 / 7

D AT E L I N E SThe Churchill Connection tothe Ferry Winston ChurchillLady Churchill with CaptainThomsen on the bridge atGreenwich for the christening.COPENHAGEN, NOVEMBER 10TH—The writer from ShipsMonthly (FH 128:42) overlookedtwo important facts aboutthis beautiful ship. Lady Churchillnamed the ship while it was inGreenwich at the request of thecompany, DFDS (not DKDS), whowished to express “a grateful venerationfor a man who gave himselfto his country and to thewhole free world.” Also, the shiphad a wonderful and unique bustof Churchill in the dining room.Photos attached are from a littlebook about the ship published in1991. The ferry was sold forscrap in India two years ago, so ithas probably now disappeared,alas. —René HøjrisFOOTSTEPS TO CHARTWELL...at the beginning at Blenheim Palaceand ending at his favorite digs in theSouth of France.“I followed Churchill from SpionKop to Cairo and Ploegsteert to Yalta,but it was at Chartwell that I felt closestto him. He chose it partly for itslocation, in the quintessentiallyEnglish Weald of Kent, but still comfortablyclose to London. Although itis neither a grand house nor a beautifulone, its setting is stunning, andsums up all that Churchill was fightingfor in 1940. He dictated his books,and would then work on the proofs,standing at a specially designed desk inhis first floor study [second floor inUSA]. It is still there, and there wereThe Churchill bust in the ship’s diningroom. Was it rescued, and if so,where is it today?moments when I thought he was, too.If you are inclined to tread in just oneof his footsteps, then let it be atChartwell: I swear you can still catch awhiff of Havana.”HRH INVOKES WSCWASHINGTON, NOVEMBER 2ND— HRHPrince Charles and Camilla, Duchessof Cornwall, spent the day with thePresident and First Lady, highlightedby a private lunch at the White House,a visit to a local school with Mrs.Bush, and a lavish dinner with musicand dancing for 130 luminaries frompolitics, business, sports and the arts.Among their gifts to the First Family,the royal couple brought a set ofChurchill’s Collected Essays. [Unsungheroes: were it not for our rediscoveryof the remaining unbound sheets inthe 1980s, this set would not havebeen available. —Ed.]The President and the Princeexchanged toasts to the Anglo-American relationship. Bush notedhow both countries faced fascism andcommunism in the 20th century andwere fighting today against an “ideologyof hatred and intolerance….Thepeople of the United States draw greatstrength from having the UnitedKingdom as an ally,” he said. “Yourcourage and fortitude are an inspirationto people throughout the world.”Charles quoted Churchill’s remarkthat the friendliness of Americanstoward British travelers was “somethingto marvel at,” adding, “Well,nothing has changed, Mr. President,”as Camilla smiled. HRH also recalledWorld War II, the 2001 terroristattacks, the London bombings and therecent death of civil rights icon RosaParks: “I need hardly say that so manypeople throughout the world look tothe United States of America for a leadon the most crucial issues that face ourplanet and, indeed, the lives of ourgrandchildren. Truly, the burdens ofthe world rest on your shoulders.”Among the dinner guests were formerfirst lady Nancy Reagan, accompaniedby television producer MervGriffin; former NFL star Lynn Swann;newly installed Chief Justice JohnRoberts; and Lt. Gen. Russel L.Honore, the military coordinator inthe Gulf Coast region followingHurricane Katrina.—DARLENE SUPERVILLE, ASSOCIATED PRESS >>FINEST HOUR 130 / 8

WSC, FRSTALLAHASSEE, NOVEMBER 7TH— ProfessorBruce A. Thyer, of the College ofSocial Work, Florida State University,was curious as to why Churchill wasnamed a Fellow of the Royal Societyon 29 May 1941: “I thought the RSwas primarily a scientific organization,and while WSC was tremendouslybroad in his interests, I am unaware ofhis direct contributions to science.Perhaps this was strictly their effort athonoring a great leader in wartime?”Senior Editor Paul Courtenayresponded, “Fellowship of the RoyalSociety is a highly prestigious achievement.In WSC’s case it was purelyhonorific (similar to an honorarydegree from a university, but rarer).”Professor Thyer next contacted theRoyal Society itself, to see if there wasa specific citation. According to RossMacFarlane, assistant archivist (FellowsPapers), “Churchill was considered forelection under Statute 12, which existsfor people who, it is considered,“either have rendered conspicuous serviceto the cause of science, or are suchthat their election would be of signalbenefit to the Society.”May 1941 was a particularlydepressing time. Perhaps the R.S. consideredthat it would be an opportunityto provide the Prime Minister withsome good news.ERRATA, FH 128Page 9: Contrary to our report,WSC did not visit McCormick’s estateCantigny, and its “Hidden Room” isnot named for him. His 1932 visit wascancelled because, still recuperatingfrom his New York car accident, hestayed in Chicago. —Phil LarsonPage 14: Although Churchill diduse some unnamed DC-3s, Ascalonwas a prototype Avro York, the transportversion of the Lancaster bomber.Also, his Liberator Commando, waspreceded by one called Marco Polo;both were converted B-24s, designatedC-87s. —Chris SterlingPage 21: in the sidebar, the FieldMarshal’s name is “Rundstedt.” ,L O C A L C O N T A C T STCC Official Affiliates in Bold FaceLocal Affairs Coordinator:Gary Garrison (ccsgary@bellsouth.net)2364 Beechwood Drive, Marietta GA 30062tel. (770) 509-5430, fax (770) 565-5925Deputy CoordinatorPaul Courtenay (ndege@tiscali.co.uk)Park Lane Lodge, QuarleyAndover, Hampshire SP11 8QB UKtel. (01264) 889627Sir Winston S. Churchill Society of AlaskaJudith & Jim Muller (afjwm@uaa.alaska.edu)2410 Galewood St., Anchorage AK 99508tel. (907) 786-4740; fax (907) 786-4647Churchill Centre ArizonaLarry Pike (lvpike@Chartwellgrp.com)4927 E. Crestview Dr., Paradise Valley AZ 85253bus. tel. (602) 445-7719; cell (602) 622-0566California: Churchillians of the DesertDavid Ramsay (rambo85@aol.com)74857 S. Cove Drive, Indian Wells CA 92210tel. (760) 837-1095Churchillians of Northern CaliforniaRichard Mastio (rcmastio@earthlink.net)2996 Franciscan Way, Carmel CA 93923-9216Res tel. 831-625-6164Churchillians of Southern CaliforniaLeon J. Waszak (leonwaszak@aol.com)235 South Ave. #66, Los Angeles CA 90042tel. (323) 257-9279; bus. tel. (818) 240-1000 x5844Churchill Friends of Greater ChicagoPhil & Susan Larson (parker-fox@msn.com)22 Scottdale Road, LaGrange IL 60526tel. (708) 352-6825Detroit: Gary Bonine (bo9@charter.net)3609 Lake George Road, Dryden MI 48428tel. (810) 796-3180England North: ICS/UK Northern BranchDerek Greenwell, “Farriers Cottage”Station Road, GoldsboroughKnaresborough, North Yorkshire HG5 8NTtel. (01432) 863225Florida North:Richard Streiff (streiffr@bellsouth.net)81 N.W. 44th Street, Gainesville FL 32607tel. (352) 378-8985Georgia: Gary Garrison (ccsgary@bellsouth.net)2364 Beechwood Drive, Marietta GA 30062tel. (770) 509-5430; fax (770) 565-5925Nebraska: Churchill Round Table of Neb.John Meeks (jmeeks@wrldhstry.com)7720 Howard Street #3, Omaha NE 68114tel. (402) 968-2773New England ChurchilliansJoseph L. Hern (jhern@fhmboston.com)340 Beale Street, Quincy MA 02170res. tel. (617) 773-1907; bus. tel. (617) 248-1919Churchill Society of New OrleansEdward F. Martin2328 Coliseum St., New Orleans LA 70130tel. (504) 582-8152North Carolina ChurchilliansA. Wendell Musser MD (amusser@nc.rr.com)1214 Champions Pointe DriveDurham NC 27712; tel. (919) 593-0804Ohio: Northern Ohio ChurchilliansMichael McMenamin (mtm@walterhav.com)1301 East 9th St. #3500, Cleveland OH 44114tel. (216) 781-1212Washington Society for ChurchillChristopher H. Sterling, Pres. (chriss@gwu.edu)4507 Airlie Way, Annandale VA 22003tel. (202) 994-0363Churchill Centre South TexasJames T. Slattery (slattery@fed-med.com)2803 Red River CreekSan Antonio, TX 78259-3542Mobile: (210) 601-2143, Fax: (210) 497-0904North Texas: Emery Reves ChurchilliansJohn Restrepo (cunengland@aol.com)4520 Lorraine Avenue, Dallas TX 75205tel. (214) 522-7201Tennessee: Vanderbilt University Young ChurchillClub, Prof. John English(john.h.english@vanderbilt.edu), Box 1616,Station B, Vanderbilt Univ., Nashville TN 37235Toronto: Other Club of OntarioNorm & Jean MacLeod (jeana@idirect.com)16 Glenlaura Ct., Ashburn ON L0B 1AOtel. (905) 655-4051RT HON SIR WINSTON S. CHURCHILLSOCIETY, CANADACalgary: Rick Billington, Pres. (rnbill@telus.net )2379 Longridge Drive, Calgary AB T3E 5N7tel. (403) 249-5016Edmonton: Dr. Edward Hutson, Pres.(jehutson@shaw.ca)98 Rehwinkel Road, Edmonton AB T6R 1Z8tel. (780) 430-7178British Columbia: Christopher Hebb, Pres.(cavell_capital@telus.net)1806-1111 W. Georgia Street, Vancouver BCV6E 4M3; tel. (604) 209-6400Vancouver Is.: Victor Burstall, Pres.(burst@shaw.ca) P. O. Box 2114, Sidney, BCV8L 3S6 tel. (250) 727-7345FINEST HOUR 130 / 9

U K N E W SRCDS BUST UNVEILEDNOVEMBER 29TH— A specially commissionedbust of Churchill was unveiled atthe Royal College of Defence Studies byhis grandson Winston, who was accompaniedby other members of his family.The College, in central London, owes itsorigins to the recommendation of aCabinet committee in 1922, presidedover by WSC, then Secretary of State forthe Colonies. Called the ImperialDefence College until adopting its currenttitle in 1970, it was established in1927. It runs year-long courses forsenior Service officers and Governmentofficials: members of the 2005 coursecome from forty-one different countries.The bronze bust measures 7x70cm,weighs 85 kilos and now stands in aprominent position in the entrance hall.The sculptor is Margarita Hernandez, aColombian living in London.WOODFORD/EPPING BRANCHNOVEMBER 30TH— A new Branch wasinaugurated on WSC's birthday; it coversthe area of his final parliamentaryconstituency at Woodford, together withits earlier partner Epping—he was MPfor one or both places from 1924 to1964—and the surrounding area. Thirtypeople attended; they expect to meetregularly three times a year.ANNUAL GENERAL MEETINGThis occurred on 29 April, with a talkby Hugh Lunghi, one of WSC's Russianinterpreters at Teheran, Potsdam and hisvisits to Russia. FH will carry details.BERLIN VISITThis is scheduled for 1-7 May, whenLady Soames will unveil a plaque at thevilla near Potsdam occupied by herfather and herself in July 1945.PORTSMOUTH DVDThis memento of the 2004 Conferencewill form a valuable record of Society thewider historical scene because it includesthe personal experiences of D-Day participantswith conference activities.Details will be published when the projecthas been finalised.COURTENAY AT WINCHESTERFEBRUARY 1ST— Paul Courtenay spoke onsome of the less well-known thingsChurchill he said and wrote, particularlyin early life, at the WinchesterAssociation of National Trust Members.The talk was very well attended in apacked church hall, where over 100gathered. He discussed Churchill's lifechronologically, using slides and quotations.The audience particularly appreciatedthe many examples of Churchill'shumour, his joke about de Gaulle being“like a female llama surprised in thebath” being a particular favourite.HAVENGOREThe vessel that carried WSC's coffin upthe Thames after his State funeral in1965 was auctioned on 15 December.The highest bid was £780,000 and didnot reach the reserve price, so no sale hasyet taken place.Battle of Ramillies Tercentenary 1706-20o6“The French Army flying before us whereverwe come, tho’ they are joyn’d by aftrong Detachment from the Mosel.”Postscript to The Post-BoyLondon, 25 May 1706John Frost Historical Newspaper CollectionAn Express is arriv’d this Morning toher Majesty, from the Duke ofMarlborough with the welcome Newsthat the Allies have made themselvesMasters of the Strong and Rich Citiesof Ghent and Bruges in Flanders, as alsoAntwerp in Brabant, and all this withoutthe loss of one Man, those Placesbeing abandon’d by the French, theInhabitants Surrender’d the said Placesto his Grace the Duke of Marlborough,and thereupon declar’d for King Charles[later Charles VI, Holy RomanEmperor]. Advice came to the Armythat several other Places have likewisesubmitted to the Allies, and havedeclar’d for his Catholick Majesty, sothe Countrys of Spanish Flanders, andBrabant, are entirely reduc’d to hisMajesty’s Obedience. The French Armyflying before us wherever we come, tho’they are joyn’d by a strong Detachmentfrom the Mosel.By this Express, Sir ThomasFranklin has receiv’d a Letter whichconfirms the raising of the Siege ofBarcelona, and the Defeat of the Dukeof Anjou’s Army in Catalonia, withLoss of 6000 of his Men kill’d on thespot, besides 2000 prisoners, withmost of his Baggage and Artillery.The said Letter further adds, Thatthe Mereschal d’Theffe is dangerouslywounded, and that abundance ofFrench Officers were taken, and sentby the Earl of Peterborough as aPresent to King Charles the Third,who continues in Barcelona.The Readers are desired to takenotice, that the True Postscript to thePost-Boy, is Printed for Abel Roger atthe Black-Boy in Fleet-street.k k kHistorical NoteThe Battle of Ramillies, the greatestsinglehanded military victory ofJohn Churchill, First Duke ofMarlborough, occurred during theWar of Spanish Succession on 23 MayFINEST HOUR 130 / 10

1706. Marlborough’s English, Dutch,and German troops decisively defeateda French army at Ramillies-Offus, nearNamur, Flanders, on the bank of theRiver Mehaigne in Brabant, clearingthe French from the SpanishNetherlands, and led to the capture ofAntwerp, Bruges, and Ghent.Marlborough enjoyed politicalascendancy, largely as a result of hiswife Sarah’s influence over QueenAnne. But the Duchess of Marlboroughlater quarreled with Anne, thewar was costly, and Marlborough wasaccused of prolonging it for his personalglory; and in 1710 the Whigsfell, yielding power to Henry St. John(later Viscount Bolingbroke).The Duke was falsely chargedwith misappropriating public fundsand was dismissed (1711) from office.He returned to England from selfimposedexile upon the accession ofGeorge I in 1714 and was given chiefcommand of the army again, but hetook little further part in public affairs.—Answers.comCHURCHILL ON RAMILLIESarlborough cannot be robbed“Mof the laurels of Ramillies.The Schellenberg, his detractors said,had been won by the Margrave.Blenheim was the conception andachievement of Prince Eugene. Butneither of these explanations coveredthe amazing event of May 23. Herethe world saw Marlborough alone,without a council of war, achieving amilitary masterpiece seldom equalledand never surpassed. This was his victoryand his alone. Ramillies belongsto that rare class of battles foughtbetween equal forces of the highestquality wherein decisive success atcomparatively small loss is gainedthrough the manoeuvres of a commander-in-chief.It will rank for ever withRosssbach and Austerlitz as an exampleof what a general can do with men.”—Winston S. Churchill,Marlborough: His Life and Times, vol.V (of VI), pp. 149-50. New York:Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1937. ,AROUND & ABOUTChurchill is only fourth on the list of longestlivedPrime Ministers, outlasted by three wholived to at least 92 years of age: James Callahan (justdied last year), Harold Macmillan and Sir Alec Douglas-Home. WSC died at 90, just ahead of Gladstone and Heath (both 89).k k kIn The Coldest Winter: A Stringer in Liberated Europe (Holt, $18) memoiristPaula Fox “zeroes in on a limited number of evocative details andanecdotes....The author of six novels gives us potent snippets in place ofa standard plot. On a walk in Hyde Park in London, Fox passes a drunkenand weepy Winston Churchill. The mascara he wore for filmed interviews,Fox writes, ‘was puddling under his eyes before it ran down hisplump cheeks.’” It seems that Ms. Fox is still writing novels.k k kSpeaking to military wives, George W. Bush issued an eloquent andurgent defense of his doctrine: the theory that we have to use forceto “take the fight to the enemy,” which he more clearly than ever definedas “radical Islam.” The speech wasn’t so much a defense of the war inIraq as it was an attempt to portray himself in the embattled mold ofRonald Reagan and Winston Churchill, men who endured witheringpolitical fire at home for the sake of fighting totalitarianism in the world.The message: come after me, take me down, and you cripple the fightfor freedom. It’s audacious—Democrats will call it outrageous—but that’sthe argument he essentially is making. And the big-think, crusadingspeech had another purpose: to inspire the man who made it. The keyaudience for that speech, in a way, was the President himself. He wasamping up for the fight. —HOWARD FINEMAN, MSNBC.COM, 27OCT05k k khe Myth of Stability.” There were then, as there are now, many who“Turged preemptive capitulation. In 1933, the Oxford Union resolved“that this House refuses in any circumstances to fight for King andCountry.” Hitler must have been encouraged to hear that. With theexception of Churchill, most Europeans were less outraged than intimidated—unwillingto endanger the “stability” that followed the first globalwar. The result: in less than a decade most of the continent was underHitler’s jackboot. To outsiders, the Middle East may have appeared stablebefore Bush came to office. In fact, it has long been a region wherepeople are deprived of basic human rights, and where vast oil wealth isenjoyed by ruling classes while masses endure grinding poverty.—CLIFFORD D. MAY, SCRIPPS-HOWARD NEWS SERVICE, 26OCT05k k kHow does he do it? It’s not likely his boyish hairdo, which at timesresembles Dennis the Menace more than Tom Cruise. And it’sprobably not his speaking style, which will never be confused withWinston Churchill’s. So what is it? Local political consultant Floyd Cirulisays Denver mayor John Hickenlooper manages to come across as“the non-politician. He isn’t slick,” Ciruli said. Moreover, he “can makefun of himself, do silly things.” Sounds enough like WSC to us! ,FINEST HOUR 129 / 11

