I HE JOURNAL Ol ; WINSTON CHURCHILL

N I : M J - : K 1 3:5

THE CHURCHILL CENTRE AND SOCIETIES

UNITED STATES UNITED KINGDOM CANADA PORTUGAL AUSTRALIA
PATRON: THE LADY SOAMES LG DBE WWW.WINSTONCHURCHILL.ORG

Founded in 1968 to foster leadership, statesmanship, vision, courage and boldness among democratic % and freedom-loving peoples worldwide, through the thoughts, words, works and deeds of Winston Spencer Churchill.
THE CENTRE IS THE SUCCESSOR TO THE CHURCHILL STUDY C.\TT (1968) AND THE INTERNATIONAL CHURCHILL SOCIETY, UNITED STATES (1971). ACADEMIC ADVISERS Prof. James W. Muller, Chairman University of Alaska, Anchorage 2410 Galewood Street, Anchorage AK 99508 Tel. (907) 786-4740 Fax (907) 786-4647 Email: afjwm@uaa.alaska.edu Prof. John A. Ramsden, Vice Chairman Queen Mary College, University of London Prof. Paul K. Alkon, University of Southern California Sir Martin Gilbert CBE, Merton College, Oxford Col. David Jablonsky, U.S. Army War College Prof. Warren F. Kimball, Rutgers University Prof. John Maurer, U.S. Naval War College Prof. David Reynolds, Christ's College, Cambridge Dr. Jeffrey Wallm, American Academy of Liberal Education COLLEGE OF FELLOWS Dr. Larry P. Arnn, President, Hillsdale College Dr. Geoffrey Best, St. Anthony's College. Oxford Dr. Piers Brcndon, (Churchill College, Cambridge Kirk R. Emmcrt, Kenyon College Dr. Barry Gough, Wilfrid Laurier University Steven F. Hayward, American Enterprise Institute Prof. Cameron Hazlehurst, Australian National University Prof. Patrick J.C. Powers, Magdalen College Prof. Paul A. Rahe, University ofTulsa Prof. David Stafford, University of Edinburgh Dr. Manfred Wcidhorn, Ycshiva University LEADERSHIP & SUPPORT NUMBER TEN CLUB Contributors of $10,000 annually to the work of the Centre: Laurence S. Geller J. Willis Johnson Michael D. Rose Michael J. Scully CHURCHILL CENTRE ASSOCIATES Associates are contributors to The Churchill Endowment, which offers three levels: $10,000, $25,000 and $50,000*. inclusive of bequests. Endowment earnings support the work of The Churchill Centre. Winston Churchill Associates The Annenberg Foundation David & Diane Bolcr Colin D. Clark Fred Farrow Mr. & Mrs. Parker H. Lee III Michael & Carol McMenamin David & Carole Noss Ray & Patricia Orban Wendy Russell Revcs Elizabeth Churchill Sncll Mr. & Mrs. Matthew B Wills Alex M. Worth Jr. Clementine Churchill Associates Ronald D. Abramson Winston S. Chutchill Marcus & Molly Frost Jeanette & Angelo Gabriel Craig & Lorraine Horn ' James F. Lane Barbara & Richard Langworth John & Susan Mather Linda & Charles Platt Amb. & Mrs. Paul H. Robinson Jr. James R. & Lucille I. Thomas Mary Soames Associates Dr. & Mrs. John V. Banta Solveig & Randy Barber GaryJ. Bonine Susan & Daniel Borinsky Nancy Bowers Lois Brown Carolyn & Paul Brubaker Nancy H. Canary Dona & Bob Dales Jeffrey & Karen De Haan Sam & Judith Dodson Gary Garrison Ruth & Laurence Geller Frederick & Martha Hardman Leo Hindery, Jr Bill & Virginia Ives J. Willis Johnson Mr. & Mrs. Gerald Drake Kambestad Elaine Kendall David M. & Barbara A. Kirr Phillip & Susan Larson Ruth J. Lavine Mr. & Mrs. Richard A. Leahy Philip & Carole Lyons Richard & Susan Mastio Cyril & Harriet Mazansky Michael W. Michclson Mr. & Mrs. James W. Muller Wendell & Martina Musscr Bond Nichols Earl & Charlotte Nicholson Bob & Sandy Odell Df. & Mrs. Malcolm Page Ruth & John Plumpton Hon. Douglas S. Russell Daniel & Suzanne Sigman Shanin Specter Robert M. Stephenson Richard & Jenny Streiff Peter J. Travcrs Gabriel Urwitz Damon Wells Jr. Jacqueline Dean Witter

GOVERNORS AND TRUSTEES Dr. John V. Banra Randy Barber Winston S. Churchill Paul H. Courtenay Senator Richard J. Durbin Governor Jim Edgar Marcus Frost Gary Garrison Laurence S. Geller " Christopher Hebb Judith Mills Kambestad The Hon. Jack Kemp Christopher Matthews Nigel Knocker OBE Richard M. Langworth CBE James W. Muller Amb. Paul H. Robinson, Jr. The Hon. Celia Sandys Michael J. Scully Suzanne Sigman HONORARY MEMBERS Winston S. Churchill Sir Martin Gilbert CBE The Lord Deedes KBE MC PC DL Robert Hardy CBE The Lord Heseltine CH PC The Duke of Marlborough JP DL Sir Anthony Montague Browne KCMG CBE DFC Elizabeth Nel The Hon. Colin L. Powell KCB Ambassador Paul H. Robinson, Jr. The Lady Thatcher LG OM PC FRS OFFICERS Laurence S. Geller, President 77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 4600, Chicago IL 60601 Tel. (312) 658-5006 Fax (312) 658-5797 Email: Igellcr@strategichotels.com Suzanne Sigman, Secretary 42 Dudley Lane, Milton MA 02186 Tel. (617) 696-1833 Fax (617) 696-7738 Email: s.sigman@comcast.net Christopher Hebb, Treasurer 1806-1111 W. Georgia St., Vancouver BC V6E 4M3 Tel. (604) 209-6400 Email: cavelLcapital@tdus.net BUSINESS OFFICE Daniel N. Myers, Executive Director 1 ] 50 Seventeenth Street, N.W., Suite 307 Washington DC 20036 Tel. (888) WSC-1874 Fax (202) 223-4944 Email: dmyers@winsEonchurchill.org UNITED STATES CHAPTERS The Churchill Centre is represented in the United States by local organizers in Alaska, Arizona, California (3), Chicago, DC/De!marva, Denver, Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Nashville, Nebraska, New England, New Orleans, New York City, North Carolina, Ohio, Philadelphia and Texas (2). Sec inside back cover for local contacts. AFFILIATES California Churchilhans (Desert, North & South) Rocky Mountain Churchillians WC Society of Georgia North Carolina Churchillians SWSCS Vancouver Island Washington Society for Churchill INTERNET SERVICES Website: www.winstonchurchill.org Website committee: David A. Turrell, Chairman Paul Brubaker Ian W. D. Langworth John David Olsen Todd A. Ronnet Daniel N. Myers, Webmaster. Listserv: http://groups.googIe.com/grottp/ChurchillChat Moderator: Jonah Triebwasser THE CHURCHILL CENTRE SUPPORTS AND WORKS WITH THE FOLLOWING FRATERNAL INSTITUTIONS Chartwell, Westerham, Kent Churchill Archives Centre, Cambridge Churchill Memorial Trust, UK and Austfalia Churchill Museum and Cabinet War Rooms, London Harrow School, Harrow-on-the Hill, Middlesex Winston Churchill Memorial & Library, Fulton, Missouri

ALLIES INTL. CHURCHILL SOCIETY (UNITED KINGDOM) Nigel Knocker OBE, Chairman: PO Box 1257, Melksham, Wilts. SN12 6GQ Tel. & Fax (01380) 828609 Email: nigel.knocker@btinternet.com TRUSTEES The Hon. Cclia Sandys, Chairman The Duke of Marlborough JP DL David Bolcr David Porter Geoffrey Wheeler COMMITTEE Nigel Knocker OBE, Chairman Paul H. Courtenay, Vice Chairman & Hon. Secretary Anthony Woodhead CBE FCA, Hon. Treasurer Smith Benson Etic Bingham Robin Rrodhurst Randolph S. Churchill Robert Courts Geoffrey Fletcher Derek Greenwell Rafal Hcydel-Mankoo Michael Kelion Amanda Laurence Michael Moody Brian Singleton

INTL. CHURCHILL SOCIEIY OF CANADA Ambassador Kenneth W Taylor, Honorary Chairman Randy Barber, President 14 Honeybournc Crescent, Markham ON L3P IP3 Tel. (905)201-6687 Email: randybarber@sympatico.ca Jeanette Webber, Membership Secretary RR4, 14 Carter Road, Lion's Head ON NOH 1 WO Tel. (519) 592-3082 " Email: jeanette.webbcr@sympatico.ca Charles Andetson, Treasurer 489 Stanficld Drive, Oakvillc ON L6L 3R2 Tel. (905) 827-0819 Email: cwga@sympatico.ca INTL. CHURCHILL SOCIETY OF PORTUGAL Joao Carlos Espada, President Institute) de Estudos Poh'ticos Universidadc Catolica Portugucsa Palma de Cjma 1649-023, Lisbon Tel. (351) 21 7214129 Email: jcspada@iep.ucp.pt CHURCHILL CENTRE AUSTRALIA Neil Kenworthy, Vice President Unit 2, 3 Martha St., Donvalc, Victoria 3111 Tel. 61-3-9841-8170 Email: neilkcn@bigpond.net.au "

THERE HON. SIR WINSTON SPENCER CHURCHILL SOCIETY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Christopher Hebb, President 1806-11 I I W. Georgia St., Vancouver BC V6E 4M3 Tel. (604) 209-6400 Email: cavell_capital@telus.nct THERT. HON. SIR WINSTON SPENCER CHURCHILL SOCIETY OF CALGARY Dr. Francis LeBlanc, President 126 Pinetrec Dr. SW, Calgary AB T3Z 3K4 Tel. (403) 685-5836 Email: ncuron@platinum.ca THERT. HON. SIR WINSTON SPENCER CHURCHILL SOCIEIY OF EDMONTON Dr. Edward Hutson, President 98 Rehwinkel Road, Edmonton AB T6R 1Z8 Tel. (780) 430-7178 Email: jchutson@shaw.ca THE RT. HON. SIR WINSTON SPENCER CHURCHILL SOCIEIY OF VANCOUVER ISLAND Barry Gough, President 3000 Dean Ave., HO. Box 5037, Victoria. BC V8R 6N3 Tel. (250) 592-0800 Email: bgough@wlu.ca

Member of Parliament for Dundee, 1908

SUMMER 2007 NUMBER 135

THE JOURNAL OF WINSTON CHURCHILL

14 The Commando Memorial, 21 May 1948 ^4 Speech by Winston S. Churchill 16 Troubled Triumvirate: The Big Three at the Summit by Hugh Lunghi "Applied Churchill" 24 "Behind the Distant Mountains Is the Promise of the Sun" The Editors 25 "Let Us Preach What We Practise": The Fulton Speech and Today's War by Christopher C. Harmon 32 The Protracted Conflict: Failing in Baghdad: The British Did It First by Toby Dodge 34 But Did Britain Fail? by David Freeman 35 Correspondence on Iraq, 1922 by Winston S. Churchill and David Lloyd George 37 The Protracted Conflict (2): Churchill and Lloyd George 1936-1945 by James Lancaster 40 Myth and Reality: What Did Churchill Really Think About the Jews? by Sir Martin Gilbert CBE 42 Churchill and the Tank (1): Present at the Creation by David Fletcher 45 Churchill and the Tank (2): In for the Duration by Marcus Frost 50 The Queen and Mr. Churchill by David Dilks 60 Interview: Churchill's Lessons of Leadership Sir Martin Gilbert with Peter Mansbridge 54 BOOKS, ARTS & CURIOSITIES Sinking Stones and Rising Waves among the avalanche of new Churchilliana ... Robert Courts and David Hatter stumble over the sinkers, while Paul Courtenay finds worthy company, and Christopher Sterling finds two winners and only one loser ... Sir Martin Gilbert goes "One on One" with Peter Mansfield ... James Lancaster taxes our brainpower ... Punch recalls the Good and the Great.
Despatch Box 4 Editor's Essay 7 Datelines 8 Around & About 13 Poems Churchill Loved 15 Riddles, Mysteries, Enigmas 23 Wit & Wisdom 39 Churchill Quiz 62 "Action This Day" and "Inside the Journals" will return next issue. Cover: Portrait of Churchill in Privy Counsellor uniform, painted for the National Liberal Club in 191 5 by Ernest Townsend. It was ready for presentation on 20 December 1915, but no opportunity was found for Churchill to unveil it. Later, when he was no longer persona grata with the Club, it was placed in storage. During World War II it was re-hung, but almost immediately damaged by bomb blast. After being restored, it was unveiled by Churchill himself in 1941. WSC w -w a member of the Club from 1906 until 1924, being a Liberal MP for nearly all of this period. (Sir Martin Gilbert, Winston S. Churchill vol . Ill, 708 note 1.) Copyright the Trustees of the National Liberal Club, published by kind permssion. Photography by Terry Moore.