R I D D L E S , M Y S T E R I E S , E N I G M A SWe published “Churchill andA: Music,” by Jill Kendall in FinestHour 96, Autumn 1997; unfortunatelythis is not posted on our website. TheChurchill Centre office in DC wouldbe glad to provide a copy.Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony isconnected to Churchill by the openingbars, the Morse letter “V,” which wereoften whistled or hummed by Resistancefighters in occupied Europe; butclassic music was probably not his topchoice. He preferred the music hallsongs of his Victorian youth; virtuallyall of Gilbert & Sullivan; and in laterlife the songs of Harrow, his old school.He also liked martial music and historicalballads. “John Brown’s Body” was afavorite, and he loved “The BattleHymn of the Republic,” which wasplayed at his funeral. Miss Kendallwrote that WSC was “no musician andnearly tone-deaf,” but believed (toparaphrase one of his remarks) that“the simple songs were best, and theold songs were best of all.”Q:Musical NotesQ: I am interested in locating Churchill’s favourite music. I wasnot able successfully to obtain it from The Churchill Centrewebsite. Was it the classics, such as Beethoven (the Napoleonconnection) or Mozart? These would seem to be quite significant.—Andrew MorrisbyMy father remembers that atChurchill’s funeral (which he followedon Italian TV) there was a marvellousbagpipe funeral march. May youtell us the name of this march and thename of the piper who played it?After the Cathedral service, theA: gun carriage went in processionto the Tower of London, from wherethe coffin was transported by river. Asthe transfer to the boat was made,sixty pipers of the Scots Guards, IrishGuards, Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers,Cameronians (Scottish Rifles) andKing’s Own Scottish Borderers playedslow marches and laments. These were“My Home,” “The Mist-CoveredMountains,” “The Flowers of theForest,” and “Lochaber No More.”—PHCChurchill is misquoted as saying,Q: with reference to the Nazis vs. theSoviets. “We slaughtered the wrong pig.”That’s revisionist wishful thinking. Hecould never have said that since there isno such idiom in English. He wouldhave had to say, “We fought the wrongenemy.” See Herbert Kuhner, A Revivalof Revisionism In Austria, websitehttp://xrl.us/ihyg. Can you reveal someauthentic information as to the origin ofthis misquotation?—Dr. Wolfgang M. Schleidt,Wolfgang.Schleidt@univie.ac.atWe searched our research databasebut have not found eitherA:“we slaughtered the wrong pig” or “wefought the wrong enemy.” However,“slaughtered the wrong pig” is a possibleChurchill expression, since heoften used animal analogies. Yet, sincehe was very favorably disposed to pigs,he might not have compared his enemiesto them. (He said, “Dogs look upto you, cats look down on you; giveme a pig! He looks you in the eye andtreats you as an equal.”)Churchill never had any doubt,from the rise of Hitler to 1945, thatthe Nazis not the Bolsheviks were themain enemy. He did begin to think,once the war seemed won, that theyhad conquered one mortal foe, only tobe faced by another.In a famous private remarkrecorded by his private secretary, JohnColville, on 23 February 1945 in hismemoirs, Fringes of Power (New York:Norton, 1986, pp. 203-04). Colvillewrote as follows:FINEST HOUR 130 / 12Send your questionsto the editor“...we sat in theGreat Hall and listenedto The Mikadoplayed,much too slowly, onthe gramophone. The P.M. said itbrought back ‘the Victorian era, eightyyears which will rank in our island historywith the Antonine age.’ Now,however, ‘the shadows of victory’ wereupon us.In 1940 the issue was clear and hecould see distinctly what was to bedone. But when [Air Marshal] Harrishad finished his destruction ofGermany, ‘What will lie between thewhite snows of Russia and the whitecliffs of Dover?’ Perhaps, however, theRussians would not want to sweep onto the Atlantic, or something mightstop them, as the accident of GhenghisKhan’s death had stopped the horsedarchers of the Mongols, who retiredand never came back.“Bert Harris: ‘You mean now theywill come back?’“W.S.C.: ‘Who can say? They maynot want to. But there is an unspokenfear in many people’s hearts.’” ,CONFERENCECALENDARContact the Centre on all events:(888) WSC-1874, info@winstonchurchill.org2006Chicago, 27 September-1 October:23rd Intl. Churchill Conference2007Vancouver, B.C., September 12-15th:24th Intl. Churchill ConferenceFuture Conferences2008: New England2009: Great Britain2010: San Francisco2011: Ottawa2012: Europe

Correct Attributionsor Red Herrings?Wit &WisdomThe following quotations were discussed withRalph Keyes, author of The Quote Verifier, tobe published in 2006 by St. Martin’s. Neither Mr.Keyes nor FH are sure about attribution for some ofthese, and we invite the comments of readers. —RML1. “The hottest part of hell is reserved for those who, at a time of grave moral crisis, steadfastlymaintain their neutrality.” This remark (not in any of our sources) was supposedly about WSC’sfailure to convince people of the dangers of Hitler in the 1930s. A version of the saying is commonlyattributed to Dante, without evidence. If Dante used it first (at least “the hottest part of hell”), Churchillmight have stored it in his photographic memory, since he undoubtedly read Dante as a youth.2. “[Clement Attlee] has much to be modest about” [and is] “a sheep in sheep’s clothing.”The “modest” comment is attributed by the late Clark Clifford, aide to President Truman, who was withTruman and Churchill on the train bound for Fulton, Missouri, in 1946, where WSC delivered the famous“Iron Curtain” speech. As Clifford remembered it to the editor:HST: “Clement Attlee came to see me the other day. He struck me as a very modest man.”WSC: “He has much to be modest about.”Some versions are more elaborate, beginning, “Indeed, Harry...” But Clifford told it as quoted. It wasapparently not, as more often repeated, “A modest man with much to be modest about.”“Sheep in sheep’s clothing,” was also allegedly said about Attlee, but we have not been able reliablyto verify. Churchill did not say it in Parliament, where few holds were barred, and Churchill could bescathing “in the nicest possible way,” e.g. December 1946, about Stafford Cripps: “Neither of his colleaguescan compare with him in that acuteness and energy of mind with which he devotes himself toso many topics injurious to the strength and welfare of the State.”5. “He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire.” Quoted by the fairly reliableBill Adler, in his slim volume, The Churchill Wit (1965), but Adler provides no attribution. An alternateversion, “He was possessed of all the virtues I despise, and none of the sins I admire,” is commonlythought to have been said about Churchill’s erstwhile opponent in successive elections as MP forDundee, Ernest Scrymgeour, who eventually bested WSC in 1922. Again, we found no attribution.6. “In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard oflies.” Recorded in Churchill’s war memoirs as a remark to Stalin at WSC’s birthday party, 30 November1943, during the Teheran conference. Ralph Keyes read that this may have originated in a Russianproverb, and that Churchill could have cited it thinking that Stalin might be familiar with it. Virtually allsources agree that Churchill said something like this to Stalin. But did he originate it?Sir Martin Gilbert writes in Winston S. Churchill, vol. VII (London: Heinemann, 1988), 586: “Stalinsaid that the Russians had ‘made considerable use of deception by means of dummy tanks, aircraft andairfields. Radio deception had also proved effective.’ He was ‘entirely agreeable,’ Stalin added, ‘to theStaffs collaborating with the object of devising joint cover and deception schemes.’ Churchill and Stalinwere in agreement, Churchill commenting ‘that truth deserved a bodyguard of lies.’ This phrase was tobecome the key of a new and most secret operation, ‘Bodyguard,’ the deception plans for ‘Overlord’, towhich Stalin was, within a few months, to make his contribution.” But this is not a verbatim transcript, sowe will stick for now with the “so precious” version used by Churchill in his book.7. “Don’t talk to me about naval tradition. It’s nothing but rum, buggery [sometimes“sodomy”] and the lash.” In a speech during our 1985 Churchill Tour, Sir Anthony Montague Browne(Sir Winston’s private secretary, 1952-65) told us that in 1955 during a dinner conversation, he confrontedChurchill with this quotation. “I never said it. I wish I had,” responded WSC. The Oxford Dictionary ofQuotations states: “Compare ‘Rum, bum, and bacca’ and ‘Ashore it’s wine women and song, aboardit’s rum, bum and concertina,’ naval catch-phrases dating from the nineteenth century.” ,FINEST HOUR 130 / 13

1 2 5 - 1 0 0 - 7 5 - 5 0 Y E A R S A G O125 YEARS AGO:Spring 1881 • Age 6“Make it up, Gorst?”Spring saw the death ofBenjamin Disraeli, LordBeaconsfield, former PrimeMinister and titular head ofthe Conservative Party, who earlierthat year had vetoed a plan by LordRandolph and the Fourth Party toembarrass the Liberal government byseeking to limit its Coercion Bill forIreland to a year’s duration.The other three members of theFourth Party—Wolff, Balfour, andGorst—accepted Disraeli’s decisionbut Lord Randolph did not. As RobertRhodes James wrote in Lord RandolphChurchill: “He was a bad person towhom to offer any advice....So strongwere his feelings about Gorst thatArthur Balfour took care to sitbetween them in the House, sinceboth would speak to him but not toone another.”By Spring, however, the FourthParty was back together. LordRandolph took the first step to healthe breach by supporting Gorst in adebate. Taking his seat, Lord Randolphleaned over Balfour––who was still sittingbetween them—and said, “Makeit up, Gorst?” Rhodes James wrote thatthe episode, so typical of LordRandolph, “publicly proclaimed thereunification of the Fourth Party.”Without Disraeli to dissuadethem, the Fourth Party attackedGladstone’s Land Bill for Ireland.While the Land Bill addressed manyIrish grievances, it did nothing to calmthe troubled island and fulfilled LordRandolph’s prescient warning in mid-March: “...remedial measures whichare planted under the shadow ofCoercion, and watered and nourishedby the suspension of the Constitution,must be from their nature poor andsickly plants of foreign origin, almostforedoomed to perish before theybegin to grow.”“Stalin always kept his word with me. I remember particularlysaying to him when I visited Moscow in 1944, ‘You keepRoumania and Bulgaria in your sphere of influence,’ but he let mehave Greece.” —Churchill to Eisenhower, 1956100 YEARS AGOSpring 1906 • Age 31“A painful impression”Churchill’s loyalty to his new partywas put to the test on the first dayof spring. Lord Milner, the formerHigh Commissioner in South Africa,had admitted to permitting the illegalflogging of Chinese coolies in SouthAfrican mines without a trial or conviction—despiteassurances from theBritish Government to both theChinese Government and Parliamentthat such conduct would not be permitted.Milner acknowledged that hehad made a mistake. While Milner waspopular with British South Africans,the Liberal press in Great Britain wasquick to attack him.As Under-Secretary of State forthe colonies, Churchill was the primaryspokesman for the Colonial Officein the House of Commons. While inSouth Africa, he had met Milner andbeen impressed by him. A Liberal MPmoved to censure Milner, gleaningmuch popular support in theCommons; but Churchill knew itwould not be well received in SouthAfrica, where drafting a new constitutionfor the Transvaal was soon to beon his plate.Churchill persuaded the Liberalgovernment to allow him to introducean amendment which condemnedby Michael McMenaminflogging but did not single out Milnerby name. It was uncertain thatChurchill could persuade the moreradical members of his new party toshow restraint, but he tried. “When wehave so many real things to do whichmust be done in the present and in thefuture,” he said, “why cannot we leavethe past alone?”Churchill’s amendment passed.While it was a good speech, manythought WSC had been too harsh inhis assessment and ultimate dismissalof Milner’s future in public life. EvenChurchill’s friend and private secretaryEdward Marsh deemed it one ofWSC’s “failures.” King Edward agreedand wrote in a letter: “It is a pity thatLord Elgin does not seem to be able tocontrol the violent and objectionablelanguage of his Parliamentary Under-Secretary. It has made a painfulimpression on most people.”75 YEARS AGO:Spring 1931 • Age 56“The ponderous massof teutonic humanity”Churchill continued to lead thenationwide campaign againstdominion status for India in favor ofmore autonomy at the state level. On22 April 1931, he addressed the JuniorImperial League Rally at Chingford:FINEST HOUR 130 / 14

I see Lord Irwin wrote to a SocialistM.P. that the atmosphere in India wassweeter. It was not very sweet duringthe massacre of Cawnpore, where thebabies and mutilated, violated womenwere thrown into the sewers. But perhapsit will be sweeter here. Let me tellyou what will cleanse the Indian atmosphere,the one sovereign carbolic lotionwhich will restore the health of theBritish Empire in India. It is the ConservativeParty standing up boldly anddeclaring its own faith and convictionsupon the Indian question. When theConservative Party wrenches itself awayfrom the socialists’ slippery slope toruin and bloodshed in India, then youwill see quickly a remarkable change forthe better in all our affairs.The riots at Cawnpore to whichChurchill referred had lasted a week atthe end of March. They began on 24March when Muslims refused to closetheir shops during a period of mourningfor a Hindu executed by theBritish for murdering a police officer.Churchill said on 26 March:Wednesday’s massacres at Cawnpore, aname of evil import, are a portent.Because it is believed that we are aboutto leave the country, the struggle forpower is now beginning between theMoslems and Hindus. A bloody riotbroke out in which more than 200 peoplelost their lives with many hundredswounded, in which women and childrenwere butchered in circumstancesof bestial barbarity, their mutilated,violated bodies strewing the streets fordays. The British troops are now pacifyingand calming the terrified andinfuriated populace. But the feud isonly at its beginning.By month’s end, in Cawnpore,over a thousand Indians had died as aresult of religious violence.Germany was also on Churchill’smind at this time, after Germany andAustria created a Customs Union withno advance warning. Writing for theHearst papers in America, Churchillwarned of the dangers of a politicalunion between the two nations:France with her dwindling but wellarmedpopulation sees the solid Germanblock of seventy millions producingfar more than twice her number ofmilitary males each year, towering upgrim and grisly, luckily as yet largelyunarmed. You cannot ask France totreat this as a trivial matter. When youhave been three times invaded in ahundred years by Germany and haveonly escaped destruction the last timebecause nearly all the other nations ofthe world came to your aid, which theycertainly do not mean to do again, youcannot help feeling anxious about thisponderous mass of Teutonic humanitypiling up beyond the frontier.50 YEARS AGOSpring 1956 • Age 81“ Above all, Germanywill be reunited.”After gambling in Monte Carlo andattracting considerable attentionfrom the press (“I had no win butcame out quits after three days’ play,which was not bad,” he wrote to hisfriend Bernard Baruch) Churchill flewback to London in April to await thearrival of his wife Clementine from herocean voyage.On 16 April, Churchill wrote aletter to President Eisenhower coveringa wide variety of subjects. Egypt andIsrael were squaring off, but Churchillwrote that if the United States andBritain acted together, he believed warbetween the two could be deterred:I am, of course, a Zionist, and havebeen ever since the Balfour Declaration.I think it is a wonderful thing thatthis tiny colony of Jews should have becomea refuge to their compatriots inall the lands where they were persecutedso cruelly, and at the same timeestablished themselves as the most effectivefighting force in the area. I amsure America would not stand by andsee them overwhelmed by Russianweapons, especially if we had persuadedthem to hold their hand while theirchance remained.“De-Stalinization” was underwayin Russia and the two Russian leaders,Bulganin and Khruschev, were soon toarrive on a state visit to Britain. SirMartin Gilbert quotes Churchill’s messageto Eisenhower:Our Russian guests are expected thisweek, and we shall soon see whetheranything material results....They havemade an extraordinary volte-face aboutStalin. I am sure it is a great blunderwhich will markedly hamper the CommunistMovement. It would have beeneasy to “play him down” graduallywithout causing so great a shock to thefaithful. Stalin always kept his wordwith me. I remember particularly sayingto him when I visited Moscow in1944, “You keep Roumania and Bulgariain your sphere of influence, buthe let me have Greece.” To this bargainhe scrupulously adhered duringmonths of fighting with the GreekCommunists. I wish I could say thesame about the Greeks, whose memoriesare very short.In May, Churchill returned toGermany for the first time since thePotsdam Conference eleven years earlierto receive the Charlemagne Prize.During his acceptance speech, he onceagain demonstrated his prescience,describing what in fact was to happenin Europe over the next forty years:N.A.T.O. is a striking product and expressionof a world wearied of war determinedto build its own organizationin such strength and power that therewill be peace henceforward. The principleof the Treaty is simple and majestic.We all join hands together and aresworn to fight the aggressor, whoeverhe may be.A new question has been raised by therecent Russian repudiation of Stalin. Ifit is sincere we have a new Russia todeal with, and I do not see myself, why,if this be so, the new Russia should notjoin in the spirit of this solemn agreement.We must realize how deep andsincere are Russian anxieties about thesafety of her homeland from foreign invasion.In a true Unity of Europe Russiamust have her part. I was glad to seethat Poland was not unaffected by thechanges in Russian outlook that haverecently come to pass. It may be thatother changes will follow. Czechoslovakiawill recover her freedom. Above all,Germany will be reunited. ,FINEST HOUR 130 / 15

2 2 N D I N T E R N AT I O N A L C H U R C H I L L C O N F E R E N C EEchoes andMemories:Quebec City2005BY TERRY REARDON“PLANNING FOR VICTORY”:A great theme, a grand hotel, thebest scholars, and the Great Man’sdaughter for company. It justdoesn’t get any better than that.“QUADRANT,” 1943. Seated (l-r): Mackenzie King, Roosevelt and Churchill.Standing (l-r): General “Hap” Arnold; Air Chief Marshal Sir Charles Portal; General SirAlan Brooke; Admiral Ernest King; Field Marshal Sir John Dill; General GeorgeMarshall; Admiral of the Fleet Sir Dudley Pound; Admiral Wlliam Leahy. PHOTOSBELOW: Jack Granatstein, Desmond Morton, Larry Bland, David Woolner.Some 230 Churchillians journeyed to historicQuebec City on the majestic St. Lawrence Riverand the fabled Le Chateau Frontenac Hotel for areassessment of the Conferences of 1943 and1944 which planned the invasion of northernFrance; and contemplated the postwar world.On Thursday afternoon 28 September, determineddelegates braved a torrential downpour for “Rendezvouswith History,” a bus tour of Quebec City. While theweather precluded scheduled stops and walkabouts, thegood humored guides provided a fascinating narrative onthe only remaining walled city in North America—especially on the Battle of the Plains of Abraham in1759. Here a dangerous and innovative ascent up thecity’s steep cliffs, by a British contingent led by GeneralJames Wolfe, captured Quebec from French forces underthe Marquis de Montcalm, and thereafter Canadaremained in British hands.That evening Churchill Centre President Bill Ivesformally opened the Conference and introducedAmbassador Paul Robinson, who remarked on the significanceof the 1943-44 meetings; followed by SolveigBarber (wife of ICS Canada President Randy Barber),resplendent in WW 2 uniform, who entertainingly reada letter from a stenographer, Margaret Cullen, recountingher personal experiences at the 1943 Conference.Mr. Reardon, a retired banker from Toronto, is RecordingSecretary of the International Churchill Society, Canada.On Friday Morning chairman Randy Barber welcomedall the delegates to the conference, which hadbeen in the planning stage for two years. He was especiallygratified with the attendance, which considerablyexceeded all projections. The first session, “TheCanadian Connection,” commenced with one of theplanning team, Prof. Barry Gough, introducing the twopresenters as Canada’s preeminent historians/authors.Jack Granatstein, former professorat York University in Toronto and CEOof the Canadian War Museum, and nowco-chair of the Council for CanadianSecurity in the 21st Century, commencedby remarking to the packed room:“When I have attended other conferencesat 8.30 in the morning there is usually ahandful of people; there’s something going on here!”Desmond Morton, Hiram MillsChair of Canadian History at McGillUniversity in Montreal, provided a richand colourful examination of Canadianhistory and the country’s part in WorldWar II. This included outlining theOgdensburg treaty of 1941 between theUSA and Canada, which set out a“Permanent Defense Relationship” in North America,and in some eyes, including Churchill’s, moved Canadaaway from Britain and towards the United States. WeFINEST HOUR 130 / 16

1943 - 2005“OCTAGON,” 1944. Seated (l-r): Gen. George Marshall, Admiral William Leahy,President Roosevelt, Prime Minister Churchill, Field Marshal Sir Alan Brooke,Field Marshal Sir John Dill. Standing (l-r): Major General Leslie Hollis, GeneralSir Hastings Ismay, Admiral Ernest King, Marshal of the RAF Sir Charles Portal,General H. H. Arnold, Admiral of the Fleet Sir Andrew Cunningham.were informed that ten percent of Canada’s populationwas in uniform during the war—an astonishing figure.The second session, moderated by James Thomas,examined “Quadrant: The First Quebec Conference” in1943. Larry Bland, editor and projectdirector of the Papers of GeneralGeorge Marshall; and David Woolner,executive director ofthe Franklin andEleanor RooseveltInstitute in HydePark, New York andassociate professor ofhistory at Poughkeepsie, outlined theobjectives of the British and Americans,and the fierce negotiations between thetwo allies, which resulted in General Sir Alan Brookebeing close to a nervous breakdown. Brooke’s subsequentcriticisms of Churchill were recounted, but also hisremark that “For all that I thank God that I was giventhe opportunity of working alongside of such a man,and of having my eyes opened to the fact that occasionallysuch supermen exist on this earth.”The afternoon session was “Churchill: YourQuestions Answered” moderated by Lady Soames who,in good humored fashion, reminded the panel ofRichard Langworth, Jim Muller and Paul Courtenay thatshe was just the moderator; however she did fully participate,aided by Richard’s laptop computer confirmingdates and events. This conversation delved into manyunexpected avenues, with the help of good questionsfrom the participating audience.At the gala black tie dinner on Friday eveningRandy Barber opened proceedings by reading a welcomingletter from the Premier of the Province of Quebec,Jean Charest. Guests at the dinner included thirty studentsand seven teachers representing nine differentschools in the Quebec City region. Also present wereMadame Bouchard, a “runner” for Churchill at the twoQuebec conferences; and Madame Brittle, whose husbandworked at the Chateau Frontenac at the time ofthe 1943 Conference.Monsieur Brittle, tidying up a room which hadbeen used for a meeting of the Normandy invasion planners,noticed that a number of documents had been leftbehind, which he took to one of the officials. The documentsturned out to be the actual invasion plans andMonsieur Brittle was closely watched until the invasioncommenced on 6 June 1944. Madame Brittle hadopined that over the years she thought that her husbandshould have been given some recognition for his action;thus her obvious delight at the prolonged applause at thedinner, hopefully rectifying this oversight.The toast to Sir Winston was given by JeanMacLeod (wife of Norman MacLeod, President of TheOther Club of Ontario) who spoke directly to the >>FINEST HOUR 130 / 17

students and suggested to them that they adoptChurchill as a role model.The keynote speakerwas the Hon. Ken Taylor,former CanadianAmbassador to Iran who,in 1980, led the Canadiandelegation in helping savethe lives of six Americansduring the Iran hostage crisis.He talked of the establishmentof Iraq byColonial Secretary,Winston Churchill, andthe difficulties in administeringgovernments in thatregion; also he gave hisown insight into the currentevents in Iraq and his thoughts as to how the situation,which he said is really a civil war, could be resolved. Hisremarks were both stimulating and controversial, themark of a true Churchillian.The first session on Saturdaymorning was on “Octagon”: The secondQuebec Conference. Moderater CharlesAnderson outlined the wartime situationat the time and then introducedthe speakers, Professors David Woolnerand Warren Kimball, author and retiredRobert Treat Professor of History at Rutgers University.They commented that although the decisions to bemade were not as crucial as in 1943 they were of greatimportance in establishing the future of Western Europeat war’s end.Questions from the delegates included one askingwhether Eisenhower should have been more aggressiveand taken Berlin before the Russians. The response wasthat he was obeying instructions but also he was veryconcerned with spreading himself too thin and beingvulnerable to a German counterattack, which actuallydid occur with the “Battle of the Bulge.”The next session was eagerly awaited: “TheLeaders: Churchill and Roosevelt; The Wives:Clementine and Eleanor.” The panelists were ProfessorsWoolner and Kimball, Lady Soames and Franklin andEleanor Roosevelt’s granddaughter,Anna EleanorRoosevelt, co-chair of theFranklin and EleanorRoosevelt Institute. The relationshipbetween the twomen was outlined and theirgenuine warmth to eachother was well illustrated byRoosevelt’s comment toChurchill (when FDRturned sixty): “It’s fun beingin the same decade as you.”The panelists noted Roosevelt’s 1936 comment,“when in Canada I don’t feel like a foreigner,” and >>PHOTOS ABOVE: Keynotespeaker Ambassador the Hon.Ken Taylor, Professor WarrenF. Kimball, and Anna EleanorRoosevelt.THE CITADEL: Seated l-r:Clementine Churchill;Governor-General of Canadathe Earl Athlone; President ofthe United States FranklinDelano Roosevelt,Princess Alice, Countess ofAthlone, wife of the Governor-General; British PrimeMinister Winston S. Churchill;Eleanor Roosevelt; CanadianPrime Minister William LyonMackenzie King. We were notquite in the same decade withthem during our visit, but totrod the same gound andpose for pictures in the sameplaces, it was an agreeableencounter with history.FINEST HOUR 130 / 19

2 0 0 5 C O N F E R E N C ETHE CITADEL, 2005: Executive Director Dan Myers (standing, left) with the Board of Governors and our Patron. Seated, l-r:Jim Lane, Richard Langworth, Chuck Platt, Lady Soames, Bill Ives, Christopher Hebb, Douglas Russell. Standing from Dan’sleft, l-r: Paul Courtenay, Jim Thomas, Phil Larson, Suzanne Sigman, Judy Kambestad, Randy Barber, Nigel Knocker, JimMuller. You can tell this group has a lot of pull: we even got the Queen Mary 2 to tie up in Quebec during our meeting.FINEST HOUR 130 / 20

that he was the first American President to visit Ottawa.Lady Soames provided personal glimpses of her father,and his many touching gestures, such as insisting in1943 that she see Niagara Falls, in spite of the 600 milesdistance that had to be covered by train.Regarding Clementine Churchill her daughterremarked: “My mother’s career was my father.” We wereinformed that Clementine and Eleanor genuinely likedeach other, although the First Lady couldn’t appreciateClementine’s more delicate constitution. They broadcasttogether from Quebec City, with Eleanor stating that“the record of Canada in the war is a glorious one.”The Saturday luncheon was moderated by GordonWalker who introduced recently appointed CanadianSenator Hugh Segal, who gave self deprecating commentson his previous stance against a non-elected senate!Hugh then provided his deep knowledgeof Churchill with well chosen commentson the lessons we should continueto appreciate.The afternoon was another highlightwith a trip in beautiful sunny weather toThe Citadel, Quebec residence of theGovernor-General of Canada, whereChurchill and Roosevelt stayed and met during bothwartime conferences. An official reception began with arepresentative of the Governor-General reading out awarm greeting from Her Excellency; followed by LadySoames who spoke of the deep feelings she experiencedin again being at the Citadel, where she served as herfather’s aide-de-camp during the 1943 conference.Ample time was available for touring the impressivebuilding, viewing the exhibits, including plaques summarizingthe wartime conferences, and in the taking ofphotographs by the official photographer. The delegateswere given a copy of the actual menu enjoyed by theLeaders on 11 September 1944.At the evening dinner Churchill Centre Vice-President Charles Platt introduced Solveig Barber. whoserenaded the diners with wartime songs, which she hadrecorded on a CD, with proceeds, tothe conference, and which proved to bea hot seller.Sunday at brunch, Randy Barberintroduced himself as “the husband ofthe singer,” and thanked the conferenceplanning committee, and Dan Myersand Karen Linebarger of the Centrestaff in Washington, for their work in making the conferencesuch a success. Randy then introducedChristopher Hebb, who spoke of the plans for the 2007conference in Vancouver, which will center on thePacific war.The last but not least matter was the introductionof Philip and Susan Larson, who are co-chairing the2006 conference in Chicago. They outlined their excitingprogram, its theme being “Churchill in the Land ofLincoln.” Among the many events will be a reenactmentof Churchill’s 1932 speech on Anglo-American Unity bySir Martin Gilbert at the original premises, the UnionLeague of Chicago.So the conference concluded. Can we pick onehighlight? I think so. Our Patron, Lady Soames, whosepresence, enthusiasm and participation in all aspects wasso very deeply appreciated. As one delegate remarked,“You can read all the books you want by learned authorson Churchill, but here we had someone who providedfirsthand knowledge—and that was unforgettable!” ,CHATEAU FRONTENAC, right, was the exquisite setting for amemorable event; historical reminders were everywhere.PHOTOS ABOVE: Sen. Hugh Segal and Solveig Barber.FINEST HOUR 130 / 21

2 0 0 5 C O N F E R E N C EA Feather in His Cap:A Quebec Tailpiece • BY PAUL COURTENAYOn 13th September 1759, Wolfe's army defeated Montcalm onthe Plains of Abraham above Quebec. On the right of the Britishline was the 35th Foot; opposite them stood the Royal RoussillonRegiment, whose members wore white plumes in their hats. Whenbattle was joined, the 35th seized the French plumes and stuckthem in their own hats.By the early part of the next century the 35th Foot hadevolved into The Royal Sussex Regiment, whose badge consistedof the star of the Order of the Garter, behind which was prominentlyplaced the Roussillon plume. As time went by, The Royal Sussexacquired further units, one of which was the 5th (Cinque Ports)Battalion; whereas all other members of the Royal Sussex wore thestandard regimental badge, the 5th Battalion was unique in havingits own distinctive emblem: a Maltese cross, in the centre of whichwere the arms of the Cinque Ports. However, like the badge worn bythe rest of the regiment, the insignia was backed by the Roussillonplume seized at Quebec.In 1941WinstonChurchill wasappointed LordWarden of theCinque Portsand alsoHonoraryColonel of 5th(Cinque Ports)Battalion, TheRoyal SussexRegiment; thisunit wasmerged withthe 4thBattalion in1943, beingtitled 4th/5th(Cinque Ports)Battalion, WSCcontinuing asHonoraryColonel. From1944 his Armyuniform wasalmost invariablythat of 4th/5th (Cinque Ports) Battalion, and was particularlyprominent in Italy, at the Rhine crossing, Yalta, Berlin and Potsdam.In the accompanying photograph, taken in March 1945, the capbadge with the Roussillon plume seized at Quebec in 1759 can beeasily identified. ,FINEST HOUR 130 / 23

G R E AT C O N T E M P O R A R I E SWinston Churchill andMackenzie KingBY TERRY REARDON1948: “He said, ‘You have built a bridge between theU.S. and the U.K.’ I said, ‘God bless you.’ He cameto my bedside and his eyes filled with tears. Heshook my hands very warmly and affectionately.”NATIONAL ARCHIVES OF CANADAWinston Leonard Spencer Churchill.William Lyon Mackenzie King. While thetwo were certainly very different, therewere many similarities.Both were Sagittarians. Churchill was born on 30November 1874 at Blenheim Palace, Oxfordshire. Kingwas born just seventeen days later in Berlin, Ontario,which was renamed “Kitchener” in 1914.Both had famous ancestors, Winston’s father,Lord Randolph Churchill, became Leader of the House ofCommons and Chancellor of the Exchequer; his 18thcentury forebear was John Churchill, First Duke ofMarlborough. King’s Grandfather, William LyonMackenzie, was the first mayor of Toronto in 1834; he ledthe 1837 Rebellion in Upper Canada and went into exilein the United States until amnesty was granted him in1849; in the 18th century two of William LyonMackenzie’s great grandfathers fought with Bonnie PrinceCharlie at the Battle of Culloden.In politics, Churchill strove to follow his father’sfootsteps into Parliament. King first became interested inpolitics at the age of seven, when he heard Canada’s FirstPrime Minister, John A. Macdonald, speak during the1882 election campaign: “Sir John A. was presented withsome flowers by a pretty young lady whom he thankedwith an embrace. I could do nothing but envy him anddecided then that politics had its rewards.”While Churchill’s academic achievements weremodest, King’s were impressive. He entered the Universityof Toronto in 1891 at the age of sixteen and graduatedfour years later with first class honours. He then attendedthe University of Chicago and Harvard on fellowships. In1899 Harvard offered him a year of study abroad and heleft for the London School of Economics and PoliticalScience.In 1900 while still in Europe, King accepted aposition in Ottawa as editor of the Government LabourGazette in Canada’s new Department of Labour and withina few months had advanced to the rank of DeputyMinister of Labour. The job had come about from King’searlier activities against sweated workshops and childlabour. Churchill, as President of the Board of Trade andHome Secretary in 1908-11, brought in many parallelreforms, including a maximum work day for miners, freemedical care for children, and unemployment insurance.King’s conciliatory talents were soon employedand in the next eighteen months he brought to peacefulsettlements eleven out of the fifteen strikes in which hewas asked to intervene. Congruently, Churchill as HomeSecretary worked to resolve strike actions, though he wasmisrepresented for certain of his efforts (see “LeadingChurchill Myths,” FH 128).The first meeting between King and Churchilloccurred in 1900 in Ottawa, during Churchill’s lecturetour of North America. King was less than impressed withChurchill’s drinking champagne in mid-morning. Later,when they met in London in 1908, Churchill said “Ithink I did make a frightful ass of myself on that trip, didn’tI?” King gave him a hard look and said, “Well Mr.Churchill, there were many Canadians who thought so. Iwas one of them.”King’s opinion of Churchill certainly improvedover the eight year period, as shown in an extract from hisdiary:One cannot talk with him without being impressedat the nimbleness of his mind, his quickness of perceptionand his undoubted ability. He seems to havelost a good deal of the egotism, at least as far as hismanner is concerned, though one feels that even yetit is Churchill rather than the movement with >>FINEST HOUR 130 / 24