DESPATCH BOX
JUNO BEACH CENTRE
To the Prime Minister, Ottawa: As one of the original members of the fund-raising team that solicited $8 million to open the Juno Beach Centre, I send my sincere thanks to you and your government for the recent commitment of additional funding. As President of the International Churchill Society, Canada, I attended a tour of the Normandy beaches with Sir Winston's daughter Lady Soames (nee Mary Churchill), in October 2004. I was never so proud to be a Canadian as when this multinational group toured this "piece of Canada." Like many, I had a father and grandfather who fought there. Everyone in our party was complimentary on the content and focus of Canada's wartime contribution as depicted in the Juno Beach Centre. Please know that there are many Canadians who applaud your initiative.
RANDY BARBER, MARKHAM, ONT.

NOT "DEAD DRUNK"

An author's note to "Like Goldfish in a Bowl" (FH 134: 33) quotes me as saying I helped a "dead drunk" Churchill and Eden home after a long dinner with the Russians at Teheran. Let me please correct that: to me "dead drunk" means horizontal. Sir Winston was not so far along as that. He was still walking, just...so much that I put my arm within his to hold him steady and had a corporal do the same to Mr. Eden. Thus they were able to walk straight and upright to the British Consulate. Indeed they need not have walked, because a limousine had been provided, but they decided to do so because it was a fine, clear night. "Inside the Journals" on the next page accurately describes Stalin's custom of multiple toasts, which he always performed while remaining firmly sober himself. WSC and Eden were thus affected on that occasion, but were yet able to walk home in true British fashion after a heavy night, talking loudly but not singing, and living to fight another day!
DANNY MANDER, LOS GATOS, CALIF.

Number 135 Summer 2007 ISSN 0882-3715

www.winstonchurchi
Barbara F. Langworth, Publisher (blangworth@adelphia.nct) Richard M. Langworth CBE, Editor (malakand@langworth.name) Post Office Box 740 Moultonborough, NH 03254 USA Tel. (603) 253-8900 December-March Tel. (242) 335-0615

James Lancasrer James W. Muller Ron Cynewulr Robb News Editor: [ohn Frost

EVEREST REMEMBERED
How enjoyable was Geoffrey Fletcher's two-part article, "Spencer Churchill (p) at Harrow" {FH 133-34). Having visited the school on the wonderful Churchill tour organized by The Churchill Centre last year, I could much more easily envision the scenes he recreated and appreciate the environment he describes. The part about Mrs. Everest is particularly touching, and so like Churchill. The tour party visited Mrs. Everest's grave last year, and laid a wreath on itvery appropriate.
EARL M. BAKER, WAYNE, PENNA.

Alfred James, Australia; Terry Reardon, Canada; Inder Dan Ratnu, India; Paul Addison, Winston S. Church Sir Martin Gilbert CBE, Allen Packwood, United Kingdom; David Freeman, Ted Hutchinson Warren F. Kimball, Michael McMcnamin, Don Piepe Manfred We

Mr. Mander's adventures, written through an interview by Susan Kidder, are coming up in a future issue. Ed.

LORD CHARLES BERESFORD

On the back cover of FH 134, the seaman in the pool with his telescope on Churchill is more likely Admiral Lord Charles Beresford, who at the time was retired from the Navy and serving as Conservative MP for Portsmouth. He was a frequent critic in Parliament of Liberal naval administration under Churchill. (A drawing in Punch for 1 November 1911 depicts Haldane, the outgoing First Lord of the Admiralty, saying to his successor: "And you can handle Beresford," acknowledging his thorn-in-the-side status.) The drawing may have been influenced by the 1912 Olympic games in Stockholm, which ran 5 May to 22 July.
JOHN S. McCLEOD, JR., MILFORD, CONN.

I'm glad you enjoyed my piece. Some years ago ICS (UK) held ourAGM at the school and I met fellow Churchillians from the United States who were in England and were welcome guests. The conversation turned to the public (private) school system in the UK which for many years produced most senior politicians and civil servants. Churchill had four Old Harrovians in his 1940 Cabinet: L.S. Amery,].T.C. MooreBrabazon, D. Margesson and G. Lloyd. This gave me the idea for the article. Churchill's schooldays in my opinion forged his character, particularly between 1888 and 1892, but have not been fully researched. I am not an Old Harrovian but I was at a similar school; times had not changed very much in my time! G]F
FINEST HOUR 135/4

See corrections on this issue's back cover. Photos of Beresford and Bridgeman suggest that either would fit the cartoon, but we believe you are correct, in that all the other figures are political, and Bridgeman was not. I probably put two and two together and made five when I assumed that a uni-

formed admiral was the First Sea Lord. Many thanks for the context: the concurrent Olympics was undoubtedly the inspiration for the cartoon. PHC

ISSUES OVER "ISSUES"

family, the withering of liberal-arts education, the constriction of economic freedom, the corrosion of aesthetic standards, soaring crime rates, drug addiction and the collapse of music and you're worried by the rotting of the language? One thing at a time!
JAMES MACK, FAIRFIELD, OHIO

bottle of corked wine, and the waiter responded that we had "not ordered the best stuff." Please speed this piece to the website so that it reaches a larger audience than the privileged few thousand of Finest Hour. It deserves more.
PARKER H. LEE III, LYNCHBURG, VA.

I liked and agreed with your two rants in 133, on "political agitators" (p. 4) and our lovely language (46). Even though you're full of old prunes on the Baltics and our boy, your rants are spot on.
PROF. WARREN KIMBALL, JOHN ISLAND, S.C.

Prof Kimball refers to the editor's article, "Churchill and the Baltics, " FH 53 and54 (see http://xrl.us/wqqu). He has a long memory. Ed. Your essay on page 46 was beautiful. Everyone over 15 should be required to read it. "Issues" isn't the only silly substitute for "problems." There is also "challenges," which drives me particularly mad....
ROBERT DISQUE, MILFORD, CONN.

Delighted to read your gripe about "issues." It's been bugging me for years and I thought I was alone. Well, now there are at least two of us. Perhaps we can make an issue of it?
PROF. DAVID STAFFORD, UNIV. OF EDINBURGH

I have the deepest respect for the editor for his singular contribution to The Churchill Centre and exemplary editorship of Finest Hour. But as a "secular humanist" I must disagree with the blame he spreads on us for problems that really originate in the far left wing. I would agree that many so-called secular humanists are indeed leftists, and with whom I have disagreements. But the essence of the secular humanist's worldview is scientific naturalism, along with the notion that moral and ethical codes can be based on reason and logic as opposed to the supernatural (e.g., be good or you will rot in Hell). It is important to keep a distinction between politics and world view. Just as there is no direct equivalence between "conservative" and "evangelical Christian," there is none between "secular humanist" and "liberal." Michelle Phillips' Londonistan discusses the appalling failure of the Labour government of Tony Blair and the Church of England to contain the threat of Muslim extremism in the UK. This is not a failure of secular humanism, but a failure of political liberalism. Aside from this "issue" I heartily agree with the rest of the essay.
GREGORY B. SMITH, SONOMA, CALIF.

Let me join any line forming to shake your hand and offer praise for that editorial. It needed to be said and was said well. I do think the occasional infinitive needs to be split, but this is a subject on which people of good will may differ.
TERRY McGARRY, ENCINO, CALIF.

I have had issues with "issues" for some time now. The horrible misuse of language today is a problem for me. Your views on what Churchill meant by "Christian civilization," and on "we" vs. "they," PC filters and split infinitives, were insightful, enjoyable and reassuring. Until reading it I had quite a sense of isolation on these matters.
JOHN B. TUCKER, NEW LONDON, N.H. FORMER SPEAKER, NEW HAMPSHIRE HOUSE

You succinctly reflect my sentiments on this overused, misapplied and increasingly irrelevant word. Its use, together with the flood of revisionist notions parading as historical fact, are a constant, deplorable presence in today's world. Thank you for your thoughtful and entertaining piece.
ROBIN BATES, MESA, ARIZ.

I have read with approval your essay on the subject of "Issues."

PROF. DAVID DILKS, UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS

If I had it to write it again, Greg, I would drop the label "secular humanist" which, like all labels, can be misconstrued, and misapplied. Ed. The piece on "Issues" was some of your best stuff, reminding me of the night in the Lochober's Restaurant in Boston, when we had "issues" with a
FINEST HOUR 135/5

Why should you be so exercised by newspeak like "issues"? After all, we've witnessed the breakdown of the

My attention was grabbed by the juxtaposition of quotes from Churchill and Bill O'Reilly. Clearly this was an essay demanding to be read. You propose that "the campaign to eradicate the traditional values and mores of Western Civilization is ceaseless." Who are conspiring in this "campaign"? The "secular humanists." Who are they? Those "who would have us believe that the Western democracies are no better than Nazis, Soviets, or Islamofascists." This is a conspicuous example of the fallacy of the straw man, a tactic much practiced by Mr. O'Reilly: Take the most extreme loonies on the left and then hold them up as representative of all who may have liberal