which he is identified that is the mainspring of hisconduct.”The same year, 1908, when Churchill, in the firstof many terms as MP for Dundee, became President ofthe Board of Trade, King stood for Canada’s Parliament asa Liberal, won North Waterloo, and was appointed to theposition of Minister of Labour. But in 1911 the Liberalswere defeated and King lost his seat.In 1919 Sir Wilfred Laurier died; King was electedleader of the Liberal Party and returned to Parliamentin a by-election. This made him Leader of theOpposition; in December 1921, the Liberals returned topower and Mackenzie King became his country’s PrimeMinister—nineteen years ahead of Churchill, who wasundoubtedly thinking about that high office at the verysame time.Just ten months after King became PrimeMinister rose the crisis over Chanak, the port of entry toPAGE OPPOSITE: WSC welcoming King to London, 1941.Below: The young statesmen. Churchill in 1908, King in 1910.FINEST HOUR 130 / 25the Dardanelles,which so deleteriouslyhad affectedChurchill’s career afew years before.Turkey had foughtwith the CentralPowers in the GreatWar and had signeda peace treaty in1920. But a newTurkish governmentled by MustaphaKemal (“Ataturk”)repudiated it and inSeptember 1922massed troops atChanak, where an Allied garrison of just a few thousandwatched over the Dardanelles.British Prime Minister Lloyd George asked theDominions to send troops, but unfortunately delayed hiscommuniqué until after the newspapers had reported thecrisis. New Zealand and Newfoundland agreed to help; asdid Australia after a protest. But King complained toLloyd George for asking for help after the crisis had beenreported.Churchill, now Colonial Secretary in the LloydGeorge government, remonstrated with King, who held aCabinet meeting to decide Canada’s role. The Cabinetdeferred to Parliament for approval, and Churchill askedKing for at least a “contingent” of Canadian troops as a“quiet but decisive demonstration that the British Empireis not to be threatened or bluffed.” The Turks eventuallybacked away from Chanak and King did not need to summonParliament, but the incident reinforced King’s viewthat Canada must be in charge of her own foreign affairs.At the Imperial Conference of 1923, BritishForeign Secretary Lord Curzon suggested that Britain’sforeign minister, when he speaks, may speak “for thewhole Empire.” King took issue: on any important issues,he replied, Canadian decisions would be made byCanadians. Curzon wrote later that King was “obstinate,tiresome and stupid and is afraid of being turned out ofhis own Parliament when he gets back.” South Africa’sPremier Jan Smuts told King, “You ought to be satisfied.Canada has had her way in everything.”At the next Imperial Conference in 1926, Kingproposed that Governor Generals should no longer be thechannels of diplomatic communication between Londonand the Dominions. He won this argument too, whichled to the eventual posting of High Commissioners in thevarious Commonwealth capitals. A statement was issuedthat the Dominionswere autonomous,equal communitieswithin the BritishEmpire. The sameyear, Canada senther first ambassadorto Washington.C h u r c h i l l ’sWilderness Yearsbegan in the springof 1929, when hisConservatives lostthe election; inCanada in 1930,King’s Liberals lostto the Conservativesunder R.B. Bennett. This had the beneficial effect of leavingtheir opponents, Ramsay MacDonald and Bennettrespectively, to face the economic depression.In 1935, the outs became the ins: King was againCanada’s premier, and Stanley Baldwin was Britain’s. ButChurchill was now waging his lonely fight against theBritish government’s appeasement of Nazi Germany, andKing by his very nature favoured conciliation. He wastherefore supportive of Baldwin and his successor, NevilleChamberlain.By 1937, Britain was slowly rearming, yetMackenzie King at that year’s Imperial Conference resistedefforts to pledge Canada’s aid in case of war. With theblessing of Chamberlain, King visited Hitler, and King’ssubsequent comments suggested that he like Chamberlainand others had been hoodwinked: “I do believe thatit will be found that Hitler is for peace, unless unduly >>

CHURCHILL AND KING...provoked.” But he told Hitler that if Britain and Germanywent to war, Canada would be at Britain’s side.Britain declared war on Germany on 3September 1939. Four days later, the CanadianParliament debated their own declaration. King put it tothem: “When it comes to a fight between good and bad,when the evil forces of the world are let loose uponmankind, are those of us who believe in Christianity andall it means going to allow evil forces to triumph, withoutif necessary opposing them by our very lives?” On 10September George VI, as King of Canada, approved theCanadian declaration of war on Germany.On 1 October Churchill, now First Lord of theAdmiralty, made his famous broadcast on theactions of Russia, “a riddle wrapped in a mysteryinside an enigma.” Then he added: “Wehave the freely-given, ardent support of thetwenty millions of British citizens in the self-governingDominions of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and SouthAfrica.” King cabled: “Your broadcast magnificent—asperfect in its appeal to the old world as to the new.”In 1930 Churchill had called Canada “a magnetexercising a double attraction drawing both Great Britainand the United States towards herself and thus drawingthem closer to each other….In fact, no state, no country,no band of men can more truly be described as the linchpinof peace and world progress.” Ten years laterChurchill’s description proved out when King became acommunication mode between Churchill and Roosevelt.On 31 May 1940, with France nearing surrender,King sent Churchill Roosevelt’s suggestion that if Britainwere defeated her fleet should be sent to South Africa,Canada and other parts of the Commonwealth, andpromising American assistance by opening U.S. ports forrepair and outfitting. Churchill officially deprecated anyneed for this; yet it is clear from his private papers that heconsidered what to do if Britain were overrun.On 4 June 1940 King’s diary called Churchill’s“Never Surrender” speech “the greatest feature of theday….when I saw his concluding words [‘…until, inGod’s good time, the New World, with all its power andmight, steps forth to the rescue and liberation of the Old’]I recognized that my despatch of May 31st had been mosthelpful. I am quite sure that Churchill prepared that partof his speech in the light of what I had sent him.”The next day Churchill wrote King reinforcingCanada’s role: “We must be careful not to let Americansview too complacently the prospect of a British collapse,out of which they would get the British Fleet and theguardianship of the British Empire, minus Britain.Although the President is our best friend, no practical helphas reached us from the United States yet. Any pressure youcan apply in this direction would be invaluable.”King continued to act as go-between. His “greatestfeature of the day” on 3 September 1940 was anannouncement providing Britain with much-needed U.S.destroyers. Eight days later King wrote that he foundChurchill’s tribute to the RAF (“The Few”) intenselymoving, and wondered if ever before in history there hadbeen a speech “comparable in setting or significance.”Not all the King-Churchill relationship was rosy.King waged a continuous battle for recognition ofCanada’s part in the war effort—on a per capita basisroughly double that of the United States after the U.S.entered the war. While Churchill in Canada was careful toacknowledge the part it was playing, at other times hereferred just to Britain and the U.S., and later Russia. ButCanada gave Britain $3.5 billion in wartime aid andmuch higher amounts in loans, out of a population of 10million, a tenth of which served in the armed forces. Wecan see how enormous Canada’s war effort was.The strain was immense and King sometimes wasexasperated. Future Prime Minister John Diefenbaker’sautobiography records one explosion in King’s office on24 May 1941: “What right have you to be here? You strikeme in the heart every time you speak. In your last speechwhom did you mention? Did you say what I’ve done forthis country? You spoke of Churchill. Churchill! Did heever bleed for Canada?”Diefenbaker believed that “neither liked theother. Churchill disliked the political opportunism ofKing. King envied the popularity of Churchill.” But thisdescription is likely overdrawn, considering the evidenceof their own words and deeds. In June 1941, for example,Churchill celebrated “the deep currents of loyalty and traditionthat flow between the different self-governingnations of the British Empire. [Britons are proud] that theliberty of thought and action they have won in the courseof their long, romantic history, should have taken rootthroughout the length and breadth of a vast continent,from Halifax to Victoria.”Mackenzie King flew to London in August 1941and attended a War Cabinet meeting. He records his fascinationat Churchill’s ability to summarise situations ingraphic phrases: “[He has] a wonderful command of languageand knowledge of history which he uses freely, andan ability to keep looking ahead making decisions in thelight of the long run rather than the short one.”At Chequers, the Prime Minister’s countryretreat, Churchill confided to King: “I have no ambitionbeyond getting us through this mess. There is nothingthat anyone could give me nor that I could wish for. TheyFINEST HOUR 130 / 26

cannot take away what I have done. As soon as the war isover I will get out of public life.” King responded thatthere was a destiny about WSC’s life. Churchill replied,“It looks like it, in a way as though it was meant.”In Ottawa in December 1941 Churchill deliveredhis famous “Some chicken—some neck!” speech andhe and King were photographed by Yousuf Karsh. As theywere leaving Parliament, John Diefenbaker records abackbencher saying: “Isn’t it wonderful. There is Mr. Kingmaking the sign that Churchill has made his.”Diefenbaker replied, “The V has different meanings. ForChurchill it means Victory; for King it means Votes.”Later King showed WSC a proclamation puttinga price of £1000 on the head of his ancestor, WilliamLyon Mackenzie, in 1837; Churchill’s reaction was thesame as two decades before, when IRA leader MichaelCollins complained that Britain had put a price on hishead: in 1899, Churchill remarked, the Boers had offeredonly £25 for him—dead or alive!What King genuinely felt about Churchill isprobably revealed by King’s private diary, intended for noone but himself. During the 1943 Quebec conference, herecords conversations with Winston and Clementine:I said I believed he was the one man who had savedthe British Empire. He said no, ‘if I had not beenthere someone else would have done it.’ I said Icould not think of any other man who could havedone what he did at the time....Mrs. Churchill toldme that being out of office and writing the life ofMarlborough had had a real effect upon his character.That he had discovered Marlborough possessedgreat patience, the secret of his achievements....Hewas making fewer mistakes in this war because ofthose he had made earlier....Above all, he hadlearned to consider very carefully many matters andto be cautious.Churchill repaid King’s kindly feelings.Remembering that 7 August 1944 was an importantanniversary for King, Churchill wrote:I learn that you are today celebrating the Silver Jubileeof your assumption of the leadership of your Party. Inthe whole history of free Parliamentary Institutionsfew if any can claim to have led a Party of the State solong and pre-eminently. Throughout these 25 yearsyou and we have watched Canada advance along theroad of liberty and progress with admiration andpride. Yet never, perhaps, has this country heldCanada in higher esteem than in these last five yearsof bitter conflict, during which, under your inspiredguidance as Prime Minister, she has played so splendida part in the now imminent overthrow of the powersof evil. It is a peculiar pleasure therefore to offer you atthis time my warmest congratulations and, if I may, toadd my sincere good wishes for a prosperous future.“KARSH 3”: The little-known third photograph of Churchill, thistime with King, snapped by Yousuf Karsh in Ottawa, 1941.In 1947 King crossed the Atlantic for the RoyalWedding and lunched with Churchill and JanSmuts. “I confess that as I looked at [Churchill] atthe table,” King wrote in his diary:I felt that perhaps in more respects than one he wasthe greatest man of our times. Not by any meansthe greatest in any one field but in a combination offields. I felt that his knowledge of history gave him agreat outlook which would cause him to speak withauthority, causing other men to realize how littletheir knowledge and vision really was. The formwith which he expressed his views was what gavehim his great influence.If there was any doubt about their abiding feelingsfor one another it was dispelled at their last meetingin 1948. King, in London for the Commonwealth PrimeMinisters Conference, had been taken ill with heart problemsand could not participate. He was in bed at theDorchester Hotel when Churchill visited him. They hadknown each other now for almost fifty years.King’s diary records their last words. “He said,‘You have built a bridge between the United States andthe United Kingdom.’ I replied, ‘God Bless You.’ He cameto my bedside and his eyes filled with tears. He shook myhands very warmly and affectionately.”Bruce Hutchinson, in The Prime Ministers, refersto this last meeting, which Lord Beaverbrook haddescribed to him: “Churchill as he rose to leave was surprisedby a last request from the patient. In this finalmoment of parting, Britain’s old warrior did not hesitate.Churchill leaned over and kissed King’s cheek.” ,FINEST HOUR 130 / 27

E D U C AT I O NTHE CHURCHILL CENTRE crammed a cornucopia of activities into October 18th, from ourall-day seminar for high school teachers to a benefit dinner with the official biographer andSenator John McCain—all supported through generous grants and our members.Washington, October 18th—The Fifth Churchill Lectureand First Teacher SeminarHonorary member and official biographerSir Martin Gilbert held his audience forover an hour at the Jack MortonAuditorium, The George WashingtonUniversity. His topic was “The FlyingPeril”: Churchill’s interest in air power and policies onstrategic bombing from World War I to the nuclear age.Churchill was always a strong advocate of aviation.As a cabinet minister in World War I and its aftermath,and as Prime Minister in 1940-45 and 1951-55,he figured decisively in aerial bombing policies for overforty years. Even when out of office, during 1929-39and 1945-51, Churchill’s pronouncements on aerialbombing were thoughtful and prescient.Gilbert presented new research on Churchill’sactivities in this field, from bombing policies in Iraq andthe Middle East in the early 1920s to the moral questionof bombing German concentration camps, and the “areabombing” of German cities in World War II. Powerfularguments were ranged for and against bombing thedeath camps, based on the lives likely to be lost or saved.As Gilbert showed, Churchill had no doubt about theproper course, and tried to implement it.A dramatic moment was Gilbert’s account ofChurchill’s reaction to a 1944 request by the JewishAgency, that the railway line from Budapest to Birkenauand other death camps should be bombed. “WhenChurchill was shown this request he did something I’venot seen on any other document submitted to him forhis approval,” Gilbert said. “He wrote on it what hewanted done.“On the morning of 7 July he wrote to Eden, ‘Isthere any reason to raise this matter with the Cabinet?Get anything out of the Air Force you can, and invoke“‘The Flying Peril’: Winston Churchill andBombing Policy 1915-1955”The Fifth Churchill Lectureby Sir Martin Gilbert, CBEOfficial biographer of Winston ChurchillAuthor of the new book, Churchill and AmericaModerator: Juan Williams, National Public RadioBombing Iraq-Auschwitz-Dresden-Hiroshima:What did Churchill know—and when did he know it?New research on burning historical questions1:00 PM, Tuesday, October 18, 2005Jack Morton AuditoriumMPA Building (21st & “H” Streets, NW)Co-sponsored byThe George Washington University andThe Churchill Centre1150 17th Street, N.W. Suite 307Washington, DC 20036www.winstonchurchill.orgTel.(888) WSC-1874®Local (202) 223-5511me if necessary.’ I have never seen a minute ofChurchill’s giving that sort of immediate authority tocarry out a request.“Ultimately, as we know, the bombing was notdone. There is a vast subtext, of which I have written inmy book Auschwitz and the Allies. British officials didnot know on 9 July that the deportations from Hungaryhad ceased, so they had to deal with the Prime Minister’sFINEST HOUR 130 / 28

equest on the assumption that it still had some validity.I suppose it is a great tragedy that all this had not takenplace in 7 July 1943, or 7 October 1942. Alas by 7 July1944 it was too late to save all but a final 100,000.”Sir Martin also presented new primary sourceevidence that drastically revised conventional beliefsabout Churchill’s role in the fire-bombing of Dresden(requested by the Soviets, as confirmed forty years laterby General Antonov’s deputy to Gilbert) and other citiesin 1945. Finally, he discussed Churchill’s policies in thenuclear age, from Hiroshima and into the Cold War.Our moderator, Juan Williams of NationalPublic Radio and Fox News, provided an excellent summaryand penetrating questions, particularly involvingthe Dresden decision. “Why do you think the controversyover Dresden specifically has never ceased?” he askedGilbert. “Isn’t it a horrible fact that cannot be erasedfrom the record?”“Who can say why one out of thousands of historicalevents creates interest while the others do not,”Sir Martin replied. “The fire-bombing of Tokyo was farmore devastating, and yet we never hear Tokyo discussed.To bomb Dresden, at the request of the Soviets,was but one small part in a broad campaign. It was noteven ordered by Churchill, who was on his way to Yaltaat the time, but by Attlee; yet there is no reason to supposeChurchill would have reacted any differently.”This fascinating lecture and follow-up by JuanWilliams and the audience will be reproduced and availablefrom The Churchill Centre shortly; the lecture willalso be published in Churchill Proceedings as usual.High School Teacher SeminarIn the Lecture audience, and participating in thediscussion, were two dozen high-school teachers frompublic and private schools in the Washington area, whooffered excellent discussions and revealed a great nascentappeal of Churchill to students. “Of all his characteristicsI’d have to say it’s his humanity that draws them,”said Virginia teacher Jennifer Crowther. “They relate tohim because he was so human—so good at communicatingqualities they recognize.”Prior to the lecture, teachers attended a focuseddiscussion of Churchill and his relations with the UnitedStates, the subject of Gilbert’s new book, Churchill andAmerica. The seminar leader was Christopher C.Harmon, Professor of International Relations at theCommand and Staff College, Marine Corps University,Quantico, Virginia. The seminar was supported in partby two grants, one from the William E. Benjamin IIFund of the Community Foundation for Palm Beachand Martin Counties, Florida; and the other from aNew York foundation.Teachers spent a half day with Dr. Harmon,mulling over the Churchill legacy and how it is taughtand appreciated today. Churchill Centre members presentwere impressed at the depth of knowledge andthought-provoking questions the teachers raised. “To meit sounded like a discussion at the graduate level in auniversity,” one said; “it is so encouraging to us that thisamount of interest exists at the high school level—somethingwe shall do our best to promote in our 2006 educationalprograms.” >>FINEST HOUR 130 / 29