DESPATCH BOX
sympathies. Whether it reflects cynical strategy or intellectual lassitude, it does a disservice to all who strive to understand and respect one another. I know personally a number of secular humanists. None of them "would have us believe" anything of the sort. To the contrary, they cherish their country and its founding principles and actually take great delight in its history and know it quite well, indeed better than most. They are also proud of the artistic and scientific achievements its freedoms have fostered and the beneficent effect it has had on the world at large. But they also recognize that its history is not spotless. Especially of late. And for that reason, they find it more creditable to direct their energies toward making it better rather than crowing about it. Besides that, they're uncomfortable flaunting their happy circumstances before a world where few are as fortunate as they. Although secular humanists may have trouble distinguishing religious belief from superstition, that does not mean they do not esteem the traditions of their culture nor embrace its ethics. They see themselves very much in step with the "Man of the 20th Century," who, as Paul Addison wrote, "substituted a secular belief in historical progress...[f]or orthodox religion." They also tend to think that the bugaboo of "P.C. filters" has done considerably less violence to the language and to the culture's traditions and history than national leaders who show a complacent ignorance of that language and that history. And they are puzzled why any devotee of the profoundly intellectual, knowledgeable and hardworking Churchill would expend precious stores of outrage on vague "campaigns" rather than on incurious and disengaged leaders who continue to wield actual power in a manner so destructive of "the traditional values and mores of Western Civilization." Finally, while it may be easy for a Christian to accept that the term "Christian civilisation" is "not mean[t] to exclude Jews or Buddhists or Muslims," I'm not so sure they can expect Jews, Buddhists, and Muslims to nents labeling them "surrender monkeys. " Not to mention what imams are saying about our stained history in the mosques our tolerant societies allow in our midst. "Queen. House of Commons. If you accept it, you are a part of it. If you don't accept it, you have to fix a target. " That's what those moderate voices directing their energies to making the world better are saying in civilized, easy-going Derby, England. Or at the mosque in Birmingham, praised by Tony Blair for DOUG PEINE, ST. PAUL, MINN. its contribution to tolerance, on the death of a British soldier in Afghanistan: "The hero of Islam is the one who separated his head from his shoulders. " Our children are being taught to "understand and respect" such voices, who are not a problem but an "issue"; after all, "they" are entitled to their opinion, our own history is not spotless, and "we" should devote our energy to making it better, not crowing about it. But Churchill believed crowing was indispensable, offering those "less fortunate than us" to glimpse the possibilities: "We must never cease to proclaim in fearless tones the great principles of freedom and the rights of man which are the joint inheritance of the English-speaking world and which, through Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, the Habeas Corpus, Thanks for the kind words about trial by jury, and the English common Finest Hour. And please let me apologize law, find their most famous expression in unreservedly if I tarred any traditionthe American Declaration of Indepenloving secular humanist. But "national dence. " Let us do more crowing. While leaders who show a complacent ignorance we still can. Ed. of that language and that history" were not my point. Yes, Churchill was a secu "The worst difficulties from larist, who forsook the "superstitions" of which we suffer do not come from orthodox religion. That didn't prevent without. They come from within. They him from deploying orthodox Christianity come from a peculiar type of brainy which, come to think of it, encompasses people always found in our country, the same "common courtesy"you cite. who, if they add something to its culWhy cant we expect Jews, Buddhists ture, take much from its strength. Our and Muslims to accept Churchill's applidifficulties come from the mood of cation of Christian principles to world unwarrantable self-abasement into affairs? Most of them did in 1940. What which we have been cast by a powerful a shame that it takes looming extinction section of our own intellectuals. They for people to grasp the broader interpreta- come from the acceptance of defeatist tion of Churchill's frequent references to doctrines by a large proportion of our "Christian civilization." politicians....Nothing can save England The "issue" with "common courtesy" if she will not save herself. If we lose is that courtesy is no longer common. Not faith in ourselves, in our capacity to when you have elected, presumably sane guide and govern, if we lose our will to leaders comparing a President or Pri live, then indeed our story is told." me Minister with Hitler, or their oppoWSC, 24 April 1933
FINEST HOUR 135/6

feel the same. In any event, it seems a point of common courtesy more than anything else. I suppose it's a good thing every now and then for all of us to get something off our chests. But sometimes, given the emotional rather than rational origins of the urge, the act ends up revealing more about our mood at the moment than our considered ideas. Thanks for a great publication on the greatest man.

EDITOR'S ESSAY

History on the Cheap

GENERATIONAL CHAUVINISM? MAJOR CROUTONS IN THE CHURCHILL SOUP
n outbreak of pernicious pronouncements on Churchill and his times by a number of authors raises the question: will history join the lost arts? We are not at "the end of history," as Francis Fukuyama famously suggested, before 9/11 proved him wrong. But could we be approaching the end of good history? Examples abound in this issue: a pronouncement that Churchill didn't read serious books and borrowed his ideas from H.G. Wells (page 10); an assertion that Churchill was a closet anti-Semite (page 40); and three new books making further fallacious pronouncements unleavened by rival facts and opinions (page 54). Charles Higham's Churchill's Bodyguard (FH 133) is so packed with errors as to cast doubt on his basic Churchill knowledge. Higham's latest book, Dark Lady, suffers from similar errors, while adding "a soup bowl of scandals" and a "forest of family trees." From Churchill's War Rooms is a book that has virtually nothing to do with Churchill; adding him to the title was done to boost sales. Gordon Corrigan's Blood, Sweat and Arrogance, like some books before it, sets out with preconceived notions and considers only the facts that support them. With perfect hindsight, Corrigan assures us that sinking the French fleet at Oran in 1940 was unnecessary, and that Churchill himself lacked intellectual curiosityso ridiculous a theory that one wonders if he read any serious biography. Such writers share a penchant for selective research and "Generational Chauvinism": a phrase coined by William Manchester to describe the judging of past events by modern standards or hindsight. Faith in the French Army of 1940 was "idiocy," Corrigan writes, forgetting that everyone at the time (except the Germans) thought the French unbeatable. Higham dwells on the social inequities of the Edwardian era as if he has just discovered them. Richard Toye dubs Churchill an anti-Semite on the basis of a draft someone else wrote, ignoring WSC's massive pro-Semitic record. Higham doesn't like Lord Randolph, so he assures us that Queen Victoria "detested" him, which may be true but does not define Lord Randolph. Churchill didn't readily warm to strangers, so Corrigan concludes that he was an introvert. Withal they are irritatingly smug, constantly asserting their superiority over predecessors who navigated the same waters with perhaps more judgment and balance. Cheap history is encouraged by the Internet, our electronic Hyde Park Corner: a double-edged sword of opinion from sublime to preposterous; and by the expansion of news outlets to a 24/7 cacophony. In such a soup, it is much easier to become a Major Crouton by proclaiming Churchill an anti-Semite than by acknowledging his lifelong Zionism. A new book by Geoffrey Roberts claims that in 1948, Stalin told somebody in the U.S. State Department that he hoped to "do business" with Americathat if he had been born American he would have been a businessman. Could this be another isolated fact that some may seize upon to argue that Stalin was really a benign, misunderstood uncle? I have not read the book and do not presume to judge it. A scholar friend assures me that Roberts' writing is not the same breed of silliness as these others: "Were we wrong about Uncle Joe? Wrong (or not wrong) when? There is absolutely no doubt that FDR and WSC were frequently wrong about Uncle Joe. But is that a universal? That they were wrong about the degree of his power over his advisers is, I think, not irrelevant. Or were they correct?" In those few lines a professional historian offers the alternative to cheap history. There are always practical possibilities, new avenues of thought or inquiry, which might change our view of What Really Happened. But these are not explored with out-of-context quotations or pre-fab conclusions designed to fit a mind-set. "No one is obliged to alter the opinions which he has formed or expressed upon issues which have become a part of history," Churchill said in 1940. "But at the Lychgate we may all pass our own conduct and our own judgments under a searching review....In one phase men seem to have been right, in another they seem to have been wrong. Then again, a few years later, when the perspective of time has lengthened, all stands in a different setting....History with its flickering lamp stumbles along the trail of the past, trying to reconstruct its scenes, to revive its echoes, and kindle with pale gleams the passion of former days." I hope history will continue to flicker on the trail of the past, and not become a discipline practiced by Politically Correct closed minds who have already decided (or have been told) what they must believe. RML V
FINEST HOUR 135/7

DATELINES
HANDING BACK THE FIRE HOSE
LONDON, DECEMBER 29TH Great Britain

Quotation of the Season

ike many others, I often summon up in my memory the impression of those July ^days....The old world in its sunset was fair to see. But there was a strange temper in the air. Unsatisfied by material prosperity, the nations turned restlessly towards strife internal or external. National passions, unduly exalted in the decline of religion, burned beneath the surface of nearly every land with fierce, if shrouded, fires. Almost one might think the world wished to suffer."
WSC, THE WORLD CRISIS, VOL. 1, CH. 8, 1923

completed her last $80 million installment on World War II debt to the United States, paid back with interest. When your neighbor's house is on fire, Franklin Roosevelt said in 1940, it is appropriate to lend him your hose. Well, the UK never forgot those loans, and paid them off with honor. JL
SUPPORTING ACTOR
LOS ANGELES, FEBRUARY 25TH W h e n

Helen Mirren won the Academy Award for best actress in "The Queen," we remembered a telling line in the motion picture, as Her Majesty informs Tony Blair that Winston Churchill "sat right in that spot" when she was new to the throne. Returning home from that excellent film, we tuned in to an older one, "An American in Paris." There is a scene where Gene Kelly is walking among the French painters; overlooking the sea is a robust older gentleman with a cigar, dabbing at a canvas. Kelly does a double-take: it is obviously Churchill, perennial bit player in films old and
new! EARL BAKER

Gleeson has built a reputation for playing a variety of Irish criminals and "wide-boys," such as Bunny Kelly in "I Went Down" and Walter McGinn in "Gangs of New York." Said Teri Hayden, the actor's agent: "The idea of an Irishman playing Churchill is fascinating." (Why, exactly? Ed.) Gleeson abandoned teaching for acting at the age of 34. After a couple of bit parts, his breakthrough role was in "Braveheart," playing Mel Gibson's right-hand man, Hamish. He has since worked with Steven Spielberg, Martin Scorsese and Anthony Minghella; starred opposite Nicole Kidman and Renee Zellweger in "Cold Mountain"; and had parts in "Mission Impossible II," "Troy," and "Artificial Intelligence."

and Clementine in the years leading up to the Second World War. Robert Hardy made the role famous in 1981's mini-series, "Winston Churchill: The Wilderness Years," as did Richard Burton before him in 1974's "The Gathering Storm." The most recent portrayal of Churchill was by Scottish actor Mel Smith in "Allegiance," a play by Mary Kenny that imagines what passed between Churchill and Michael Collins, the Irish rebel leader, when they met in London. Ironically, Gleeson also portrayed Collins on screen, in a 1991 television movie, "The Treaty." "It will probably annoy a few people," said the film critic Dave Fanning of Gleeson's casting in the role. "Brendan knows how to be

GLEESON TO PLAY WSC

LONDON, NOVEMBER 26TH D u b l i n e r

Brendan Gleeson, best known for his portrayal of Ireland's most notorious criminal, is to play Winston Churchill (proclaimed Britain's chief criminal by Nazi propagandists) in a sequel to Ridley Scott's "The Gathering Storm." The star of "The General" will take on his new role in "Churchill at War," which will be made by HBO, the American network behind "The Sopranos" and "Band of Brothers." The story centres on Churchill's leadership during the Second World War, but no British actor was deemed suitable for the role. Gleeson, 51, will deliver some of the Prime Minister's most famous orations, which gave inspiration to the nation.

WINSTONIAN: Brendan Gleeson (shown here as Professor "Mad-Eye"Moody in the Harry Potter films) will make a passable WSC in "Churchill at War."

Gleeson is following a line of venerable, and more obvious, Churchillian portraitists: Albert Finney won an Emmy and a Golden Globe for his depiction in 2002's "The Gathering Storm," a look at Churchill
FINEST HOUR 135/8

sloppy and gruff and Churchill was a bit of an awkward bloke. He'd be the right build and he could certainly slouch properly with the right coats on him. Ridley Scott wouldn't care that much about being 100% true to how the guy looks, as long as the feel of the movie is right. I think he'll be great." "Churchill at War" is being made by the same production team as Finney's Scott Free Productions, and is a follow-on. Rainmark Films, a London-based company, is a co-producer on the film, which will be shot in England and France this summer.
JAN BATTLES, THE SUNDAY TIMES

HOLOCAUST OFF LIMITS

LONDON, APRIL 2ND Schools are drop-

ping the Holocaust from history lessons to avoid offending Muslim pupils, a Government-backed study has revealed. It found some teachers are reluctant to cover the atrocity for fear of upsetting students whose beliefs include Holocaust denial. There is also resistance to tackling the 11 th century Crusades, where Christians fought Muslim armies for control of Jerusalem, because lessons often contradict what is taught in local mosques. The findings have prompted claims that some schools are using history "as a vehicle for promoting Political Correctness."
LAURA CLARK, DAILY MAIL

sprinkled with amusing anecdotes of bizarre episodes in far-flung libraries and archives. The evening was a tremendous success and it was good to see that even those who are not quite so devoted to the Great Man were able to appreciate the importance of Mr. Cohens achievement. It is clear that we can now divide Churchill bibliography into two eras: B.C. and C.E.: "Before Cohen" and "Cohen Era." We hope that readers who are unable to purchase their own copy will request that their library, particularly college and university libraries, acquire one.
RAFAL HEYDEL-MANKOO

JENNIE REMEMBERED
BATH, SOMERSET, APRIL

Churchillian comment: "All this is but a part of a tremendous educating process. But it is an education which passes in at one ear and out at the other. It is an education at once universal and superficial. It produces enormous numbers of standardized citizens, all equipped with regulation opinons, prejudices and sentiments, according to their class or party." WSC, "MASS EFFECTS IN MODERN
LIFE," THOUGHTS AND ADVENTURES, 1932