Although a fire alarm interrupted Sir Martin’sspeech at the 50-minute mark, and cost us the best partof an hour, teachers were to hold an interactive discussionwith Sir Martin on Churchill’s relevance to thechallenges of the 21st century.Seminar Evaluationby Suzanne SigmanEducational Programs CoordinatorThe Churchill Centre deeply thanks TheGeorge Washington University for providing our roomat the Marvin Center, and the amenities at low or nocost—and for the delicious buffet lunch, which is certainto bring back many of the participants. It would nothave been possible to operate this event so well withoutthe generous aid of the University.The seminar was a very good first effort by TheChurchill Centre. With the exception of the fire alarm,the day went smoothly. In retrospect, it might have beenbetter to go right to the teacher Q&A and let the publicremain, rather than allow a Q&A with a diminishednumber of attendees, but these decisions have to betaken on the fly and you do the best you can.The majority of teachers rated most aspects ofthe seminar as excellent but there are areas that requireevaluation and improvement. The good news is thatwith the help of Professor Harmon, it will be possible toimplement many of the suggestions and aspire to excellencein future events of this kind. It is mostly a matterof preparing the teachers well and balancing the topicswith the allotted time and the appropriate format.What the Centre learned is that teachers havewidely diverse backgrounds and varied knowledge of thesubject matter. The seminar format requires that eachparticipant has an opportunity to prepare for it, eitherby closely-related suggested readings or a short lecture offactual material before discussion. Teachers rated highlytwo of the three readings, mailed to them in advance ofthe seminar; but we did not include sufficient backgroundreading on the causes of World War II. The seminarformat was inspiring to many and ProfessorHarmon was highly rated. Discussion is good, but factsare necessary.We might change the furniture: from classroomdesks/tables to a more relaxed arrangement for groupdiscussion. We also learned, to our pleasant surprise, thedepth to which teachers want us to go. In the future wewill emphasize fewer topics and more depth, concretecurriculum materials and ample discussion time.Attendance exceeded expectations. We wouldhave been happy with twenty, but thirty-three teachersactually enrolled. There were nine no-shows, one owingto family matters, but we know how ad hoc teachers’schedules are. While our teachers made no financialcommitment to the seminar, they still had to arrange fora substitute to cover their classes.Most teachers turned in useful evaluationpapers. The sections on the evaluation included session1, causes of World War II; session 2, strategic cooperationbetween Churchill and Roosevelt; session 3, theFINEST HOUR 130 / 30

Gilbert lecture; and session 4, on Churchill’s relevancetoday. Teachers also sent us evaluations of reading materials,the application process, general overviews, and suggestionsfor future seminar subjects.One teacher recommended a different format:inviting teachers to come for a program with up to tenstudents. This could not constitute a seminar because ofthe large numbers; but a combination of a ChurchillLecture, panel discussion, and Q&A session could beheld. Another teacher spoke highly of this. She specificallyapproved our inclusion of a political cartoon andquestions in the teacher packet, and asked that we providemore materials like that.Finally, there should be a written bibliographyprepared by the seminar leader, especially if he intendsto recommend a book.Although each teacher was presented with acopy of Celia Sandys’ Churchill, we should consider givingteachers other books, especially WSC’s autobiography,My Early Life. Perhaps for each future seminar, asession should be devoted to a review of his life.Here may be the best anecdote of the day. Lastweek one of our attendees had just finished teachingabout Gallipoli—the attempt to shorten the Great Warby forcing the Dardanelles (FH 127)—before his studentstook the SATs (Scholastic Aptitude Tests). One ofthe essay questions was along these lines: “Describe howyou can be successful in the face of failure.” Two of hisstudents wrote about Churchill and Gallipoli.Lecture Evaluationby Richard LangworthCo-chairman of TrusteesNot least because of the reputation of the lecturer,and the combination of his talk with a teacher seminarand benefit dinner, this was the most comprehensiveand “multi-tasking” Churchill Lecture we have ever conducted.Thanks to Bill and Moira Benjamin and a NewYork foundation, and a well-supported gala banquet atthe Army and Navy Club, the Centre was able to meetand exceed all its expenses. Among our five ChurchillLectures this has happened before only once, with ChrisMatthews in 2001. Financially as well as scholastically, itwas a model for the future.Our most significant problem remains studentturn-out, and here Suzanne Sigman’s suggestion aboutteachers bringing ten students each seems worth developing.I discussed the absence of university studentswith President Trachtenberg of GWU after the dinnerTuesday night, and he reminded me that in Washingtonespecially, students are “jaded.” It takes something veryunique and perhaps more controversial, or a celebritylike our always-supportive friend and trustee ChrisMatthews, to “stuff the hall.” We did have excellentcampus publicity, thanks to Jim Hess of the University,and our display advertisement (see page 26) ran prominentlyin the student newspaper. But this is perhaps lesssignificant these days than the Iraq war, assortedWashington scandals, and other burning questions.The Churchill Centre was deeply honored bythe presence of Senator John McCain at a dinner for SirMartin and Lady Gilbert at the Army and Navy Club onthe evening following the lecture. We were joined byCentre Trustee Chris Matthews; Joanne Kemp representingTrustee Jack Kemp; and our good friends SenatorBob Packwood and his wife, Congressman Charlie Dentand Deputy Secretary of Commerce David Sampson.Senator McCain on Churchill and GilbertChurchill Centre Benefit DinnerArmy and Navy Club, October 18thIt is a true honorto be heretonight to honorone of theworld’s great historiansand biographerof one of history’s greatleaders. I would like tothank The ChurchillCentre for all it does topreserve the memory ofSir Winston. In makingavailable his thoughts, words and deeds to new generations,the Centre helps foster the visionary leadership soperfectly embodied by the career of Churchill himself.Churchill led one of the greatest lives of the20th century. By the power of his speech and theunyielding courage of his example and convictions, heled his country through the most dangerous experienceof its long history. He saw with clarity the challengesand the dangers that faced the world, and he never,never gave in. And due in great part to the courage heinspired in others, neither did his country.No one understands this better than Sir MartinGilbert, who has authored no fewer than seventy-fivebooks, including his magisterial official biography. Hisnew book, Churchill and America, which I have on mydesk right now, is the story of Sir Winston’s long relationshipwith our country and its impact on the vitaland enduring “special relationship.”I have long admired Sir Martin’s works and,while I do not have seventy-five titles to my name, I >>FINEST HOUR 130 / 31

do have a new book of my own that is coming out thismonth.* In it I devote a chapter to Churchill, drawingupon his life to illustrate the value of diligence. In showinghow he persevered through trial and misfortune toalert his countrymen to approaching dangers, I drewheavily upon both The Churchill Centre’s excellent websiteand Sir Martin’s exceptional single volume biography,Churchill: A Life.Despite his prolific Churchill writings SirMartin has also written histories on both world wars andon Israel, several works on the Holocaust, and a threevolumehistory of the 20th century, among many others.A glance at his website indicates that, among his “worksin progress,” he counts a book on Churchill and theJews, several historical atlases, an encyclopedia of Jewishhistory, and a history of the Gallipoli campaign. If onlymy staff had such energy…But to see the antecedent for such energy, suchflair for history and the English language, one need lookno further than Winston Churchill himself. Those qualitieswere, of course, the foundations of his extraordinaryintelligence and his attributes as a statesman. Perhaps itis these shared traits that have forged such a unique andremarkable relationship between two gentlemen, SirWinston Churchill and Sir Martin Gilbert.I wish to thank The Churchill Centre for invitingme, along with my friends Chris Matthews (cough!),Joanne Kemp and Senator Bob Packwood—who I mustsay was the smartest senator I ever had the fortune towork with.A Vote of ThanksRichard M. LangworthIhave a simple duty this evening. It is to thank SirMartin Gilbert for the treat that he has given us, forthat thought-provoking lecture today, and for beingwith us tonight. And Martin, I will never botheryou with questions about Dresden and Hiroshima againbecause you covered the subject so thoroughly.In listening to you today I was reminded of thelate Alistair Cooke, who spoke to us at Bretton Woodsin 1988, who broadcast these words on August 6th,1970, the 25th anniversary of the bombing of Japan:Without raising more dust over the bleached bonesof Hiroshima, I should like to contribute a coupleof reminders: The first is that the men who had tomake the decision were just as humane and tortured*Character Is Destiny : Inspiring Stories Every Young Person ShouldKnow and Every Adult Should Remember, by John McCain and MarkSalter, Random House, 336 pp., $23.95at the time as you and I were later. And, secondly,that they had to make the choice of alternativesthat I for one would not have wanted to make forall the offers of redemption from all the religions ofthe world.What Sir Martin has imparted today is a tinyfraction of what he has produced. My son the computerscientist was able to calculate recently that Sir Martinhas written ten million words about Churchill in theofficial biography alone—not counting all his otherworks. This is already half of Churchill’s total output!And yet, as he will tell you, he has only scratched thesurface of what seems an endless saga.A critic once said: “You think you’re so smart,Mr. Gilbert. Why, you haven’t told more than ten percentof the story. Martin replied, “Really—that much?”And Senator McCain, how honored we are tohave you with us, and to have heard your thoughtfulappreciation. Being from New Hampshire, I was able tovote for you twice, once in the primary, and once followingthe recommendation of Don Imus, by writingyou in on my paper ballot!I know you would deprecate comparisons withSir Winston, but there is a characteristic you share withhim which is very important. That characteristic is politicalcollegiality. And I feel sure Senator Packwood andCongressman Dent would testify to that.One of the greatest things about Churchill thepolitician was the way he maintained his respect for thepeople across the aisle, no matter how bitterly he disagreedwith them. Here is a story about the death ofChurchill’s great political nemesis, Aneurin Bevan,Minister of Health in the postwar Labour government.Churchill and Bevan fought the political wars ashard as any two heavyweight contenders. Bevan calledChurchill “the plutocrat exploiter of the working class”and Churchill called Bevan “the minister of disease,” andthey hurled these accusations across the floor, but off thefloor they were somehow colleagues.When Bevan died in 1960 Churchill, informedin the smoking room of the House of Commons,launched into a eulogy. “Nye Bevan…a leader of hisparty, founder of the National Health Service, championof the working class....” Then suddenly he paused inmidstream and said quietly, “Are you sure he’s dead?”Senator McCain, I believe you share this characteristic.Ronald Reagan once said after visiting TipO’Neill, “The speaker says that here in Washingtonwe’re all friends after six o’clock.” Collegiality. Churchillhad it. Reagan had it. You have it. I hope very muchthat you will make it contagious, because in these timeswe could certainly use more of it.FINEST HOUR 130 / 32

Thanks and a Tip of the Hat to our Generous SupportersSeminar SupportThe William E. Benjamin II Fund of the CommunityFoundation for Palm Beach and Martin Counties,Florida; a New York foundation; President Stephen JoelTrachtenberg and The George Washington University.Benefit DinnerSheperdson Abell, Ron Abramson, Ron Alexander, Bill& Moira Benjamin, Greg Berman, Michael Bishop,Stephen & Anne Black, Ambassador Robert & SylviaBlake, Peter Baumbausch, Paul & Carolyn Brubaker,Craig DeBarnardis, Representative Charlie Dent(Pennsylvania), Donald Ferencz, Bobby & Kate Giaimo,Roxanne Hale, Steven Hayward, Joanne Kemp, David S.Kerr, Thomas Lanctot, Richard & Barbara Langworth,Winston Jerome Lindsley, Bertil Lundqvist, Michael C.Maibach, Dr. John H. Mather, Christopher Matthews,Karin & Jack Mens, Dan Myers, Senator and Mrs. BobPackwood, Dr. Malcolm Page, Scott Park, Morris Sachs,David Sampson, Johannes Williams, Suzanne Sigman,Professor Chris Sterling, James & Lucille Thomas,Stephen Joel Trachtenberg, Herman Voelkner, WilliamA. Whiteside III, Sarah Williams, Cynthia Wojick,George Wills. ,InsidetheJournalsABSTRACT BY ROBERT A. COURTS“The Man Who Made His OwnHistory,” by Richard Holmes. BBCHistory Magazine, April 2005.Any biographer faces difficultiesin maintaining his objectivityaas he gets closer to his subject.This problem is even more intense inthe case of Churchill, who directed somuch of his energies and working lifeto ensuring that his own writings projectedhistory as he saw it. Moreover,WSC possessed such a powerful personalitythat some biographers findthemselves referring to “Winston” byhis first name—which shows how hardit is to distance oneself from the man.After researching Churchill’s longand varied life, it is clear that there isstill something new to say. This isespecially the case regarding his earlylife, where the military influence waspredominant; and in his and the politicalestablishment’s role in the treatmentof the fighting man after WorldWar I. The more that one delves intosuch a complicated and rich life, themore one realises that few things inthe picture of Churchill’s life wereclear and simple.Not only did Churchill turn hishistorical work into a self-portrait, buthe was in his very being a contradiction.He enjoyed wearing uniforms butwas not a militarist and was, as theveteran British left-wing MP TonyBenn has said, well to the left of TonyBlair’s New Labour; yet he spent mostof his political life in the ConservativeParty. Moreover, Churchill wieldedmore power than any Prime Ministerin history, yet saw himself as the servant,not the master, of Parliament.Part of the problem for the biographer,and one of the most strikingfacets of Churchill’s career, was that hewas as much a writer as a politician. Itis a surprising fact that students ofChurchill have been reluctant to granthim professional status in any fieldother than politics. This is remarkablefor a man who published some fiftybooks, 800 articles, numerous speeches,and who made far more moneythan all but a few “professional” writers.Part of this drive, it is true, wasowed to Churchill’s perennial need formoney, forced upon him by his “nothingbut the best” lifestyle; but thatdoes not detract from his de facto professionalstatus.Even with his “factory” of literaryassistants in his later years, Churchilldid not pretend to be a professional oracademic historian. “This is not history,”he was to say, “this is my case.”Moreover, he felt that history would bekind to him, for he was to write it.History was not, therefore, merely alabour of love and a much-neededsource of income, it was part ofChurchill’s campaign to adjust the historicalrecord so as to favour his ownreputation. Indeed, this was not somethingwhich began in his later yearswhen he had a reputation to protect,but in his early years, when he wasbuilding a reputation that did not yetexist, and seeking to bring himself tothe notice of a waiting public that heregarded as a blank canvas upon whichto project himself.And yet there was a further aim toChurchill’s writing: to rehabilitate hisancestors and to enhance his family’sreputation. Both his biographies of hisfather, Lord Randolph (a somewhathagiographic work) and of the FirstDuke of Marlborough, display a determinationto present history in the waymost favourable to his relatives.It is to be regretted that, as a professionalhistorian, Churchill wasinclined to try to “retouch the portrait,”which makes any biographer’sjob that much more challenging; but itis impossible to deny a powerful affectionfor that fusion of history andmyth which characterises a man whomay have been, far from a dry professional,a master story-teller. ,FINEST HOUR 130 / 33

The ChartwellVisitors BookTHE ULTIMATE CHURCHILLIANA? TheChartwell guest book, 224 pages long, isa witness to the comings of goings of thegood and the great (and not so great) in themost crucial years of the 20th century.BY DAVID HATTERFor Churchillians it must be the ultimate inbrowsable documents: 224 pages, 2316 signatures,780 people. Turn the pages, look at thenames, the history of the mid-20th century isevoked by the signatures of those making it.The Visitors Book was used from the moment Churchilltook up residence until the time when he left to spend hislast days at Hyde Park Gate. He moved in on 17 April1922 and Nellie Romilly, Clementine’s sister, was the firstto sign—unhelpfully for us, she omitted the date of hervisit. The first dated signature is Gwendeline (“Goonie”)Churchill, the wife of Jack, Winston’s brother, who visitedon June 28th.Nellie soon made up for the omission, because inthe league table of visitors throughout the life of the book,she ranks third, with seventy-four visits. The top places goto Lord Cherwell, formerly Professor FrederickLindemann, “the Prof” (eighty-six visits); and to SylviaHenley, Clementine’s lifelong friend and cousin (eightythreevisits). It sounds a lot, but the Visitors Book spansforty years and—allowing that there were no visitorswhen Chartwell was shut between 29 August 1939 (TheProf) and 1 January 1946 (Venetia Montagu)—it’s not asif they were outstaying their welcome.The family were frequent visitors; Diana signedin as both Bailey and Sandys. Her second husband,Duncan Sandys, signed, but there is no signature fromMr. Hatter is a steward and tour guide at Chartwell and author ofChurchill: His Politics and Writing. He thanks Lady Soames, whokindly read the text and provided essential information; and toDouglas Austin, Neville Snazel and John Whaler of Chartwell fortheir work on the Visitors Book project. The full list of names willsoon be posted on the Centre website. If you can identify any of ourunknowns, please email the author at david@dhatter.wanadoo.co.uk.John Bailey. Sarah signed as Oliver, Beauchamp andAudley, but of her three husbands, only AntonyBeauchamp and Lord Audley signed. Randolph is there,with both of his wives, Pamela (formerly Digby) and June(formerly Osborne). And of course Mary and ChristopherSoames signed frequently. An interesting page from 1952has the signatures of both Mary Soames and Mary S.Churchill. The second Mary was the second wife ofWinston’s nephew, John Spencer ChurchillPrime Ministers, future Prime Ministers andalmost Prime Ministers visited. In sequence we haveBalfour and Lloyd George, who signed; MacDonald andBaldwin, who didn’t; then Eden, Macmillan, Heath andButler, who did. There was never, as far as we can prove anegative, a visit from Neville Chamberlain. Perhaps it’snot surprising that he didn’t visit, though despite theirpolitical differences Churchill retained a high regard forChamberlain and spoke well of him when he died.This brings us to the matter of those who did notsign. Visitors were usually enjoined to sign if they stayedovernight, although some exceptions were made for luncheonguests, in particular royalty (see below)—and fortwo from large groups, 615 Squadron on 4 August 1951and guests at the constituency party on 7 July 1956.The book lacks a number of known visitors whoeither weren’t staying overnight or wished to keep theirvisits secret. In the cases of MacDonald and Baldwin, andalso Albert Einstein, we might guess that these are inadvertentomissions; but there were other visitors whosemotives in not signing may easily be inferred.Group Captain Lachlan MacLean and WingCommander Tor Anderson, who came to confide theirFINEST HOUR 130 / 34

worries to Churchill about RAF fighting strength, hadgood reason not to record their presence. Major Ewaldvon Kleist, an anti-Nazi German who came to seeChurchill about the situation in the Reich, would alsowish his visit to go unnoted. (A tragic footnote: von Kleistwas executed after the abortive attempt to kill Hitler inJuly 1944 and part of the evidence against him was a letterfrom Churchill that he unwisely kept.) There is evidenceelsewhere of visits from Leon Blum, the FrenchPresident; Heinrich Brüning, the former Chancellor ofGermany; and Albert Forster, Nazi Gauleiter in Danzig—but, unsurprisingly, no signatures appear.Desmond Morton, the Head of the IndustrialIntelligence Unit, who was one of Churchill’s primesources of information during the 1930s and a long-timefriend from the time of the First World War, also neversigned the book, possibly because he was a close neighbourand walked to Chartwell across the fields and mighthave felt that his visits were merely a matter of course.Ralph Wigram, the Head of the Foreign Office CentralDepartment, and another close associate who broughtChurchill secret information during this period did signthe book, as did Ava, his wife.Some time after Wigram’s sudden death, Avamarried Sir John Anderson, who later became ViscountWaverley. Thus we have the unusual occurrence of hersigning the book with three different names.Lastly in this section, one must mention GuyBurgess, who later became a Soviet spy. In his absorbingnovel, Winston’s War (Finest Hour 117), Michael Dobbsdescribes Burgess signing the book after visitingChartwell, and Churchill subsequently tearing out thepage. However, there is no point in lookingfor evidence of the missing page; theevent is just part of a novel.Churchill’s love for America and thelarge part it played in his life is not reflectedin the number of American visitors, atleast in the political sphere. Roosevelt,Hopkins, Winant, Willkie andEisenhower never visited, but of courseChartwell was shut up during the war, andthis was the period of their main associationwith Churchill. Harriman, Baruchand Truman did visit, Baruch several timesboth before and after the war. Truman hasthe distinction of having written one ofthe few comments to be found in thebook: “What a grand climax to a greatvisit.”Some thirty years after they first metduring the war, Averell Harriman marriedPamela, Randolph’s first wife; the Visitors Book ends afterChurchill’s death, so Pamela Harriman is not there,although she does appear as Pamela Churchill.There are many signatures from other aspects oflife at Chartwell. Representing visiting royalty are the signaturesof Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother, PrincessMargaret, and the Prince and Princess of Prussia.Others came from all spheres: Max Beaverbrook,for whom Clementine never developed a liking, andBrendan Bracken with whom she finally became friends;Lord Camrose, whose generosity and influence producedthe trust fund that enabled Churchill to continue living atChartwell; Alice Keppel, mistress of Edward VII, whogave Clementine advice on acquiring influential lovers tohelp advance her husband’s career; T.E. Shaw, Lawrence ofArabia, who arrived at the house on his Brough SuperiorSS100 motorcycle, exotically named “Boanerges”; thepainters Lavery, Nicholson, Birley, Montag, Maze andSickert, whom Churchill admired, and GrahamSutherland, a painter for whom his admiration was limited.All of these and many more signed the book and leavea lasting record of the history of Churchill and Chartwell.Then there were Churchill’s Civil Service PrivateSecretaries. Eddie Marsh, who began working for WSC in1905 and died in 1953, a lifelong friend; Jock Colville,whom Churchill inherited from Chamberlain, who beganas a sceptic and left as one of WSC’s strongest supporters;David Pitblado, who was there throughout the 1951-55government and nominally joint Principal PrivateSecretary with Jock, but who was shaded into secondplace by Churchill’s lack of interest in Home Affairs;Leslie Rowan, with Churchill throughout the war, who >>FINEST HOUR 130 / 35

was with Churchill throughout the war, and stayed on towork with Attlee. Rowan was Churchill’s first choicewhen he resumed office in 1951, but was not available,so Colville got the job. And there is Anthony MontagueBrowne, who, save only for Clementine, saw more ofChurchill in his last years than anybody else.But there are no signatures from John Martin,the other Principal Private Secretary during the wartimegovernment; from Peter Oates, who held that post duringthe 1951-55 government; David Hunt, who servedboth Attlee and Churchill, and many others who workedclosely with WSC. Undoubtedly some or all of themmade day visits, but there is no record of their passage.And among the women secretaries who worked withhim before, during and after the war there are only threesignatures: Elizabeth Gilliatt, Kathleen Hill and MargeryStreet. Grace Hamblin, the most famous secretary of alland the first administrator of Chartwell, never signed.Military figures bulk large in the Visitors Book.There are signatures from Alexander and Montgomery(with whom Churchill became close in the postwaryears; on one page there are four Monty signatures withnobody visiting in between). There are also Paget,Spears, Ismay, Ironside and Keyes—but no recorded visitfrom Alanbrooke. His alloyed admiration for Churchillprobably prevented sufficient room for friendship.Lastly there are the names we don’t know!The Visitors Book project at Chartwell is aimedat providing brief biographic notes of all signatories,together with notes of as many of the visits as we candiscover. The people fall into four categories. They are:(1) those for whom we have a biographic note; (2) thosefor whom we think we have a note—that is, we are notentirely sure it’s the right person; (3) those for whom weas yet can’t find a reference; and (4) those on whom wehave yet to start work.The people in category 3 are the ones who tantalise.Who were Berwick Allen, Pleasance Hugesson,George Kingsley, F Price? We are still searching andhope to find them (and many others).In the meantime, the Visitors Book remains; awitness to the comings and goings of the famous and ofthe unknown and a succinct and comprehensive summaryof the history of Churchill and Chartwell. ,The Visitors Book: Most Frequent Signatures and a List of Churchill’sTEN OR MORE ENTRIESThe following appear mostoften, which does not necessarilymean they occupy thesame order in actual visits:Lord Cherwell(Frederick Lindemann) 86Sylvia Henley 85Diana Churchill-Bailey-Sandys 74Field Marshal Montgomery 46Jack Churchill (brother) 41Nellie Romilly 41Celia Sandys 36Brendan Bracken 31Duncan Sandys 26Anthony MontagueBrowne 24Julian Sandys (grandson) 23Goonie Churchill(sister-in-law) 22Jock & Margaret Colville 21Eddie Marsh 20Edwina Sandys 20Peregrine Churchill(nephew) 18Randolph Churchill 18Archie & Marigold Sinclair 16Johnny Churchill(nephew) 16June Churchill(daughter-in-law) 14Sarah Churchill 14Winston Churchill(grandson) 14Violet Bonham Carter 10SECRETARIESCompiled from references inbiographies, the ChurchillArchives, and individuals, thislist includes those known tohave worked for WSC, eitheras employees or Civil Serviceappointees. There are probablyomissions; more informationis most welcome.Annette AnningHarry BeckenhamMillicent BroomheadLorna CowperGwen DaviesLettice FisherPhyllis ForbesChips GemmellElizabeth Gilliatt 1Monica GrahamCorporal Geoffrey Green 2Grace Hamblin 3Olive HarringtonFINEST HOUR 130 / 36Anne HipwellKathleen Hill 1Marian Holmes 1(later Walker Spicer)Patrick Kinna 2Elizabeth Layton 1 (later Nel)Lettice Marston(later Shillingford)Gillian MaturinR S McHale 4Phyllis Moir 5Delia MortonElizabeth OakdenViolet Pearman (“Mrs. P”)Mary PenmanJane Portal(later Lady Williams)Doreen PughVanda SalmonMaud StanleyMargery StreetMary Shearburn 1(later Thompson 6 )Catherine SnellingDorothy SpencerJo Sturdee 1(later Countess of Onslow)Joyce TallentsJoan TaylorPenelope WallEdith Watson 7Footnotes1 Wartime secretaries.2 Usually referred to asChurchill’s shorthand writer;Corporal Green was his assistant.They accompaniedChurchill on overseas tripsbefore female secretaries wereallowed to travel.3 Later Personal Assistant toClementine and subsequentlythe first administrator atChartwell.4 Miss McHale’s nameappears upon many documentsin the Churchill archive. Todate her given names are undiscovered.5 Temporary secretaryemployed in the United Statesin 1931, from which thin experienceshe wrote, I Was WinstonChurchill’s Private Secretary.6 Mary Shearburn marriedWalter Thompson, Churchill’sScotland Yard bodyguard.7 The only female in thePrivate Secretaries’ Office inDowning Street in 1940. Shehad been there since the time of

E M E R Y R E V E S A W A R D 2 0 0 5THE CHURCHILL CENTRE’S benefit dinner in Chicago November 8th honored Tom Brokawfor lifetime achievement in journalism. Emery Reves would have been proud.A Tribute to Tom BrokawA NIGHT TO REMEMBER. Celia Sandys, Bill Ives and Richard Langworth present The Churchill Centre’s2005 Emery Reves Award for Achievement in Journalism to Tom Brokaw.The Churchill Centre’s proud mission is to fosterleadership, statesmanship, vision and boldnessamong democratic and freedom-loving peoplesworldwide through the thoughts, words, worksand deeds of Winston Spencer Churchill. As itscochairman of Trustees I wish to say how very delighted wewere to welcome and honor particularly one of our nation’smost respected journalists, authors, citizens, and commentators:Tom Brokaw of NBC News.I can’t personally think of a more worthy recipient ofthe Emery Reves Award—which we bestow only periodically—thanTom. All of our Trustees and Governors weremost grateful for his willingness to be with us.On behalf of the City of Chicago, I was proud to welcomeeverybody who travel far to be with us at the secondaward event we’ve hosted in this virbrant city. And as ChiefExecutive of Strategic Hotels and Resorts, owners of theIntercontinental Hotel, we were privileged to be the sponsorof this significant event and I hope we continue to doso for years ahead.There are so many to thank—my friend Celia Sandys,Sir Winston Churchill’s granddaughter, the inimitableChirs Matthews, FH editor Richard Langworth: all of themMr. Geller is Cochairman of the Churchill Centre’s Board of Trusteesand President and CEO of Strategic Hotels and Resorts, Chicago.fellow Trustees. And Mary Ellen Viskocil, my partner andcolleague, please stand! I have a request from everyone here:Could you please lose their phone numbers?It is my privilege merely to convey some of the wordsspoken on November 8th, which I can best do by referringto the transcript, which will be published in full inChurchill Proceedings 2004-2005. —Laurence GellerChris MatthewsChurchill—his words explaiswhy I like him so much: “All theyears that I’ve been in [the Houseof Representatives —I’m sorry]the House of Commons, I’vealways said to myself one thing –‘Do Not Interrupt.’ I’ve neverbeen able to keep to that resolution.”Neither have I.When he turned sixty, Franklin Roosevelt saidChurchill, “It is fun to be in the same decade with you.”Tonight we share the delight in being in the same languagewith him, with respect for who he was and what he did.More than thirty years ago I remember standing downin the stacks at the Library of Congress staring at a volumeentitled Winston Churchill: A Study in Failure. As the greatman himself might say: “Some study—some failure.” >>FINEST HOUR 130 / 37

E M E R Y R E V E S A W A R D 2 0 0 5There were failures along the way. A great leader, hewas not a perfect politician. He was certainly no “SlickWinnie.” What he did of course was save the honor of thetwentieth century.Tonight we share the honor of Churchill’s legacy with aman who is perhaps the most accomplished journalist ofour time. Among his many accomplishments was to coverthe fall of the Iron Curtain, to which Churchill had givenits name. And through his books on the GreatestGeneration, Tom Brokaw gave a name and a distinctiverecognition to the generation who fought for the cause towhich Churchill gave so much of his spirit.Historians are increasingly prized today because somuch of our history seems to fade for so many people. Ifyou talk about something that was ten years ago, they thinkyou are talking about some sort of planetary existence farfrom their own experience. We have today one of theyoung, great historians of our time, Douglas Brinkley, professorof history at Tulane University, director of theRoosevelt Center there, the author of many fine books,including The Boys at Pointe du Hoc, about the heroes ofNormandy; and biographies of Franklin Roosevelt and thefirst secretary of defense James Forrestal. Douglas.Douglas BrinkleyI came to know Tom Brokwain a personal way, on the periphery,thanks to my late friendStephen Ambrose, who was directorof the Eisenhower Center atthe University of New Orleans.Tom became very excited bySteve’s project of interviewingpeople, making oral histories ofveterans. Ambrose used to say,wouldn’t it have been great tohave a tape recorder during the Civil War? Tom recognizedthat nobody was writing about the so-called greatest generation,the World War II veterans. We had a lot of books onChurchill, Roosevelt, Patton and Montgomery—but whatabout everyday people and their extraordinary stories?In 1994 Steve and Tom Brokaw went to Normandy inand in 1998 Tom published The Greatest Generation. Steveread the galleys and said the book was going to change theway Americans perceive their veterans. And it did. Whetheryou live in Illinois or Oregon or Connecticut, whether inan urban center or a village, you had a hero or heroes orheroic people in your community.It wasn’t just the book. Tom Brokaw followed it withmany spots on television, that precious network news time,giving voice to these people. And it wasn’t a stunt. It camedirectly from Tom’s heart, and gave pride to those veteranswho had been so self-effacing for so long. Young peoplestarted recognizing that their grandfathers, their grandmothers,had a role in this heroic effort of defeatingNazism and the Japanese fascists.The gretest generation spent the Fifties, Sixties andSeventies raising their families and being patriotic citizens.They never felt quite right to tell their story, until Tomcame and gave them that opening. And because of that, Iwant to thank Tom for being one of the truly great historiansof our time. He is such a familiar face we associate himwith NBC News, and rightfully so. But I believe thatdecades from now, centuries from now, The GreatestGeneration will rank as one of the profound literary andhistorical accomplishments since 1945. So I just want us toraise a toast to Tom.Tom BrokawI’m extremely gratefulto The Churchill Centre,my friend Chris Matthews,Celia Sandys, and all thehonored guests who arehere tonight, especiallyDouglas Brinkley for thoseextremely, dare I say excessivelygenerous, words.My association withthe group I call The Greatest Generation has become oneof the most rewarding experiences of my life. People challengemy title, but my reply is always: “That’s my story andI’m sticking to it.” The longer answer is that this is a generationthat came of age with all the depredations and uncertaintyof the Great Depression. Just as they were beginningto emerge from that dark and difficult time—when theyleft school to put food on the table, when they shared shoesand clothing and automobiles—they were summoned bytheir President, and by the man we honor tonight, to gothousands of miles across seas to defeat the two most formidablemilitary machines that had ever been assembled.And they did just that.I am particularly pleased to be included in this augustcompany because, as so many of my generation, I wasraised on the Gospel according to Winston Churchill. Myearly memories are formed by newsreels of him coming tosee his friend in the White House, or hearing his voice onradio, exhorting his country and the world in elegant languageand a lion’s roar to stand firm against the onslaughtof fascism. There is so much to admire about WinstonSpencer Churchill, and in this room of students of him Ishall not review his CV. But I will say that what alwaysimpressed me most was his commitment to the arena: hislifelong passion about the issues of his time, in war and inpeace, in power and out: his Falstaffian appetite for discourse,food, wine, brandy, art, and most of all to personalcommitment to freedom for mankind. He could write atgreater length with more elegance after an evening ofFINEST HOUR 130 / 38

champagne and brandy than most historians can write afteryears of study.I appreciate most of all Churchill’s ceaseless effort torally the like-minded and the skeptics to the cause of freedomand moral courage. His union with his aristocraticsoulmate FDR, one a Tory, the other a liberal, was a strokeof fortune for free men and free women for which weshould all be forever grateful. Together they understoodthat there are times when common cause and commonground are a much higher calling than narrow, selfish, ideologicalpursuits—which leads me to some observations onthe current conditions of the American political arena.It is, and I worry, in a troubling condition, a frayedconstruct rewired to short circuit the general welfare,diverting power and influence to the special interest; moreover,at the national level, the system is all but closedexcept to those who are encoded with specific DNA.Is this hyperbole? I don’t think so. Consider the currentshorthand for describing the vital signs of the nationalpolitical culture: red state, blue state, separate and unequal.The operating strategy for both parties is to divide andconquer, to alienate and belittle the beliefs of the other, tosuppress any discussion of common ground or commonpurpose, to conduct campaigns that are heavy on characterassassination and light on unconventional thinking or iconoclasticcandidates.I’m not naive; I’ve been at this for more than fortyyears. Politics has always been a rough trade. But the placeand influence of narrowly cast single interest organizations,and the amount of money that is now available, has infusedtoo much of our media, present company included, wherethe best and brightest in this society may wonder, “is this anoble calling for me?” Moreover I would suggest that all ofthis is happening just at the time where the challenges ofthe country require more common ground, not less.As Winston Churchill reminded us in every decade ofhis life, public service is not simply an honorific—it’s aresponsibility. Politics is a two-stroke engine: win the electionand then govern, be accountable, victory is a due bill,it should be paid in full by governing for all, not just for aselect few.There was a time not so long ago in this country, in asetting not so different from the one we are enjoying herethis evening, when the informal discussion would havebeen about the call to public service. Do those discussionsgo on now? In classrooms, ivory towers, boardrooms, laboratories,law offices? If they do the dialog is faint and short.The country is interested in solutions; it longs to beinvolved in a meaningful way in its own destiny. During acritical time in the history of mankind Winston Churchillgave hope and leadership to that calling. In this country thegreatest generation by sacrifice and commitment also gavehope. So I believe it is time for all of us to carry on thelegacy of the Greatest Generation, by re-enlisting as citizensto reclaim the greatest political system that has ever beenenvisioned from the zealotry of the entrenched. It is time toignite a citizen’s crusade, if you will, against too muchmoney, too many narrow interests, too little commonground, too much exclusion from the common arena. It’stime for us to make a stand, so that a hundred years fromnow, someone can stand at this hall and say that they, too,were a Great Generation.Celia SandysI am truly delighted tohave been invited to speak totonight. Emery and WendyReves were an important partof Winston Churchill’s lifefor many years, first whenEmery was representing mygrandfather’s literary interests,and later when he andWendy put La Pausa, theirbeautiful house in the south of France quite literally at mygrandfather’s disposal. He spent many months there, andhe used it at will and his family and friends spent a lot oftime there too. I first went to La Pausa in 1968 andremained friends with Wendy ever since.I had to have a Churchillian nap this afternoon,because I was up half the night reading a new book calledDo Not Disturb, by Laurence Geller. He swears it’s not biographicalbut I can tell you it’s a wonderful, wonderful readabout the hotel business and you’ll never look at a hotel inthe same light again when you’ve read it. I thoroughly recommendit, and I thank Laurence for all he has done forThe Churchill Centre, and to make this night possible.My grandfather would surely approve of this award toTom Brokaw. If they had ever met they would certainlyhad a great deal to talk about. They both paid their bills byjournalism and authorship. When sending some money toa widow of a Boer War casualty who had helped himescape as a prisoner of war, Churchill wrote: “I’m sorry Icannot send more but I have to earn everything I spend.” Ihave to say he was very good at spending. And earning.Like Tom, my grandfather was always center stage, hisinfluence ranging over the important domestic and internationaltopics of the day. He lived, as he, himself said, “fromhand to mouth.” I have no idea how the financial rewardsof television journalism compare with those of the writtenword in the first half of the last century, but I trust it hasnot left you, Tom, wondering whether you will have to sellyour house in order to balance your books. That was aprospect that my grandfather faced when his wartime jobrendered him nearly bankrupt!Winston Churchill used radio to good effect. LikeTom, his several careers were all based on brilliant >>FINEST HOUR 130 / 39