BIBLIOGRAPHY NIGHT
LONDON, FEBRUARY 27TH Canada House,

the elegant building on the west side of Trafalgar Square, was the scene last night for an enjoyable reception hosted by the High Commissioner for Canada, in celebration of Ronald Cohen's tremendous and exhaustive Bibliography of the Writings of Sir Winston Churchill. (See FH 133: 41. Speech will appear in FH 136.) Sir Martin Gilbert (who introduced the author) and Randolph Churchill, Sir Winston's great-grandson, were among the large number of attendees, a broad group reflecting the author's wide circle of contacts: archivists, historians, diplomats, book dealers and lawyers, with the occasional field marshal, peer and former Canadian prime minister thrown in. Cohen provided an entertaining and inspiring account of his long and challenging bibliographic journey,

1STA new exhibition on Sir Winston's mother, Lady Randolph Churchill, opened at the American Museum. A newspaper article refers to its title, "The Dollar Princess," repeating all the old canards about how many men she slept with, and how Lord Randolph died of syphilis (refuted long ago in FH 94). "She was the first woman of significance in British parliamentary politics," wrote Cassandra Jardine in the Daily Telegraph. This is too broad; at a time when women were not permitted to vote, let alone to be MPs, it is difficult to describe her as a force in parliamentary politics. Jennie was well read and politically sophisticated, and as Winston's life opened to him she proved adept at helping him get assignments he desired. While she did not influence policy, she certainly did influence at least one election. In 1885, when Lord Randolph was appointed to his first office, Secretary of State for India, convention compelled new ministerial appointees to resign as a Member of Parliament and stand for reelection. Jennie and her sister-in-law did all his campaigning personally, an unusual occurrence. It is doubtful that any women had done this before, let alone done it better. Jardine claims that Jennie wrote
FINEST HOUR 135 / 9

Lord Randolph's speeches and helped evolve his theme of Tory Democracy, assertions not verified by his biographers, including their son Winston. She did write her own speeches during the 1885 campaign, and received letters of congratulations from many, including the Prince of Wales. Jennie wrote perceptively in her 1908 memoirs: "In England, the American woman was looked upon as a strange and abnormal creature with habits and manner something between a red Indian and a Gaiety Girl....If she talked, dressed and conducted herself as any well-bred woman would...she was usually saluted with the tactful remark, 'I should never have thought you were an American,' which was intended as a compliment." Lady Randolph was a great woman whose example of drive and enterprise, from the Boer War hospital ship to the Anglo-Saxon Review, made her a commanding figure in her time. She was, on balance, an admirable mother. Winston and Jack always looked at her with pride and affection. The American Museum at Bath is a grand institution; we hope that their exhibit portrays Jennie for what she was, and not as the virago of popular myth and sensationalist biographers. continued overleaf >>

ERRATA, FH 133
Page 11, column 1, line 8: The selling price of the Churchill painting "View of Tinerhir" (prematurely stated as 350,000 against the previous auction record of 344,000) was underestimated; it was sold by Sotheby's for 612,800. Page 32, column 1, line 29: Churchill's Attorney-General was Donald Somervell, the son of Robert Somervell (not the son of H.O.D. Davidson). Page 33, column 2, line 27: Milbanke, a cavalryman, commanded the Sherwood Rangers, a yeomanry regiment (not a battalion of the Sherwood Foresters, who were infantry). Also, the picture of the school on this page is incorrect. It is of the Lower School of John Lyon, which was established in the 19th century, and the building was first occupied in 1876.

DATELINES TORONTO STATUE UPDATE

TORONTO, MARCH 25TH

ALEX HENSHAW
LONDON, FEBRUARY 24TH Alex Henshaw,

Finest Hour 117 included a report on a fund-raising drive to improve the area around the statue in City Hall Square, on the 25 th anniversary of its unveiling, by the present Winston Churchill, on 31 October 1977. The goal was $25,000 and, as noted in FH 123, $28,000 was raised from donors in six provinces. After the installation of four plaques recounting Churchill's life and achievements, eight park benches and trees, the site was rededicated by Mayor David Miller on 6 June 2004, the 60th anniversary of D-Day. Last year Toronto announced a $40 million design competition to revitalize the Square. Competition guidelines stated that the Henry Moore sculpture "The Archer" could not be touched, but the Churchill statue was "relocatable," either in the square or in some other part of Toronto. The International Churchill Society of Canada promoted retaining the Churchill statue in the Square, and this included radio and newspaper comments. In December a Toronto Sun columnist questioned why a statue of non-Torontonian should be there. Another columnist, Joe Warmington, replied that without Churchill "Toronto as we know it today might not even exist." He added: "It was a man named Churchill who was the beacon, and it was Churchill who sent the message that we would 'never surrender.' That should be enough; but go over to the memorial and read some of the passages, and tell me you don't get goose-bumps." On 8 March the winning design was picked from forty-eight entries and we are delighted to advise that the statue is to remain in City Hall Square, in an improved location. Our next task is to ensure that the four plaques are moved with the statueand, we trust, the park benches.
TERRY REARDON

who died on 24 February at the age of 94, was the principal test pilot for Spitfires and Lancasters, and a famous daredevil. Once he was asked to put on a show for the Lord Mayor of Birmingham's Spitfire Fund by flying at high speed above the city's main street. Civic dignitaries were not happy when he flew the plane upside down below the level of the Council House! Often, Henshaw would be called upon to demonstrate a Spitfire to groups of visiting VIPs. After one virtuoso performance, Churchill was so enthralled that he kept a special train waiting while he and Alex talked alone. Henshaw for his part considered Churchill "the greatest Englishman of all time, the man who saved the world." THE DAILY TELEGRAPH

BORROWED FROM WELLS?

LONDON, NOVEMBER 28TH C h u r c h i l l was

a closet science fiction fan who borrowed the lines for one of his "most famous speeches" from H.G. Wells, said Dr. Richard Toye, who claimed that the phrase, "The Gathering Storm" (the title of WSC's first volume of war memoirs) was written by Wells years earlier in The War of the Worlds. "It's a bit like Tony Blair borrowing phrases from Star Trek or Doctor Who," Dr. Toye said. "People look at politicians in the 20th century and presume their influences were big theorists and philosophers. What we forget is that Churchill and others were probably not interested in reading that stuff when they got home after a hard day in the House of Commons. Churchill was definitely a closet science-fiction fan. In fact, one of his criticisms of Wells' A Modem Utopia (1905) was that there was too much thought-provoking stuff and not enough action." In 1901, Wells wrote a book of predictions, Anticipations, calling for a scientifically organised "new republic," with state support for citizens. Winston Churchill wrote to Wells: "I read everything you write," adding that he agreed with many of his ideas. Two days later Churchill gave an address to the
FINEST HOUR 135/10

Scottish Liberal Council in Glasgow, in which he said the state should support its "left out millions." In 1931, Churchill admitted that he knew Wells's work so well he could pass an exam in it. "We need to remember that there was a time when Churchill was a radical Liberal who believed these things," Toye explained. "Wells is often seen as a socialist, but he also saw himself as a Liberal, and he saw Churchill as someone whose views were moving in the right direction." Wells advocated the idea of selective breeding, arguing that people should only be able to have children if they met certain conditions such as physical fitness and financial independence. Churchill told Wells he admired "the skill and courage with which the questions of marriage and population were discussed." Wells predicted the political unification of "the English-speaking states" into "a great federation of white English-speaking peoples." Churchill often argued for the "fraternal association" of those nations, and even wrote a four-volume History of the EnglishSpeaking Peoples.
SARAH CASSIDY, THE TIMES

Churchillian comment: In January Dr. Toye represented somebody else's words as Churchill's own. Here he states that Churchill's words were not his. WSC thus managed to commit opposite sins with equanimity. What a man! The notion that Churchill was too busy to do serious reading and preferred to indulge in science fiction when he "got home after a hard day in the House of Commons" (hilarious to anyone steeped in WSC's routine), is simply dumb. Anyone consulting the books Churchill read in his youth, for example, know that his tastes ran from Aristotle to Shakespeare, Darwin to Wynwood Reade. Certainly he read science fictioneven Henty novels. And his photographic memory stored his favorite phrases. That doesn't mean he picked up his essential philosophy from some novelist. At the time he wrote to Wells about the welfare state, Churchill

GILBERT AT FULTON
FULTON, MO, MARCH 24TH Sir Martin

was reading Progress and Poverty, by the American economist Henry George, who proposed taxing private ownership of basic elements like land instead of wealth or income. In 1911, WSC reached his radical crescendo, fighting for prison reform, old age pensions and abandoning the House of Lords. Then war clouds captured his attention. But clearly, Churchill derived his radical politics from economists and philosophers, not science fiction writers. "The Gathering Storm" dates as far back as The Federalist, but Toye's claim is specifically refuted by the official biography. In volume VIII, published nearly twenty years ago, Sir Martin Gilbert noted that it was literary agent Emery Reves who suggested the title. Churchill merely approved of it (pages 394-95): A final telegram from Emery Reves [January 1948] was decisive in an area of utmost importance, the title of the first volume. Churchill had chosen 'Downward Path' as the theme of the years 1931 to 1939. This title, Reves telegraphed, sounds somewhat discouraging.' The American and other publishers would prefer a 'more challenging title indicating crescendo events.' Reves suggested 'Gathering Clouds,' 'The Gathering Storm' or 'The Brooding Storm.' The title Churchill chose was 'The Gathering Storm.' Of course one could say, "Right, it was Emery Reves who read 'The Gathering Storm' in The War of the Worlds and handed it to Churchill." But that's really being silly, isn't it?

WINSTON ON THE 20?

LONDON, NOVEMBER 3RD "War veterans

stormed back into battle to support a campaign by The Daily Mirror to get Sir Winston Churchill put on the new 20 note. They are furious that 18th century economist Adam Smith had been picked to replace the face of Sir Edward Elgar, saying that Smith was obscure by comparison. Ricky Clitheroe, 72, an ex-Para from Catford, South-East London, said: "We agree with the Mirror. We want Sir Winston on our 20. He saved this country. We don't want a Scot, we don't even know who he is." Wealth of Nations author Smith is due to appear on Britain's 1.2 billion 20 notes from this spring. War vets set up a stall under the Churchill statue in Parliament Square to collect petition signatures backing WSC. They took the petition to the Cenotaph on Remembrance Sunday and eventually handed it in to Downing Street. Yet another campaign group had pushed for composer Elgar to remain on the notes until after his 150th birthday next year. MPs from Herefordshire and Worcestershire, joined by the Elgar Foundation, have called for the delay. The Bank of England replied that "a great majority of 20 notes in circulation will still have Sir Edward Elgar on them and will continue to circulate alongside the Adam Smith 20 notes for several years after that." Meanwhile, The Fabian Society has called for a black face to be put on 20s to reflect Britain's changing social make-up.
VANESSA ALLEN, DAILY MIRROR

Gilbert, Churchill's official biographer and author of seventy-seven books, was hosted at a dinner by the Board of the Winston Churchill Memorial and Library at Westminster College. Gilbert also held a book signing, and a collection of Churchill photos by Richard J. Mahoney was on display. The next afternoon Gilbert delivered the annual Kemper Lecture on Churchill. Last year, in the midst of the 60th anniversary of the Fulton "Iron Curtain" speech, Chris Campbell, editor of the student newspaper, was quoted in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch as questioning whether his school name-dropped Churchill too much and whether it should move on to a new claim to fame. The day the story ran, Campbell was told by the school's college relations director that he could not get a press pass to the weekend's anniversary events if he planned to speak to other media outlets. Campbell did not want to pay what it would have cost to go to the events, so he acquiesced to the school's wishes. But, he complained: "I thought it was unfair what they did. I feel like they were trying to stop me from speaking." The school said it was not trying to suppress Campbell's views. We think Westminster College should continue name-dropping Churchill, particularly his good English, discouraging sentences like "I thought it was unfair what they did."