E M E R Y R E V E S A W A R D 2 0 0 5communication. But nowadays we cannot imagine livingwithout television.I only once saw my grandfather watching it. I think,looking around the room, that quite a number of us canremember exactly where we were on the day that PresidentKennedy died. I was with my grandfather. We watched itall on television. As we sat there, the tears poured down mygrandfather’s face. On that day he certainly responded withstrong emotions to the power of television. He would havecertainly been moved if he could have watched the coverageof his own funeral a year and two months later.I believe that Winston Churchill and Tom Brokawwould have found a lot in common. ,Our Grateful ThanksCochairmenMichael Bebon, Senator Richard J. Durbin, Laurence Geller,Secretary Jack Kemp, Ambassador Paul H. Robinson, Jr.,Vice ChairmenNorm Bobins, Fred Cook, Andrew Cosslett, Alvin Dworman,William R. Fatt, Richard Fisher, Marcus & Molly Frost,Philip Gordon, Michael Madigan, Todd SammanMichael J. Scully, Jonathan Tisch, Davis Weinstock.Representing the Churchill FamilyThe Honorable Celia SandysChartwell TablesMichael Bebon, Land America; Laurence Geller, StrategicHotels & Resorts; Phil Gordon, Perkins Coie;Todd Samman, Deutsche BankBlenheim TablesRick Weisman, Goldman Sachs; Stuart Rothenberg, GoldmanSachs; Arthur Adler, Jones, Lang, LaSalle; Jonathan Tisch,Loews Hotels; Andrew Cosslett, Windsor Berkshire (UK);Arne M. Sorenson, Marriott International; LaSalle Bank/ABNAMRO; Marcus and Molly Frost; Clark & Weinstock;Fred Cook, Golin Harris; William Fatt, Fairmont Hotels;Norm Bobbins, LaSalle Bank; Alan Dworman, AdCO Group;Hyatt Corporation; Jim McIntosh, First American Title Ins.;Joe Shenker, Sullivan & Cromwell • Paul Hastings Edelman Inc.SupportersMadigan & Gertzendanner; Michael J. Scully; Mark Gordon,Sonnenblick Goldman; Deloitte & Touche; NBC; LesterCrown (Arie & Ida Crown Memorial); U.S. Equities;Lakeshore East LLCDinner SubscribersJohn Baraket, Jacques Brand, Arthur de Haast, Chris J.Cahill, James Feldstein, Four Seasons Hotels & Resorts, JaneFraser, Vicki Gordon, Mark Gordon, Jack Guthman, SheldonHoltzman, B. J. Hoppe, Willis Johnson, Bill Ives,Richard Langworth, Michael I. Less, Fred Malek Sr., DanMyers, Bob Odell, Pritzker Pucker Family Foundation, StevenRoth, Ronnie Safdieh, Vick Seth, Randy Smith, Dick & JennyStreiff, Matt Wills, Bernard WinogradContributorsJon Bunton, John W. Churchill, Geroge A. Gerber,Doreen Goodard, Andrea Graefen, Joe Hern, Keith Hobbs,Maibach Foundation, Danny & Heather Mander, Jack Miller,Jim Mills, David W. Ruttenberg, Linda Rae Sher, ChristopherG. Sherron, John Slover Jr., Dr. Peter Suzuki, Lois ZollarSpecial thanks to Mary Ellen Viskocil, Strategic Hotel CapitalInc., and Karen Linebarger, The Churchill Centre.FINEST HOUR 130 / 40

Two New Standard WorksROBERT A. COURTSAnother Egg fromthe Faithful HenBooks, Arts&CuriositiesChurchill and America, by Sir MartinGilbert. Simon & Schuster, 504 pp.,illus., $30. Member price $24.When publishing a new book,Churchill used to say that hehad “laid an egg,” oblivious to theshow-biz connotation and referringproudly to his productivity. His officialbiographer is well on his track, havingalready penned over half Churchill’stotal lifetime output just on the subjectof Churchill, not to mention 20th centuryand Jewish history. And MartinGilbert’s latest egg is a golden orb thatsets another standard for historians.At a time when books aboutChurchill come forth thick and fast,none is more welcome than this one.Sir Martin’s theme is that Churchill’sconnection to the USA was both personaland professional. It started, as ayoung man, as a relatively superficialattachment, but it became profound inlater life. This set the tone for a foreignpolicy cornerstone that has lasted oversixty years.Of course, the relationship had toevolve. Gilbert shows Churchill’s initialreaction to America as almost beingone of bemused fascination, so greatwas the culture shock. Churchill describeshow this “very great country” is“eminently practical,” without “reverenceor tradition,” and goes on to recountmany “strange experiences.”It was only later, as Churchill withsadness noted, when Britain was decliningin power and the threats weregrowing, that the practical and passionateattachment to America took root.Britain was not strong enough to defeateither the Kaiser or Hitler on herown, and by the time that the Sovietthreat evolved was dependent uponAmerican military and economic support.There was more to Churchill’s attachmentto America than the emotionalismthat his speeches and writingsoften suggested. Churchill saw inAmerica a partner, one whose sharedcultural, linguistic, legal and politicalFINEST HOUR 130 / 41Churchill CentreBook ClubThe club is managed for theCentre by Chartwell Booksellers(www.churchillbooks.com),which offersmember discounts up to25%. To order contactChartwell Booksellers, 55East 52nd Street, New York,New York 10055, emailbscb@dti.net,tel. (212) 308-0643,facsimile (212) 838-7423.ties offered a partnership with which tofurther the peace and stability of theworld on Anglo-American themes offreedom, capitalism and democracy.When Churchill spoke of Americanmilitary supremacy in terms of “profoundthanksgiving,” it was almost as ifhe had accepted, with relief, Britain’seclipse by a power that was not onlybenevolent, but shared so many of hervalues.That said, although geopoliticalreality may have forced Churchill toadopt the USA as Britain’s saviour andsponsor, it was clear that from an earlyage Churchill was pro-American insentiment. Gilbert produces the sketchdrawing Churchill made for hismother’s publication, The Anglo-SaxonReview. Complete with crossed Starsand Stripes and the Union Flag, thecaption read “Blood is thicker thanwater”, and “Union is Strength.” Thissets the tone for much of the rest ofChurchill’s life.Churchill, with his Americanmother and British aristocratic paternallineage, offered a unique amalgam—an“English-Speaking Union,” as he declaredhimself to the American politicianAdlai Stevenson—something thatput him in a special position with regardto the United States. He wantedto bring the countries closer to the positionthat he himself represented, andto go forward perpetually arm in arm.Of course, this duality inChurchill’s relationship was not alwayspopular with his own countrymen:often seen in any case as a dangerous,

unstable maverick, his American bloodoften enraged the latent, jealous anti-Americanism that filled much of theestablishment. Called by contemporariessuch things as a “Yankee”, “Halfalienand wholly reprehensible,”Churchill was regarded by many as anAmerican half-breed. This, of course,was compounded by the fact thatChurchill’s optimistic, warm, emotional,outgoing and enthusiastic natureoften made him more at homeamongst Americans than Britons.Gilbert shows that Churchill’s relationshipwith America is usefullyviewed as a love affair: there may havebeen arguments, uncertainties, ups anddowns and even anger, but the relationshipwas always one of true love.Churchill’s famous friendship withFranklin Delano Roosevelt was not theonly one of importance.For example, no greater mentordid Churchill have than Bourke Cockran,the American orator, from whomChurchill learned much of his publicspeakingstyle: “He was my model. Ilearned from him how to hold thousandsin thrall.” Another was BernardBaruch, whom Churchill met whenMinister of Munitions in World War Iand with whom he made a life-longfriendship. Known always as “Barney”at Lullenden and Chartwell, Baruchwas a friend to the last, and always apopular guest with the family. SaidLady Soames, “I used to imagine thathe was what Jehovah looked like!”After America entered World WarII, Churchill made real, practical stepsto take forward his plan of an English-Speaking Union. He ensured that thetwo armies were well supplied andtheir forces intermingled to the extentpossible; he spoke warmly of the combinedchiefs of staff committee whichdirected the Anglo-American war effort,which he hoped (in vain) wouldcontinue after the war. He wished thatthe joint suffering and losses of the twoEnglish-Speaking democracies wouldbind them irrevocably together for thegood of the world.Gilbert makes clear that, althoughChurchill was undoubtedly overjoyedat the entry of the Americans into thewar both in 1917 and in 1941, thisstemmed from more than British selfinterest:Churchill felt a real emotionalpull of the two English-Speakingdemocracies marching together in acommon cause. Churchill was thus oneof the fathers of a policy that seesBritain and America acting togethertoday from platoon to intelligence andstrategic levels.Not all Churchill’s dealings withAmerica were positive. He was disappointedover American refusal to intervenein the Bolshevik Revolution; theAmerican attitude to war debts froman impoverished Britain, which hefeared would put Britain permanentlyin the USA’s power; and the EisenhowerWhite House’s failure to respondpositively to his desperate overturesfor a summit with the SovietUnion in the 1950s. Some historianssee all of these as the dirty flip side toChurchill’s romantic enthusiasm forthe cause of “English-SpeakingUnion.” The faithful Martin Gilbertlays out all the facts for future writersto ponder.The story, in typical Gilbert style,is written in well supported terms. It is,as we expect from this author, clearlylaid out, with a substantial bibliographyand the excellent maps that havelong been Sir Martin’s hallmark. Ofparticular note is Gilbert’s uniqueknack of combining readability withfirst-class historical scholarship. Thisbook reads like a fast-paced novel, yetpractically every page is provided withdetailed footnotes to aid further researchand to support the author’spoint. If only all historians could cultivatethis knack.As such, this book deserves to beplaced upon every Churchill shelfalongside the author’s Churchill: A Lifeand the inimitable Official Biography.A Gap in Churchill Studies FilledDavid and Winston: How a FriendshipChanged History, by RobertLloyd George, John Murray, 320 pp.,illus., $40. Member price $32.For someone who had such a profoundinfluence on the youngWinston Churchill as David LloydGeorge, it is remarkable that their relationshiphas received so little attention.Marvin Rintala’s Lloyd George andChurchill, 1995, was panned badly inFH 90; John Grigg’s “Churchill andLloyd George,” in the Blake-Louisessay collection Churchill: A MajorNew Assessment (1993) is by LloydGeorge’s biographer. Robert LloydGeorge is even closer to L-G than that,but this doesn’t prevent him from producinga balanced, absorbing andexcellently written new book.Churchill, it has been said, recognisedonly one man in his life as abeing equal to himself: the SouthAfrican Prime Minister Jan Smuts. Butthat is not the impression that onetakes from this book. And here isChurchill as we do not often think ofhim: the protege, the follower, the“loyal lieutenant,” almost overshadowedby the older statesman.The story takes us from the timewhen Churchill was learning his >>FINEST HOUR 130 / 42

trade from Lloyd George, to 1940,when the older man refused WSC’srepeated entreaties for him to join hiscoalition government. Perhaps LloydGeorge was unwilling to work withChurchill (or Chamberlain), feelingthat their differing attitudes to theprosecution of the war would makedisagreement inevitable. Or perhaps, asthe author speculates, it was that, withdeclining powers in his old age, theWelsh Wizard did not want to “playsecond fiddle” to his old protege.The book argues that Churchillwas not the born war leader, but hadto learn how to be one from LloydGeorge in World War I. The metamorphosistook years: it was arguably onlyin 1940 that Churchill emerged fromunder the shade of his mentor.The author, a member of ICS UK,does not shy away from Lloyd Georgethe cynical politician, and contraststhis with Churchill’s romantic view oflife and of their friendship. But it isquite clear from this book that LloydGeorge’s feelings for Churchill includedgenuine warmth. Sometimes therewas exasperation, sometimes embarrassment,but always admiration forhis talents and his humour.Perhaps most interestingly, thebook demonstrates one of the oftenoverlooked factors in Churchill’s rise topower in the summer of 1940. LeoAmery’s dramatic intervention in theNorway debate—quoting Cromwell toChamberlain, “In the name of God,go!”—is often quoted. Lloyd George’sspeech is much less referred to, butperhaps more decisive. It was the latter’sdevastating condemnation ofChamberlain’s administration, and hiswell-received remark that Churchill’sloyalty to Chamberlain should notallow him to serve as an “air-raid shelter”to protect his colleagues, that gaveChurchill authoritative backing. It alsogranted Churchill at least tacit absolutionfrom responsibility for theNorwegian campaign (arguably anotherDardanelles), making Churchill’srise over Halifax the more certain.Churchill may have been LloydGeorge’s faithful follower, but the loyaltywas amply repaid.Unfortunately, the book makessome of the regular mistakes whenauthors ignore more recent research.Lord Randolph, we are told “may havecontracted syphilis”; although SirWinston himself believed this, thediagnoses has since been proven highlyunlikely. Churchill is presented as havinghad Iroquois blood, whilst thestatement, “it is now recognised thatChurchill was probably dyslexic,” isgiven without argument, source orqualification. These are, however,minor quibbles in a book that is wellresearched, evidenced and supported,and with a wealth of new family documentsand photographs.There are some gaps in the book’scoverage which are a shame in whatmust become the standard work onthe relationship. For example, thebook denies that, despite LloydGeorge’s pessimism over Britain’s abilityto win World War II, he was prepared,as is often asserted, to act as a“last card” in dealing with Hitler. Butfew examples are given in supportingLloyd George’s quoted patriotism andsupport for Churchill in private. Thisis a missed opportunity to end a sluron Lloyd George’s reputation whichcasts him, unjustifiably, as an oppositeto his friend Churchill in the definingmoment of 20th Century British history:defiance of Hitler.This book claims in its introductionto explore the relationshipbetween the two men in new light.This it brilliantly succeeds in doing. Itis certainly a book for which studentsof Churchill have been waiting forsome time. ,A R T SToast EtiquetteGET IT RIGHT! Since all responsible authorities agree onwhen and how to toast—why not do them properly?BY RICHARD M. LANGWORTHAChurchill Centre organizer writes:“Is there any set protocol for thetoast on Sir Winston’s birthday that weshould be aware of? We would like todo it the proper way.”Bless you for asking, Sir! Havingrecently had an earful from a distinguishedpersonage on what not to do,we are ready with the answers.Remember: there will be a quiz.First and foremost, from “TheEtiquette of Loyal Toasts”(http://xrl.us/ikix): “The Loyal Toast isproposed after dessert and coffee are served.”SEQUENCE OF TOASTSThere is, of course, a distinctionbetween the Loyal Toast(s) and othertoasts, including to Sir Winston’smemory. If there are no Loyal Toastsand the only toast being proposed is toWSC’s memory, that can be done anytime after coffee, and is sometimesoffered by a speaker after a speech, as awrap-up to the evening. In Britain, anon-loyal toast is usually a minispeech,as at a wedding by the BestMan, or brief remarks at a Churchilldinner. See: http://xrl.us/ikji.TOAST PROTOCOLThe following is confirmed withChristopher Hebb in Vancouver, andPaul Courtenay in England, who offersa variation, which is noted opposite.1) Do nothing until the waitershave served dessert/coffee and clearedout, making sure that they do notFINEST HOUR 130 / 43