MALAKAND: Y'ALL COME, HEAR?

BATKHELA, PAKISTAN, DECEMBER 1ST T h e

battlefield of a far-off imperial war that once gripped the imagination of the British public is to be opened up for the first time to tourism. It is "Churchill's Picket," where the young Winston fought with the 1897 Malakand Field Force, the subject of his first book, published 1898. The Malakand battlefield area has been under tight military control since Winston Churchill's eyewitness accounts of the campaign were published in The Daily Telegraph in 1897. The government has now decided to grant access

FINESTHOUR135/11

DATELINES
MALAKAND...
to historic sites such as Malakand Fort, where 1,000 Sikh infantry under British command fended off 10,000 Pathan tribesmen led by the "Mad Mullah." He had roused the tribes against British dominion and said the Prophet had ordained that they eject the foreigners from India. (Plus ga change... Ed.) "We are seeking funding for the project from foreign governments," said an official from Pakistan's tourism ministry. "It is hoped that we can use some of the finance to restore some of the historic buildings." The hill-crested bowl of Malakand is home to British India's northernmost church, which is currently situated inside a Pakistani military base, and a hilltop fortification called Churchill's Picket, near where the young Winston was almost killed in a skirmish. Malakand borders the tribal agency of Bajaur, where al-Qaeda operatives are believed to be based. As in Churchill's day, the local Pashtuns are often in the thrall of charismatic mullahs. Maulana Muhammad Alam, a leader of the banned Tehreek-e-Nifaz-eShariat Mohammadi, from Batkhela, is an ideological descendant of the "Mad Mullah." His group sent 10,000 men to fight alongside the Taliban in Afghanistan in 2001. "President Musharraf has gone in one direction [with America], but we have gone in another," he said. Churchill volunteered to fight on the frontier amid comparable unrest. He was 23 and a lieutenant of the Fourth Hussars in India when mullahs began to foment trouble. He joined the Malakand Field Force. "Like most young fools," he wrote in My Early Life, "I was looking for trouble." Foreign visitors today are not entirely unwelcome. Tribal elders fondly remembered British officers who left at Partition in 1947. "The Mad Mullah was a man of exceptional qualities. These new mullahs are just out for personal gain," said Rehamatullah Khan, 90. political faith, it must sound stranger yet in Pakistan. It is no surprise that a church in these parts survives because it is inside a military base. Officials say the plans to open up the area will go ahead despite increasing security concerns after a suicide attack near the site this month that killed forty-two army recruits. But a trip to the battlefield site planned by a British group was cancelled in November because of fears of possible attacks by Islamic militants. Winston Churchill, who visited Churchill Picket a few years before 9/11, told us that it could only be seen with a military escort. It is ironic that Pakistan seeks to create this Disneyland with foreign support.

Oid Datelines
From the collection of John Frost

THE PM'S TWO HATS

LONDON, JUNE 3RD, 1953 Many of those who saw the Coronation procession twice noticed that Sir Winston Churchill did not leave the Abbey in the hat in which he drove to it. The explanation is that he went to the Abbey in the uniform and cocked hat of Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports. On arrival he put on over the uniform the mantle of the Order of the Garter lent to him by the Earl Marshal. As he was wearing this mantle when he left the Abbey he naturally assumed the ostrich-plumed hat of the Garter also. This was lent to him by Lord Clarendon. The Times

GRANDPAPA DRESSES UP, 3JUN53: WSC departed Downing Street as Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports, emerged from Westminster Abbey as Knight of the Garter. His grandchildren, Nicholas and Emma Soames (above) had been invited to watch the ceremony in Whitehall. With him in court dress (below) are his son Randolph and grandson Winston. The latter was a page to his grandfather.

POOR, DEAR RANDOLPH

LONDON, JUNE 29TH, 1940 "In reply to a

request from the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary sent a list of 150 'prominent people' whom he had arrested. Of the first three on the list, two, Lady Mosley and Geoffrey PittRivers, were cousins of the Churchills a fact which piqued Winston and caused much merriment among his children. Winston went to bed shortly after lam and I resisted Randolph's ISAMBARD WILKINSON, DAILY TELEGRAPH attempt to make me sit up with him and discuss the Fifth Column (which Churchillian comment: If this incidentally Winston thinks a much sounds weird in a world where avoidless serious menace than had been suping offence to Muslims is an article of posed). Randolph was in a horrible
FINEST HOUR 135/12

state...and yet W said, when he asked to be allowed some more active part in the war, that if R were killed he would not be able to carry on his work."
JOHN COI.VII.LE DIARY

VC "TOO POSITIVE"
LONDON, APRIL 7TH Amid the deaths and the grim struggle bravely borne by Britain's forces in southern Iraq, one tale of heroism stands out: Private Johnson Beharry, whose courage in rescuing an ambushed foot patrol, and then saving his vehicle's crew despite his own terrible injuries, earned him a Victoria Cross: the decoration young Churchill had most desired. For the BBC, however, his story was "too positive." The corporation cancelled the 90-minute drama about Britain's youngest surviving VC hero because it feared it would alienate listeners opposed to the war in Iraq. The BBC's retreat from the project, which had the working title "Victoria Cross," will reignite the debate about the broadcaster's patriotism. "The BBC has behaved in a cowardly fashion by pulling the plug on the project altogether," said a source close to the project. "It began to have second thoughts last year as the war in Iraq deteriorated. It felt it couldn't show anything with a degree of positivity about the conflict. "It needed to tell stories about Iraq which reflected the fact that some members of the audience didn't approve of what was going on. Obviously a story about Johnson Beharry could never do that. You couldn't have a scene where he suddenly turned around and denounced the war because he just wouldn't do that. The film is now on hold and it will only make it to the screen if another broadcaster picks it up." The company developing the project is believed to have taken the script toITV. The Ministry of Defence recently expressed concern about Channel 4's "The Mark of Cain," which showed British troops brutalising Iraqi detainees. That programme was temporarily pulled from the schedules after Iran detained fifteen British troops. A spokesman for the BBC admitted that it had abandoned the VC project but refused to elaborate.

AROUND & ABOUT

Antoine Capet, Professor of British Civilization, University of Rouen, told us of "Torn Asunder," by i Ruaridh Nicollthe, an article on the Union of Britain in The Observer (London) on January 7th: "Churchill famously left Scots as a rearguard at Dunkirk because nobody would be too upset." This is an example of mischiefmaking. The Prime Minister would have had no knowledge of which units were left on the beaches during the heroic evacuation at Dunkirk. That was decided by those on the spot. As it happens, the units which suffered most were those ordered to defend Calais to the last: the King's Royal Rifle Corps and the Rifle Brigade. The word "famously" suggests that the reference was confused with St. Valerya long way southwest of Dunkirk. Here the 51st Highland Division, which had been behind the Somme and not involved in the evacuation, was obliged to surrender after a tough fight, having been cut off and surrounded on 12 June eight days after the end of the Dunkirk operation. To say that the P.M. chose to sacrifice this Division is absurd. PHC Richard Littlejohn writes in the Daily Mail that Chancellor of the Exchequer and presumptive new Prime Minister Gordon Brown "has been comparing himself to Churchill (as well as Gandhi). I look forward to his first prime ministerial broadcast. 'We shall tax on the beaches, we shall tax on the landing grounds, we shall tax in the fields and in the streets....Never in the field of human taxation, has so much been owed by so many I have nothing to offer but tax, tax and more tax.'" Addendum to Warren Kimball's "The Alcohol Quotient" (FH 134), from Sir Martin Gilbert, In Search of Churchill (1994, 226-27): In January 1942, as Japanese forces advanced into Burma, Anthony Eden reported Churchill's desire to fly to India to meet with Indian leaders to work out a constitution for India after the war. Sir Alexander Cadogan called WSC's plan "brilliantly imaginative and bold." Eden told his private secretary, Oliver Harvey, that Churchill had "confessed that he did feel his heart a bit...he had tried to dance a little the other night but quickly lost his breath." Harvey commented: "What a decision to take, and how gallant of the old boy himself. But his age and especially his way of life must begin to tell on him. He had a beer, three ports and three brandies for lunch today, and has done it for years." In the event Churchill did not go to India, feeling he must be in London at a critical time. Scott Johnson in "The Limits of Churchill's Magnanimity," http://powerlineblog.com/ May 19th, refers favorably to Finest Hour 101 regarding Churchill's uncharacteristic remark about Stanley Baldwin in 1946 ("it would have been much better had he never lived"). Johnson provided a link to our website, which has produced at least one new member. He also included another Churchill quotation but it was not quite as stated, and did not apply to Baldwin: "As the man whose mother-in-law had died in Brazil replied, when asked how the remains should be disposed of, 'Embalm, cremate and bury. Take no risks!'" This was actually from Churchill's article, "Britain's Deficiencies in Aircraft Manufacture," Daily Telegraph, Condon, 28 April 1938, reprinted in Step by Step (London: Butterworth, 1939), 226. $

BBC's decision to pull out will only confirm the fears of critics that television drama is only interested in telling bad news stories.
CHRIS HASTINGS, SUNDAY TELEGRAPH

FINEST HOUR 135/13

DATELINES: 21 MAY 1948

The Commando Memorial

"NOTHING OF WHICH we have any knowledge or record has ever been done by mortal men which surpasses the splendour and daring of their feats of arms."
BY WINSTON S. CHURCHILL
early six decades ago in the cloisters of Westminster, the Leader of the Opposition, Winston S. Churchill, unveiled a memorial to those who had died in the then-recent World War on service in submarines and with commando and airborne forces: three groups who had knowingly faced even more dangers than those which confronted fighting men as a matter of course. His speech was fully reported in the following day's Times, but the early biographers seem to have missed it. It bears reprinting for the light it throws both on the men Churchill commemorated and on his own belief. Over forty years ago, when preparing the official history of the Special Operations Executive in France (reissued in 2004), I conjectured that, as he spoke, Churchill had in mindas well as the feats he praisedthe then still inadmissible deeds of special agents for sabotage, subversion and escape who had set out on their missions by parachute or by submarine. A distinguished audience was assembled to hear the wartime Prime Minister that day. Among those present were A. V. Alexander, Minister of Defence and wartime First Lord of the Admiralty; Admiral of the Fleet the Viscount Cunningham of Hyndhope, wartime First Sea Lord; Field Marshal the Earl Wavell, former Commander-in-Chief Middle East and later Viceroy of India; Major General Sir Robert Laycock, who had been Chief of Combined Operations; Lieutenant General Sir Frederick Browning, who had been commander of Airborne Forces; Lieutenant Colonel A. C. Newman, who had won his Victoria Cross at St. Nazaire; and several other VC holders. The Dean of Westminster, the Very Reverend A. C. Don, held a brief service. Churchill concluded with the last two verses of an old Masonic poem, familiar in those days to many of the dignitaries present.
PROFESSOR M.R.D. FOOT

PHOTOGRAPH BY TERRY MOORE BY KIND PERMISSION OF WESTMINSTER ABBEY

oday we unveil a memorial to the brave who gave their lives for what we believe future generations of the world will pronounce a righteous and noble cause. In this ancient Abbey, so deeply wrought into the record, the life and the message of the British race and nationhere where every inch of space is devoted to the monuments of the past and to the inspiration of the futurethere will remain this cloister now consecrated to those who gave their lives in what they hoped would be a final war against the grosser forms of tyranny. These symbolic images of heroes, set up by their fellowcountrymen in honour and remembrance, will proclaim, as long as faithful testimony endures, the sacrifices of youth resolutely made at the call of duty and for the love of our Island home and all it stands for among men. Published by kind permission of the copyright holder, Curtis Brown Ltd., on behalf of the Estate of Sir Winston Churchill, copyright Winston S. Churchill.
FINEST HOUR 135/14

This memorial, with all its grace and distinction, does not claim any monopoly of prowess or devotion for those to whom it is dedicated. We all know the innumerable varieties of dauntless service which were performed by His Majesty's soldiers and servants at home and abroad, in the prolonged ordeals of the Second World War for right and freedom. Those whose memory is here saluted would have been the first to repulse any exclusive priority in the Roll of Honour. It is in all humility which matches their grandeur that we here today testify to the valour and devotion of the Submarine Service of the Royal Navy in both wars, to the Commandos, the Airborne Forces and the Special Air Service. All were volunteers. Most were highlyskilled and intensely-trained. Losses were heavy and constant. But great numbers pressed forward to fill the gaps. Selection could be most strict where the task was forlorn. No units were so easy to recruit as those over which Death ruled with daily attention. We think of the forty British submarines

more than half our total submarine lossessunk amid the Mediterranean minefields alone, of the heroic deaths of the submarine commanders and crews who vanished for ever in the North Sea or in the Atlantic Approaches to our nearly-strangled island. We think of the Commandos, as they came to be calleda Boer word become ever-glorious in the annals of Britian and her Empireand of their gleaming deeds under every sky and clime. We think of the Airborne Forces and Special Air Service men who hurled themselves unflinching into the voidwhen we recall all this, we may feel sure that nothing of which we have any knowledge or record has ever been done by mortal men which surpasses the splendour and daring of their feats of arms. Truly we may say of them, as of the Light Brigade at Balaclava, "When shall their glory fade?" But there were characteristics in the exploits of the submarines, the Commandos and the Airborne Forces which, in different degrees, distinguished their work from any single episode, however famous and romantic. First there was the quality of precision and the exact discharge of delicate and complex functions which required the utmost coolness of mind and steadiness of hand and eye. The excitement and hot gallop of a cavalry charge did not demand the ice-cold efficiency in mortal peril of the submarine crews and, on many occasions, of the Airborne Forces and the Commandos. There was also that constant repetition, time after time, of desperate adventures which marked the work of the Commandos, as of the submarines, requiring not only hearts of fire but nerves of tempered steel. To say this is not to dim the lustre of the past but to enhance, by modern lights, the deeds of their successors,

whom we honour here today. The solemn and beautiful service in which we are taking part uplifts our hearts and gives balm and comfort to those living people, and there are many here, who have suffered immeasurable loss. Sorrow may be assuaged even at the moment when the dearest memories are revived and brightened. Above all, we have our faith that the universe is ruled by a Supreme Being and in fulfilment of a sublime and moral purpose, according to which all our actions are judged. This faith enshrines, not only in bronze but for ever, the impulse of these young men, when they gave all they had, in order that Britain's honour might still shine forth and that justice and decency might dwell among men in this troubled world. Of them and in presence of their memorial we may repeat as their requiem as it was their theme, and as the spur for those who follow in their footsteps the well-known lines:
...heardare the voices Heard are the Sages, The Worlds and the Ages. "Choose well; your choice is Brief and yet endless; Here eyes do regard you In eternity's stillness; Here is all fullness, Ye brave, to reward you. Work, and despair not. "

tially memorized. The poem is found on http://xrl.us/wevb, which notes: "To English-speaking Masons, Goethe's best known Masonic work is the short poem 'Masonic Lodge.' It can be found in any collection of Goethe's works, and in Volume Twenty of the Little Masonic Library. It is given in full here, not only for purposes of short discussion, but because, by some unaccountable and distressing error, the first ten lines, which are the keynote of the whole poem [which Churchill did not quote] are omitted in the (1929) Clegg edition of
Mackey's Encyclopedia."

Poems Churchill Loved

With his usual impressive memory, Churchill was quoting the "Masonic Poem" of Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749-1832), which he must have read years before or recalled from Bartlett's Familiar Quotations, which he essen-

The Masons's ways are A Type of Existence And his persistence Is as the days are Of men in this world. The future hides it Gladness and Sorrow, We press still thorow, Naught that abides in it Daunting usonward. And Solemn before us Veiled, the dark portal, Goal of all mortal; Stars are silent o'er us Graves under us silent. While earnest thou gazest Comes boding of terror, Comes phantasm and error Perplexes the bravest With doubt and misgiving. But heard are the voices Heard are the Sages, The Worlds and the Ages; "Choose well; your choice is Brief and yet endless; Here eyes do regard you In eternity's stillness; Here is all fullness, Ye have to reward you, Work, and despair not."

TJinest Hour thanks Professor Foot for his suggestion that we republish the Commando Memorial speech. Reading it, JL shortly after tile United States' Memorial Day, we were struck by how much has changed in contemporary tributes to the military. Churchill unabashedly told us what these brave people did, hurling themselves against the enemy, "unflinchingly into the void." Today when we honor those who serve, we do so almost in the abstract. Apparently, describing what they actually do is considered somehow too delicate, and might be found objectionable by this or that segment of society. Churchill was often quite specific about what brave individuals did for their countrybut Churchill was also convinced not only of the justice of his cause, but of the unity of his nation. That too, sadly, has changed. Ed.
FINEST HOUR 135/15

GLIMPSES

Troubled Triumvirate: The Big Three at the Summit

NO ONE HAD A BETTER VIEW OF CHURCHILL, STALIN, ROOSEVELT AND TRUMAN AT THE CONFERENCES THAT REMADE THE WORLD THAN THE INTERPRETERS.
BY HUGH LUNGHI

ugh Lunghi was born August 1920 and read Greats (Classics) at Oxford. In June 1943, then a Captain in the Royal Artillery, he was appointed aide-de-camp (ADC) and Russian language interpreter to the Head of the British Military Mission in Moscow, Lt. Gen. Sir Gifford Le Q. Martel. After the war he served as a diplomat and interpreter. He had the unusual experience of interpreting at meetings with the first two Soviet dictators following Lenin: Stalin and Khrushchev. He is one of the few, if any, survivors of those present at most of the plenary sessions of the wartime conferences in Teheran, Yalta and Potsdam. There he was Russian language interpreter for the British Chiefs of Staff, General Sir Alan Brooke (later Field Marshal Lord Alanbrooke), Admiral Sir Andrew Cunningham and Air Chief Marshal Sir Charles Portal. He interpreted for Prime Ministers Churchill and Attlee and Foreign Secretaries Eden and Bevin. Joining the BBC in 1954, Mr. Lunghi was editor of broadcasts to central Europe and chief commentator covering the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968the first contemporary international subject commented upon by Finest Hour. On retiring from the BBC in 1980 he was appointed Director of the Writers' and Scholars' Educational Trust and editor of its magazine Index on Censorship. Subsequently he was elected Vice Chairman of Common Cause UK. He has lectured widely on Soviet and East European affairs. His text is from his remarks at the Annual General Meeting, International Churchill Society (UK), 29 April 2006.
FINEST HOUR 135/16

et me preface my remarks with some thoughts about the Americans. They are friends. The United States in its public and private giving, is the most generous nation in the whole of history, and perhaps the most idealistic in the causes of human rights and freedom. Yet this generosity seems to bring about the perverse result that the U.S. is denounced widely. I have often to remind my young listeners that it was the U.S. which put Europe back on its feet when it was struggling to recover from the devastation of World War II. Having served alongside Americans in wartime and after, I've found them among the most helpful and brightest of colleagues and friends. I feel constrained to put this on record because my account of those distant wartime events might seem to lean in a contrary direction. But to put a dark gloss on those historic events is far from my intention. My first sight of any of the Big Three was, of course, of Winston Churchill, from the Public Gallery in the House of Commons a couple of years or so before the outbreak of war. Out of office, Churchill was yet again castigating his government's and party's appalling record of failure to meet the Nazi rearmament threat. In my schoolboy ignorance I thought his gadfly antics were simply letting his own side down. After that Churchill faded from my mind until he became Prime Minister in 1940. We had been at war for nine months. By then even Oxford students began to take notice of his stirring speeches on the wireless. Not many months after being posted from my artillery regiment to our military mission in Moscow in 1943, its chief, General Martel, said I was to accompany him to Teheran at the end of November. There, with no previous warning, I was ordered to interpret for the Chiefs of Staff, General Sir Alan Brooke, Admiral Andrew Cunningham and Air Marshal Sir Charles Portal at what turned out to be the first of the so-called "Big Three" conferences. Among the three heads of government, Churchill was the eldest, celebrating his 69th birthday; he had already met Stalin and Roosevelt, the latter seven times. Stalin was five years younger, Roosevelt the youngest at 61. Churchill was the only one of the three who had experience of commanding troops on the battlefield did that make him a worse strategist than the other two or a better one? By 1943, an outsider might think that all the allies were working more or less closely towards the defeat of the enemy. As we now know from innumerable accounts, this was far from the reality. Aside from almost non-existent military cooperation, we met with antagonism and obstruction from Soviet officialdom: spiteful, even incomprehensible behaviour. Their closely censored media were generally hostile at the failure of the Anglo-

Americans to open a so-called "Second Front" in Western Europe. They scoffed at our military operations in the Middle East, Italy, the Atlantic, and our bombing offensive, which did constitute, however limited, a second, third, fourth and fifth front. We were grateful for the real Russian hospitality and friendliness of Soviet citizens brave enough to talk to foreigners. In Moscow, our food and accommodation were on the level of the privileged class, Communist Party officials: quite comfortable, thank you.

Teheran
Churchill and Roosevelt flew to Teheran from Cairo, where they had disagreed bitterly over strategic priorities. Roosevelt had declined even to talk about a common approach to Stalin. To add to his discomfort, the Prime Minister had a throat infection, losing his greatest weapon: his voice. He looked worried and irritable as he arrived at the British Legation. It was the second time I had seen him in my life. Yet just seeing him, we suddenly felt the code-word for the conference, "Eureka," was well-chosen. As I gathered from bits of Chiefs of Staff conversations, the President was again refusing his lunch invitation or even to talk before they both met that awkward customer, Stalin. Even if he was determined to beard Stalin himself, why would Roosevelt not want the observations of Churchill, who had already met and negotiated with the Soviet chief? The latter, meanwhile, made his Foreign Minister, Molotov, concoct a cock-and-bull story of an assassination plot by enemy agents in Teheran. It successfully caused a not reluctant Roosevelt to move two-odd miles from the U.S. Legation into a bugged house in the grounds of the Soviet Embassy, just a step across a narrow road from the British Legation. [That FDR and Churchill knew they were being bugged is now accepted: see Warren Kimball, "Listening in on Roosevelt and Churchill," FH 131: 20. -Ed.] Today, as we know from contemporary accounts, Roosevelt sought to ingratiate himself with Stalin by mocking his British ally. He did tell Churchill he was going to make a few jokes at his expense, "just to put Stalin at his ease." During the conference sessions and social occasions, I observed FDR assuming a jocular air about Churchill's cigars and "imperialist" outlook. The plenary sessions at Teheran were held in the Soviet Embassy. The first seemed somewhat disorganized. The President had not wanted an agenda; he had "not come all these miles to discuss details." Roosevelt looked confident and pleased to be asked, as the only Head of State, to chair the sessions. Churchill, lighting up his cigar, looked fit, and at first seemed not unduly embarrassed by the fairly heated arguments between the Americans and British over strategic priorities now