emove anyone’s wine glass—althoughin some cases, a special glass is providedfor the purpose. If no glass is speciallyprovided, toast-wise people usuallyleave a little wine in their glass,but to make sure, chairmen sometimessay, before any toasts are proposed:“Ladies and gentlemen, please be sureyour glasses are charged.” (I said thatonce and someone remarked, “Ithought my wine was paid for.”)If you ask to charge glasses, it ishelpful to have waiters ready to pouran inch of wine into any glass that hasbeen drained. Try not to force them todrink water—which is barbaric.2) If Loyal Toasts are to be done,always begin with the head of state ofthe country you are in. In all cases, theLoyal Toasts must come immediatelyafter the wait staff has left.3) It is the height of vulgarity toannounce, “John Smith will now proposethe toast to the President.” Theessence of a good toast is spontaneity.If he must introduce the toaster, thechairman just says, “Ladies and gentlemen,Mr. John Smith.” John Smith(usually from his seat) rises and asksthe multitude to “please rise” or “pleasebe upstanding.” Only after they are ontheir feet does he offer his toast, beingas brief as possible:“The President” (“of the UnitedStates” is optional).“The Queen” (“Her Majesty” isusually considered too much).“The Memory of Sir WinstonChurchill.”4) If there is more than one toastthe crowd should be made to sit beforethe next toaster is introduced.5) On occasions where a bandstrikes up the National Anthem after aLoyal Toast is proposed, the multitudewaits until the Anthem is completebefore drinking the toast.UK VARIATIONSby Paul CourtenayIn the UK coffee is usually servedafter the Loyal Toast. Once the mealitself is finished, the table is completelycleared and port glasses laid (if notalready in place). Then come thetoasts, after which coffee is served,smoking is permitted (definitely notbefore this point) and brandy andliqueurs offered.Toasts should not be prolongedaffairs. After the Loyal Toasts, “TheMemory of Sir Winston Churchill”may follow immediately. If a speech isto precede Churchill toast, this createsa problem over whether to delay permissionto smoke and the serving ofcoffee. If the speech lasts for no morethan two or three minutes, I’d delaythe coffee and cigars; but if the speechwill go fifteen minutes or more, Ithink it would be acceptable to havecoffee and cigars etc before the addressand the Churchill toast.Editor’s note: In Britain, coffee is adefinite separate course, whereas in theUSA, dessert and coffee come at youalmost simultaneously. And in theLand of the Free nowadays, to smokeat any point would result in a sputterof coughs and hard looks. So forget it!1971: NEWFIELD NEARLYDISGRACES WSCSU!Finest Hour editor Dalton Newfieldwas a guest at the 1971 Annual Banquetof The Rt. Hon. Sir Winston SpencerChurchill Society of Edmonton, Alberta,where the speaker was Lt-Gen. Sir IanJacob GBE, CB, DL. From Finest Hour19, May-June 1971: we were then theWinston S. Churchill Study Unit.Preferring to rent “black tie” inEdmonton to packing it on anextended holiday, Newfield tried onhis rented tuxedo shortly before thebanquet, only to find the trousers weresize 32. No Adonis, Newfield wearssize 34, but 36 feels so good that hebuys size 38. The only solution was tohave the renter deliver a pair of 38s tothe hotel desk. Newfield thus arrivedwearing blue worsted trousers.Fortunately for the reputation ofthe USA and Old Glory, he was ableto slip in unnoticed, though he wasintroduced to several important peoplewho would look him up and downand say, “Oh yes, Mr. Newfield, I’ve,er, heard of you.” That’s once…Having done some homework,Newfield knew that, as a former Lt.Col., he was allowed, when toastingThe Queen, to add the words “GodBless Her,” a privilege accorded ranksabove major.* Thus when The Queenwas proposed he said the proper wordsand lifted his glass toward his lips.Fortunately Allan Cawsey hadbeen stationed next to Dal by theSociety’s Executive, probably for thisvery purpose, and applied gentle pressure,about two tons psi, to Dal’s arm,thus preventing complete dissolutionof Canadian-American amity, whilethe band played “O Canada” and“God Save The Queen.” Only thenwas Al’s hand withdrawn and Daljoined the nearly 500 others present inthe liquid toast. That’s twice…One of the fine traditions of theSociety is that, at the end of theirannual banquet, they toast “TheHeroic Memory” (of WSC). Before SirIan’s speech, the wine stewards providedglasses of brandy. As the speechprogressed, the level of the brandy inNewfield’s glass got lower and loweruntil, toward the end of the speech, itwas empty. In the meanwhile, Cawsey’sglass remained untouched. (Dalthought Al didn’t like brandy.)Sir Ian finished, Al poured halfhis brandy into Dal’s glass, and therewas the call to the toast. Except forCawsey’s solicitude, Newfield wouldhave had nothing in his glass withwhich to toast “The Heroic Memory”and would probably have cut histhroat. That’s enough!*I have never heard of “God Bless Her”being the prerogative of Lt. Cols., but in theArmy every regiment has a different formula.In my own regiment, for example, we alwaysdrank sitting down, due to our 18th centuryorigins on board ship, where it was impossibleto stand. There are even one or two regimentswhich have permission not to give theLoyal Toast because “I know that your loyaltyis above question.” —PHC ,FINEST HOUR 130 / 44

F R O M T H E C A N O NThe United States of EuropeBY WINSTON S. CHURCHILL, 1938 • PART 2“WE ARE BOUND to further every honest and practical stepwhich the nations of Europe may make to reduce the barrierswhich divide them and to nourish their common interests andtheir common welfare. We rejoice at every diminution of theinternal tariffs and the martial armaments of Europe. We seenothing but good and hope in a richer, freer, more contentedEuropean commonalty.”The reflections of Europeannations upon the need ofunity must be stimulated bythe financial relations ofEurope to the United States. Underthe arrangements which have nowbeen agreed to by all parties, practicallythe whole of the reparationspaid by Germany to the countries shehas injured will flow by one channelor another to the least harmed andmost prosperous member of the victorcombination against her.For sixty years to come* animmense flow of wealth must rolloutward from Europe across theAtlantic. It cannot go in the form ofmerchandise, for the United Statestariffs, rising ever higher, bar the paymentof a debit in such a form. It isthe declared economic policy of theUnited States to aim at an excess ofexports. Therefore, on the one hand,the United States is entitled to theseimmense prolonged payments and,on the other, will not receive them inany form which can be conveyedacross the ocean. From this there hasfollowed and, whatever temporarychecks may intervene, there mustcontinue to follow, a process of reinvestmentof American capital inEurope. This process is cumulativefrom year to year; consciouslythrough the excess of Americanexports, almost unconsciously, perhaps,by the subtle and surprisingmanifestations of profits and compoundinterest.Sir Josiah Stamp—perhaps themost eminent of practical economists—made calculations whichshow that before the reparations anddebt payments to the United Statesare completed, Washington andAmerican investors together ownperhaps two-thirds of the entire presentincome of Germany.Such conclusions transcend thelimits of imagination. Inch by inch,with mathematical certainty, theyapproach a conclusion of monstrousEditor’s note: We publish this long, reflective article not as a prescription for modern timesbut to shed light on Churchill’s thinking when he wrote it, and on those concepts of his thatmay be worthy of reflection. His article was published in The Saturday Evening Post and inThe News of the World on 9 May 1938, under the heading “Why Not ‘The United States ofEurope’?” An abridged version, “A Great Big Idea,” appeared in John Bull on the same day.Reprinted by permission of Winston S. Churchill.*Delivering the Fifth Churchill Lecture in Washington on October 18th, Sir Martin Gilbertannounced that at midnight on 31 December 2005, all British war debts to the United Stateswill have been paid.absurdity. The most hopeful comment—andthere is solid reassurancein it— is the German saying: “Thetrees do not grow up to the sky.”To write thus is not to blamethe policy of the United States; stillless to impugn their lawful and contractualrights. American statesmenmay with blunt justice and unanswerablelogic point out that Europehas no grievance against the UnitedStates. The ancestors of the men andwomen who inhabit the Americancontinent took little with them whenthey quitted Europe. They leftbehind and surrendered an immenseaccumulated inheritance. All thatthey have, they and their descendantshave made for themselves by toil andscience, and the resolute exploitationof those natural resources they hadthe courage to go out and find. If theNew World has grown rich, it is notat the expense of the Old.The Government and people ofthe United States were in no wayresponsible for Armageddon. They didnot create or foment the hatreds andquarrels which led to that supremecatastrophe. They were drawn into thewar against their will, against their tradition,because they were jostled andknocked about by the combatants andforced to take a side and take a part.The movement of soldiers, of warships,supplies, and of treasure, wassolely eastward. The traffic was “oneway only”—from the United States toEurope. And this ought never to beforgotten by Europe, and will never beforgotten by the rest of the Englishspeakingworld.Nevertheless, American statesmenand leaders of public opinion inevery part of the United Statesshould ponder carefully, and as realists,upon the chains of causationwhich have now been forged. ForFINEST HOUR 130 / 45

sure and certain it is that Europe willnot continue for a generation to bean almost hopeless debtor, sinkingdeeper and deeper into the morass offoreign mortgage, without intenseinternal stresses and the birth of newdoctrines.Even if she had no such grayand dreary economic prospect, shewill be driven sooner or later toquestion the monstrous absurdity ofher own organization. The peace ofthe Roman world was maintained inthe age of Augustus by 800,000armed men. After 2000 years ofChristianity and of the accumulationand diffusion of knowledge, after theimmense advance of science and theundoubted improvement in cultureand moraIs, on the morrow of “thewar to end war,” more than twentymillion soldiers or trained reserves,armed with instruments of inconceivabledestructiveness, are requiredto guard the jigsaw frontiers of twenty-sixjealous, impoverished and disunitedstates. No one can supposethat this is to last.From all these causes and othersthat together fill volumes, theconclusion may be drawn with muchconfidence that the movementtowards European solidarity whichhas now begun will not stop until ithas effected tremendous and possiblydecisive changes in the whole life,thought and structure of Europe. Itdoes not follow even that thisprogress will be gradual. It may leapforward in a huge bound of spontaneousconviction. It may even proveto be the surest means of lifting themind of European nations out of theruck of old feuds and ghastlyrevenges. It may afford a rallyingground where socialists and capitalists,where nationalists and pacifists,where idealists and businessmen maystand together. It may be the surestof all the guarantees against therenewal of great wars.The League of Nations, fromwhich the United States have soimprudently—considering their vastand increasing interests—absentedthemselves, has perforce become infact, if not in form, primarily aEuropean institution. CountKoudenhove-Calergi proposes toconcentrate European forces, interestsand sentiments in a singlebranch which, if it grew, wouldbecome the trunk itself, and thusacquire obvious predominance. Forthink how mighty Europe is, but forits divisions!Let Russia slide back, as CountCalergi proposes, and as is already solargely a fact, into Asia. Let theBritish Empire, excluded in his plan,realize its own world-spread ideal;even so, the mass of Europe, onceunited, once federalized or partiallyfederalized, once continentally selfconscious—Europe,with its Africanand Asiatic possessions and plantations—wouldconstitute an organismbeyond compare.t is evident that up to a certainIpoint the developments nowin actual progress will bewholly beneficial. In so far asthe movement European unityexpresses itself by the vast increase ofwealth which would follow from it,by the ceaseless diminution of armieswhich would attend it by everincreasingguarantees against therenewal of war, it bodes no ill to therest of the world. On the contrary, itcan only bring benefits to everynation whose interests are identicalwith the general interests ofmankind. But clearly there are limits,now assuredly to be reached in ourlifetime, beyond which a UnitedStates of Europe might revive on ascale more vast, and in a degreeimmeasurably more terrible, therivalries from which we have sufferedso cruelly in our own age.A day of fate and doom formen will dawn if ever the old quar-FINEST HOUR 130 / 46rels of countries are superseded bythe strife of continents; ifEurope, Asia andAmerica, living,coherent and potentiallyarmed entities,come to watch oneanother through the eyes with whichGermany, France, Russia and Italylooked in the twentieth century.Conflicts of countries are, we trust,ended. They must not be succeededby the antagonisms of continents.But surely, after all they have gonethrough, men will have the wit andvirtue to take the good and leave thebad; to the high road which leads towealth and power, without beingdrawn down the fatal turning toshame and ruin.The attitude of Great Britaintowards European unification or“federal links” would, in the firstinstance, be determined by her dominantconception of a united BritishEmpire. Every step that tends tomake Europe more prosperous andmore peaceful is conducive to Britishinterests. We have more to lose bywar than any human organizationthat has ever existed. The peculiarstructure and distribution of theBritish Empire or Commonwealth ofNations is such that our safety hasincreasingly been found in reconcilingand identifying British interestswith the larger interests of the world.The prosperity of others makes forour own prosperity; their peace isour tranquillity; their progresssmooths our path.We are bound to further everyhonest and practical step which thenations of Europe may make toreduce the barriers which dividethem and to nourish their commoninterests and their common welfare.We rejoice at every diminution ofthe internal tariffs and the martialarmaments of Europe. We see nothingbut good and hope in a richer,freer, more contented European >>

“Every step taken to that endwhich appeases the obsoletehatred and vanished oppressions...isgood for all.”commonalty. But we have our owndream and our own task.We are with Europe, but not ofit. We are linked, but not comprised.We are interested and associated, butnot absorbed. And should Europeanstatesmen address us in the wordswhich were used of old, “Wouldestthou be spoken for to the king, orthe captain of host?,” we shouldreply, with the Shunammite woman:“I dwell among mine own people.”ut even this compulsive conceptionmust be reconciledBwith other forms of Britishinterest. The policy ofCanning has endowed uswith holdings and connections inSouth America, and notably theArgentine, which, although in noway affecting the sovereignty of independentstates, are of solid anddurable importance to us. Thescheme of a British Empire economicallyself-conscious, a commercialunit, even perhaps a fiscal unit, cannever be widely expressed in exclusiveterms.Here then, is an aspect of theBritish Empire which the people ofthe United States would do well tostudy. The King’s dominions circlethe globe. We can never lend ourselvesto any antagonism, howeverunlikely or remote, economic or warlike,between continents or hemispheres.We belong to no single continent,but to all. Not to one hemisphere,but to both; as well to theNew World as to the Old. TheBritish Empire is a leading Europeanpower. It is a great and growingAmerican power. It is the Australasianpower. It is one of the greatestAsiatic powers. It is the leadingAfrican power. Great Britain herselfhas for centuries been the provedand accepted champion of Europeanfreedom. She is the centre and headof the British Commonwealth ofNations. She is an equal partner inthe English-speaking world.It is at this point that the significanceof Canada appears.Canada, which is linked to theBritish Empire, first by the growingimportance of her own nationhood,and, secondly, by many ancient andsentimental ties precious to youngand strong communities, is at thesame time intimately associated withthe United States. The long,unguarded frontier, the habits andintercourse of da ily life, the fruitfuland profitable connections of business,the sympathies and even theantipathies of honest neighbourliness,make Canada a binder-togetherof the English-speaking peoples. Sheis a magnet, exercis ing a doubleattraction, drawing both GreatBritain and the United Statestowards herself, and thus drawingthem closer to each other. She is theonly surviving bond which stretchesfrom Europe across the AtlanticOcean. Her power, her hopes, herfuture guarantee the increasing fellowshipof the Nordic races of theEast and of the West; in fact, nostate, no country, no band of mencan more truly be described as thelinchpin of peace and world progress.It is possible to set forth thefinal conclusions of this brief examinationof these deep and long-flowingtides. The conception of aUnited States of Europe is right.Every step taken to that end whichappeases the obsolete hatred andvanished oppressions, which makeeasier the traffic and reciprocal servicesof Europe, which encourages itsnations to lay aside their precautionarypanoply, is good in itself, is goodfor them and good for all.It is, however, imperative that,FINEST HOUR 129 / 47WHO WILLREMEMBER WINSTONCHURCHILL?Will future generationsremember?Will the ideas you cherish nowbe sustained then?Who will guide yourgrandchildren, and your country?There is an answer.The Churchill Centre Associates(page 2) have each committed$10,000 or more, over five years,all tax-deductible, toThe Churchill Centre Endowment.Its earnings guarantee thatThe Churchill Centre will endureas a powerful voice,sustaining beliefsWinston Churchill held dear.Now. And for future generations.To join us please contactRichard M. Langworth,Chairman, Board of Trustees(888) 454-2275malakand@adelphia.netas Europe advances towards higherinternal unity, there shall be a proportionategrowth of solidaritythroughout the British Empire, andalso a deepening self-knowledge andmutual recognition among theEnglish-speaking people.Then, without misgiving andwithout detachment, we can watchand aid the assuagement of theEuropean tragedy, and without envysurvey their sure and sound approachto mass wealth; being very consciousthat every stride towards Europeancohesion which is beneficial to thegeneral welfare will make us a partnerin their good fortune, and thatany sinister tendencies will berestrained or corrected by our unitedstrength. ,

I M M O R TA L W O R D S : “ T H E S E N I O R D O M I N I O N O F T H E C R O W N ”“It is with feelings of pride and encouragementthat I find myself here in the House of Commons of Canada,invited to address the Parliamentof the senior Dominion of the Crown.I am very glad to see again my old friend Mr. Mackenzie King,for fifteen years out of twenty your Prime Minister....We are most grateful for all you have done in the common cause,and we know that you are resolved to dowhatever more is possible as the need arises,and as opportunity serves.Canada occupies a unique position in the British Empirebecause of its unbreakable ties with Britainand its every-growing friendshipand intimate association with the United States.Canada is a potent magnet,drawing together those in the new world and in the oldwhose fortunes are now united in a deadly struggle for life and honouragainst the common foe.The contribution of Canada to the Imperial war effort,in troops, in ships, in aircraft, in food, and in finance, has been magnificent....Ici, au Canada, ou la langue française est honorée et parlée,nous nous tenons préts et armés pour aider et pour saluer cette résurrection nationale....The French Government had at their own suggestion solemnly bound themselvesnot to make a separate peace.It was their duty and it was also their interest to go to North Africa,where they would have been at the head of the French Empire....But their generals misled them.When I warned them that Britain would fight on alonewhatever they did,their generals told their Prime Minister, and his divided Cabinet:“In three weeks England will have her neck wrung like a chicken.”Some chicken! Some neck!Evidently the most strenuous exertions must be made by us all....Let us then address ourselves to our task,not in any way underrating its tremendous difficulties and perils,but in good heart and sober confidence, resolved that,whatever the cost, whatever the suffering,we shall stand by one another, true and faithful comrades,and do our duty, God helping us, to the end.”—WSC, JOINT SESSION OF THE CANADIAN PARLIAMENT, 30 DECEMBER 1941