FINEST HOUR 135/17

TROUBLED TRIUMVIRATE... being played out in front of Stalin. As the debate developed, the Prime Minister increasingly appeared on the defensive, still arguing strongly for his vision of the military options. To me, Stalin seemed puzzled at first over the disunity between the Americans and British. He allowed his normally inscrutable face a rare smile. Down the years I've been asked what it was like to watch Churchill, at this momentous juncture in his life, making friends with the ally we simply couldn't do without: Josef Stalin, the biggest mass-murderer of all time, with the possible exception of Mao Tsetung. I have vivid memories. Stalin always spoke softly, briefly, and to the point, completely in command of facts and statistics, hardly ever looking at a note, asking pertinent, awkward questions. At times we could OCCUPIED BY ALLIES hardly make out his words, with OCCUPIED BY AXIS their marked Georgian accent. Away from the table he was not the THE WORLD OF TEHERAN: The Red Army had not yet penetrated any eastern European great heroic leader of the Red countries, but the portents for 1944 were obvious. (Map from Newsweek, 6 December 1943. Square icons. Short, even in his built-up, square-toed shoes, peeping under door-keeperattacked Finland in 1939. When Stalin saw the imporlike trousers with a broad stripe down each side, at first tance Roosevelt attached to the project, the Soviet glance he looked unimpressive. His Marshal's tunic with media, following Stalin's line of course, ostentatiously a plain Russian upright collar was decorated only with began to support it. the Hero of the Soviet Union gold star. At close range, Teheran was, I believe, the most important of the he looked like a humble, kindly uncle. But I was struck Big Three Conferences, more significant than Yalta. A by the yellow whites to his greenish brown, cat-like eyes, persistent historical misconception has it that Eastern which hardly ever met yours if you were a stranger, a Europe was "betrayed" at Yalta. Not so. That happened, foreigner. His own staff was often brought to order with and I believe it did happen, in Moscow in October a fearsome glare. You could see them freeze, almost liter1943, before Teheran, at a meeting of foreign ministers: ally tremble in their boots. Molotov, Eden and Cordell Hull, Roosevelt's thenSecretary of State, who seemed to know little and care Apart from questions of military strategy and timless about the countries of Eastern Europe. From the ing, Poland's postwar frontiers, and how to secure a little I saw of him I found him rather frosty. Eden's democratic government, were the major battlegrounds attempt to involve the others in discussing the future of for Churchill. An early and firm date for the launch of east and central Europe was smothered by Molotov, the Second Front in Northern France was Stalin's main with the help of Hull's cushion of indifference. aim. Roosevelt's was to get Russia into the war against Roosevelt at Teheran reinforced that impression, saying Japan. He was also determined to get Stalin to support he intended to withdraw his troops from Europe within his dream of an international peace-keeping body a year after the end of hostilities there. Stalin, I feel in policed by the Soviet Union, the USA, Britain and retrospect, couldn't have believed his luck. At the time, China (at that time Chiang Kai-shek's China, of course). of course, we interpreters, even when briefed for a parAt first Stalin was evidently not at all keen on a single ticular session, could only guess at the strategic dreams body, doubtless thinking of the League of Nations, from of the principals. which the Soviet Union had been kicked out when it
FINEST HOUR 135/18

Here I should explain that Churchill's principal interpreter was Major Arthur Birse, a peacetime banker, also from our Moscow Military Mission, born and educated in 19th century St. Petersburg, more than twice my age, a good friend and mentor, by far the most outstanding, the most brilliant of all the Allied interpreters. The Prime Minister didn't like to be interrupted by his interpreter until he had finished his train of thought, which sometimes went on a bit, with many a stirring phrase, making it the more difficult for us. He was demanding, but at the same time generous and encouraging. My own test came before the second plenary session on 29th November. The Prime Minister was to present a Sword of Honour on behalf of King George VI to mark the heroic defence of Stalingrad. Representing the Red Armythe only senior soldier Stalin had brought along, "hoping he would do," as Stalin put it was Marshal Voroshilov, once Stalin's companion in arms, baby-faced, murderous and cruel. Voroshilov was in command of several "Army Fronts" when Hitler invaded Russia. He proved so hopeless he had to be sacked. Survivors of Stalin's inner circle tell us that often he shouted at him, "Shut up, you imbecile." The Prime Minister proudly presented the sword.

Stalin was visibly moved. After quietly uttering a few words Stalin passed the sword to Voroshilov, who promptly let it slip from the scabbard onto his toes. Stalin's face darkened, his fists clenched. As we dispersed after the ceremony, Churchill led our way out. I heard, or felt, a tug at my sleeve. It was Voroshilov. I had been interpreting for him that morning at the Chiefs of Staff meeting. Sheepishly he asked my help. As we caught up with the PM, Voroshilov, pinkfaced, stammered an apology for his gaffe, and at the same time wished Churchill a happy birthday, which was in fact the following day. As we walked away the PM growled: "A bit prematuremust In: angling for an invitation.. .couldn't even play a Mraight bat." At Churchill's 69th birthday dinner, in the British Legation the next evening, we witnessed another little drama unfold. Bear with me if you've already heard or read about itthis is how I saw it. A Persian waiter in white cotton gloves and red and blue livery, making (I suspected) his first entrance, brings in the magnificent dessert, a splendid ice cream pyramid with a kind of night-light under it. Stalin is making a bit of a speech. The waiter, wanting to serve Stalin first, stands behind him, then moves towards Molotov's chair. Mouth agape at sight of the assembled magnificoes, the waiter nervously lets the dish tip slightly. It's hot in the room and the inevitable happens. As I look on, fascinated, the beautiful creation accelerates off the salver. It misses Stalin, the waiter staggers further sideways, and it descends onto the shoulder of Vladimir Pavlov, Stalin's interpreter, and all down his pristine Russian diplomatic dress uniform. A voice is heard just in front of me, Air Chief Marshal Sir Charles Portal (Peter Portal to his colleagues), sotto voce: "Missed the target." I watch the Prime Minister, but either he has not noticed or has chosen not to. A true professional, Pavlov continues calmly interpreting. Pavlov, by the way, was virtually always Stalin's interpreterin English and German. At the Yalta Conference, some fourteen months after Teheran, Pavlov was rewarded by Churchill with the CBEnot, of course, for his heroism under ice cream fire.

FINEST HOUR 135/19

TROUBLED TRIUMVIRATE...

Moscow
After Teheran my next close encounter with Mr. Churchill was almost a year later in October 1944, his second and final visit to Moscow (codenamed "Tolstoy"), where he was accompanied by Eden. Talks with Stalin and Molotov mainly concerned Eastern Europe, the "percentage" agreement over Soviet and British influence in various countries, and Poland. Representatives of the London Polish Government in exile in London were also invited. The mischievous "percentages" more or less evaporated and did not figure formally again in any tripartite or even bilateral talks, though you'd not know it from the attention devoted to them by modern historians and Churchill himself. Our Military Mission officers, including myself, were on duty looking after the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary in the Soviet hospitality town house in Ostrovskiy Street (formerly and today the Austrian Embassy).

Yalta
The following February, I watched Churchill's aircraft land, after its seven-hour flight from Malta, at the Crimean airport of Saki, where I had been working for much of the past fortnight. It touched down shortly after Roosevelt's aircraft. The President, waxen cheeked, looked ghastly, his familiar black naval cloak over his shoulders, hat-brim turned up in front, being helped into a jeep which Churchill solicitously followed on foot as they inspected the Guard of Honour together. We had a five-hour drive to our respective destinations. Ours was the slightly odd Moorish-Scottish baronial style Vorontsov Palace/Villa overlooking the Black Sea at Alupka. Twelve miles away just outside Yalta was the last Czar's Palace, Livadia, the American quarters and venue of the plenary sessions. Stalin, the generous host, was in between, in the Yusupov Villa in Koreis, six miles from Livadia. It was there in Stalin's headquarters that we held the Chiefs of Staff military meetings. The opening session of the Yalta Conference was one of the most dramatic and fateful. It was there that Dresden's destiny was sealed. Among many omissions and misrepresentations put about by revisionist historians and others in recent years is that either Churchill or Air Marshal Harris or the RAF in general were directly and personally responsible for the deliberate annihilation of Dresden's population and its art treasures. This is how I witnessed the matter at that first session. Among other requests and questions of military liaison, Stalin, with his Deputy Chief of Staff, General AntonovI watched and heard them bothasked us and the Americans to bomb lines of communication roads and railways. They wanted to stop Hitler transferring divisions from the west to reinforce his troops in

Silesia who were blocking the Russian advance on Berlin. We ourselves had passed intelligence about the troop movements to the Russians. They claimed they had it from their own sources. The road and rail network, against which contingency plans had already been discussed by the RAF months previously, was the targetnot the city, and not civilians as such. One of the intended consequences would be the jamming of road and rail communications by refugees. Together with other towns, Antonov stressed the importance of Dresden as a rail junction. The following day at the Chiefs of Staff meeting in Stalin's Yusupov Villa, which our Chief of Staff, by then Field Marshal Sir Alan Brooke, was asked to chair, the question of liaison for "bomb lines" was discussed. Antonov again pressed the subject of lines of communication and entrainment, specifically via Berlin, Leipzig and Dresden. The latter he again referred to as an important rail junction. The Soviet Air Marshal Khudyakov added his expertise to the same requests. I interpreted our assent. The USAAF Major-General Kuter also agreed. The bombing mission by the RAF and the U.S. Army Air Corps was a military success, but tragically inflicted great loss of civilian refugee life which Churchill later deeply deplored.* Here in the Crimea, Stalin looked exultant, we thoughtafter all, he held the trump cards. His armies were already in occupation of most of Eastern Europe. The myth that it was carved up at Yalta is patently inaccurate. There was no need: the Red Army already held it. After the war one of Stalin's favourite jokes suggested he deserved the whole bear, and he got it! As I saw him, Roosevelt displayed indifference to Eastern Europe. I thought the Presidentand he was not the only onehopelessly misperceived the realities of the Soviet Union, completely misjudging Stalin, as to an extent did Churchill and Eden. It was "a pleasure to work with Stalin...there is nothing devious about him," Churchill said. Because of his paranoia, I believe Stalin

*At the Fifth Churchill Lecture, in Washington in 2005, Sir Martin Gilbert stated that the first Soviet request on Dresden arrived before Yalta, and that at Yalta, Stalin and Antonov asked Churchill why it hadn't already been bombed. Churchill, perplexed, cabled Attlee in London, who responded that the attack had been ordered. This was actually confirmed by Gen. Antonov's deputy, who was among the audience when Gilbert lectured on the subject in Moscow. It was undoubtedly this conversation which Mr. Lunghi observed. Sir Martin writes: "It is curious that when the request came.. .Churchill and Air Marshal Portal were in flight on their way to the Yalta conference. So the request was dealt with by Churchill's excellent deputy Clement Attlee, later the Labour Prime Minister, and by the deputy chiefs of staff and approved. It was the 16th or 17th item of the things that they had to approve that day."

FINEST HOUR 135/20

PARTNERS?: At Teheran, both Roosevelt (right) and Churchill thought they could trust Stalin (left). The map below, which appeared in Time as the Red Army drove across Poland toward the Reich, forecast the post-Yalta endgame, although Time proved wrong about Yugoslavia and, later, Austria.

SPOTS*

did not trust those he thought were trying to curry favour with him. Stalin at one point told Churchill he felt more at home with frank and even tough negotiators and open enemies. The P.M., though wilier in this respect than Roosevelt, also thought he could win Stalin over by compromise and concession. By the way, unbelievably, he also said he liked the Deputy Commissar for Foreign Affairs Andrey Vyshinskya more despicable and treacherous character I could not imagine. It was not until years after the Yalta Conference that one of its most tragic outcomesone of the blackest pages in British historywas revealed. The last formal act was Eden's signature to the secret agreement on repatriation, in other words the return to Stalin's merciless hands of Soviet prisoners of war. Many, forced into auxiliary service in the German army, had fallen into our hands. The Foreign Office agreed to Soviet demands that even non-Soviet Russian civilians who had lived in Eastern Europe before the war should be handed over: an unnecessary and dishonourable act which Churchill at one point tried to stop. Harry Hopkins, Roosevelt's close adviser, whom Churchill admired, hailed Yalta as "the dawn of a new age." Hopkins, for whom I interpreted briefly, was unhappily a chronically ill man, and he seems to have provided some dodgy advice to the President about Stalin, the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. In his recently published book, Sergo Beria, son of Stalin's secret police chief, claims Hopkins was "blindly proSoviet even before he met Stalin." What stays in my memory is the doggedness, the toughnessnot without old-world courtesy and magnanimitywith which Churchill fought not just for Britain, but for Poland and France and for smaller nations too. His private secretary Jock Colville once remarked that the difference between WSC and de Gaulle was that "de Gaulle's loyalty was to France alone; Churchill's was merely to Britain first." By contrast the xenophobe Stalin and the stolid Molotov, taking the cue from Roosevelt, poured vitriol on the French: "rotten to the core and should be punished," was one expression I heard. Churchill stuck up for France not just out of loveBritain would need her as the main ally on the continent. But Churchill also stood up for fair play for the German people, as distinct from the Nazis. Stalin taunted him: "You are proGerman," adding to his censure the Argentinians, Brazilians and Swiss, calling them "swine," the Swedes even worse, the Finns "stone-obstinate."

Potsdam
By the time the leaders met again in July 1945 at "Terminal," the last of the Big Three gatherings at Potsdam, Truman had replaced Roosevelt, who had >>
FINEST HOUR

135/21

LAYING THE CORNERSTONE, 1943: The British cartoonist Illingworth produced this optimistic drawing after the Teheran Conference. (The workers appear to be Foreign Minister Molotov, Secretary of State Hull and Foreign Secretary Eden.) It is not clear on whom or what the stone is being dropped.

TROUBLED TRIUMVIRATE... died in April. We saw Churchill still battling on behalf of postwar Poland and France. The meetings were badtempered, relieved by social occasions, banquets with music at the Neues Palast: on one occasion we heard Stalin applaud Truman's impromptu and near-professional rendering of Chopin. Hailing Truman as a musician and Churchill as a painter, Stalin, fishing for compliments, lamented that he alone was "without talent." Some understatement, that. Rightly or wrongly, the new President seemed to us a much warmer, more approachable, more sincere chief than his predecessor. Halfway through the conference there was a general election in Britain. Winston Churchill, "the greatest modern British statesman" according to the New American Desk Encyclopedia, "the greatest Englishman" according to a recent UK public opinion poll, was dismissed by his country.

Retrospective
Having pondered the question over many decades and, most importantly, discussed it with Arthur Birse, I have become convinced that Churchill's magnanimous judgment of Stalin was crucially formed during that tetea-tete midnight meal in August 1942 in Stalin's own Kremlin quarters, waited upon by his daughter Svetlana. It was, I think, that close, very personal encounter, in the face of a still mortally dangerous foe, which forged what in Churchill's perception had perhaps become a bond between warrior leaders. What amazed those of us, British and Americans, living and working in Moscow, experiencing the realities

of life there, was the extraordinary ignorance, as it seemed, displayed by our principals and their advisers. Most astounding and puzzling was why Roosevelt and Churchill, the State Department and the Foreign Office, could for a moment believe that Stalin would allow free elections, let alone the inevitable concomitant of a free press, in liberated Europe, when those very freedoms were denied to the peoples of the Soviet Union. It was all on a par with Roosevelt's silly remark to Stalin that he knew the Baltic peoples would happily vote to rejoin the Soviet Union if only Stalin allowed them free elections. True, Stalin later did graciously permit such things in Finland and Austria, but these were Stalin's little showpiece states to help his "popular fronts" in Europe. "It doesn't matter what you do," as Lady Randolph Churchill is alleged to have said, "as long as you don't do it in the street and frighten the horses." At that time the people were very ready to turn a blind eye to the monstrous and bloody Stalinist regime. The U.S. and British press and radio were brimming over with goodwill for the gallant Red Army and its leader. Churchill, we saw, was fed up after Yalta. We heard him say "That's done with and out of the way," and make various rude remarks about the final communique. Notwithstanding his partiality for what some saw as mad-cap military adventures, Churchill, with his political experience and historical perspective, saw further ahead than anyone, especially to the postwar perils facing central Europe. It is not just his vision we have to respect and admire. His courage and energy, often barely recovering from serious illness, making the arduous, dangerous wartime pilgrimages to meet the two other Allied leaders, were almost superhuman. At the time, most of us could not know of the enormous physical, let alone mental, strain he must have been under. In the years that followed Potsdam I saw and interpreted with Stalin face to face on several occasions, but sadly not with Churchill. My last tenuous connection with our wartime leader, almost exactly twenty years after the Yalta Conference, was in 1965, on the occasion of his state funeral, when it was my privilege in the BBC World Service to organize its coverage for our Czech and Slovak broadcasts. Churchill had outlived Roosevelt by two decades and Stalin by twelve years. The Triumvirate departed this world in inverse order to their ages, and to, one hopes, varied destinations. General Charles de Gaulle was the chief foreign statesman at Sir Winston Churchill's funeral. For the very reason that their relationship during the war, as everyone knew, had not been the easiest, his epitaph, it seemed to me, was the most fitting of all. You may remember, in his letter to the Queen, President de Gaulle paid this tribute, the more striking for its brevity. "Dans ce grand drame, ilfut le plus grand." $ 135/22

FINEST HOUR

RIDDLES, MYSTERIES, ENIGMAS

Basic English

Send your questions to the editor

Q
A

; We have an enquiry about a book or pamphlet by Churchill about "Plain English." Is he thinking of something by Ogden? Linne Omissi, Senior Librarian, Jersey Library, St. Helier, Jersey, Channel Islands, UK

^ Right you are! Basic (not "Plain") English, the invention of C.K. Ogden (1889-1957), attracted Churchill's attention during WW2. It was intended not for English speakers, but for foreigners, whom Churchill thought (rather presciently, as it turned out) would benefit from being able to "get by" in what he saw as the up-andcoming world language. He discussed it during his speech on Anglo-American Unity at Harvard University in 1943. Churchill wrote no pamphlet or essay, but if you click on our website search feature and enter "Basic English," you will find many references to the subject. The first is an abstract of a piece about Ogden, Churchill and the concept. Roosevelt took a dim view of Basic English. When WSC recommended printing the Atlantic Charter agreement in B.E. as well as its original form, FDR replied: "I wonder what the course of history would have been if in May 1940 you had been able to offer the British people only blood, work, eye water and face water, which I understand is the best that Basic English can do with the five famous words?" Did Churchill have a tattoo of an anchor on his left forearm?

Margaret Stenhouse worked in Churchill's secretarial pool at 10 Downing Street. One of Churchill's private secretaries, Sir John Martin, wrote in his memoirs: "I was given a kind and reassuring welcome by the Principal Private Secretary, Eric Seal, and 'Mags' Stenhouse, the head of the permanent staff of assistants in the Prime Minister's office (to whose expert knowledge, wisdom and splendid leadership of 'the Girls' so much was due in the coming years), and spent my first day at No. 10 being introduced to my new colleagues and my duties." (John Martin: Downing Street: The War Years, London: Bloomsbury, 1991, 3-4.) Another Private Secretary wrote of "the admirable Miss Stenhouse who had been on the scene almost as long as Miss Watson [another secretary]." (John Colville, The Churchillians, London: Weidenfeld &Nicolson, 1981,52.)
t

Would anyone recall the name of Churchill's pet bulldog?

J
J O

can be credited with encouraging Churchill to paint. In June 1915 WSC went to Hoe Farm to get away from the misery of loss of office. On 19 June he wrote to his brother Jack: "It really is a delightful valley & the garden gleams with summer jewelry. We live vy simplybut with all the essentials of life well understood & well provided forhot baths, cold champagne, new peas & old brandy." On Sunday 20 June, Gwendeline lent Winston her son's watercolour paints because she thought this would cheer him up. Churchill soon found out that concentrating on the art of transferring subjects to a canvas, in the words of his private secretary Edward Marsh, "was a distraction and a sedative that brought a measure of ease to his frustrated spirit." On Friday 25 June WSC bought himself an easel, plus all the paraphernalia for painting in oils. A week later on 2 July, still at Hoe Farm, he experimented with oils for the first time. What happened next was memorably described by Churchill in an article published in The Strand in December 1921, subsequently reprinted in Thoughts and Adventures and later as a book, Painting as a Pastime (1948):
So very gingerly I mixed a little blue paint on the palette with a very smallbrush, and then with infinite precaution made a mark about as big as a bean upon the affronted snow-white shield. ... At that moment the loud approaching sound of a motot-car was heard in the dfive. From this chariot there stepped swiftly and lightly none other than the gifted wife of Sir John Lavery. 'Painting! But what are you hesitating about? Let me have a btushthe big one.' Splash into the turpentine, wallop into the blue and the white, frantic flourish on the paletteclean no longer and then several large, fierce strokes and slashes of blue on the absolutely cowering canvas. Anyone could see that it could not hit back. No evil fate avenged the jaunty violence. The canvas grinned in helplessness before me. The spell was broken. The sickly inhibitions rolled away. I seized the largest brush and fell upon my victim with Berserk fury. I have never felt any awe of a canvas since. JL M>

hear rumors, but find no evi dence. The closest to any skin marking is his reference to having given skin for a grafting of a fellow soldier, Dick Molyneux, in Cairo. John Seigal had an opportunity of raising the question with Lady Soames at the 2006 ICS (UK) Churchill birthday reception. Somewhat bemused, she recalled the scar, but no tattoo.

9 We

Churchill bought a bulldog for * 10 in September 1891 when he was at Harrow. It was a bitch of good pedigree, called "Dods," nicknamed "Dodo." His idea was to get whelps from her which he could sell for 30/- each. See Randolph Churchill, Winston S. Churchill, Companion Volume I, 274-77; and Richard Hough, Winston and Clementine (London: Bantam Press, 1990)45. jChurchilltrivia Questions 481 , and 733, posted on your website, seem to credit two different people with inspiring Churchill's interest in painting: Gwendeline Churchill and Lady Lavery. Which is it? Neil Scott

# At the Cabinet War Rooms in , London, close to Churchill's bed^ Both answers are correct. Both room, is a room with the name plate Gwendeline, (Churchill's sister"Stenhouse. "Who was this person? in-law, aka "Goonie"), and Lady Lavery D.A. Bailey (dapadailey@comcast. net)

FINEST HOUR 135 / 23

Behind the Distant Mountains Is the Promise of the Sun"

A VALUABLE ASPECT OF CHURCHILL STUDIES: REFLECTIONS UPON HIS EXPERIENCES WHICH BEAR UPON OUR WORLD TODAY

inest Hours 2007 mandate to publish "all Churchill, all the time" (FH 134: 5) offers us opportunities for more expansive treatment of Winston Churchill's relevance today: not what he would do if he were here alongside us (and he would be alongside us); but what his experience and reflections suggest might be done, or the warnings he offers of dangers and challenges similar to those he met, fought and overcame. Speaking at our Chicago conference on the most critical mission of The Churchill Centre, Laurence Geller described our responsibility to convey Churchill's experience and insight to freedomloving peoples: "Our task is about keeping the lessons Churchill taught us alive. They are today never more vital in the endless fight against genocidal maniacs, racism, fundamentalism, hatred and bigotry. His example emboldens us to combat the wickedness of myriad self-serving fanatics. We are stronger when armed with Churchillian lessons. We can make our society better. We should and we must." As our President, Laurence has now attended many meetings, at the board, chapter and national level, in America and in Britain, of this and other organizaitons, to reach out and elaborate on his idea: kind of "Think Tank" to promote the development of Churchillian responses to today's challenges. The message, he unceasingly reiterates, "is never more relevant than it is today. To fail to apply his experience to engage simply in nostalgia for old glories and battles wonwould be less than Churchillian." Call it "Applied Churchill," or whatever you like. Repeatedly Sir Winston implored us to "study history." Certainly he would want us to derive the lessons history offers. As he said nearly 100 years ago in 1908: "What is the use of living, if it be not to strive for noble causes and to make this muddled world a better place for those who will live in it after we are gone? How else can we put ourselves in harmonious relation with the great verities and consolations of the infinite and the eternal?" With that charge in mind, Christopher Harmon, insurgency and terrorism expert and Churchillian, offers a new interpretation on what we should learn from Churchill's Cold War posture that may apply to today's wars. Professor Harmon does not mention Iraq, except in passinghis is a different Churchillian message. Yet we cannot forget Iraqhow could we these days? So two other scholars, Professors Toby Dodge and David Freeman, turn to that dilemma in collegial debatethe kind of which we think Winston Churchill would approve. They consider not whether we should go or stay; but rather what, if anything, we can learn from Churchill's and Britain's experience in Iraq eighty-five years ago. Much, they conclude, has changed. And much remains the same. We hope readers will welcome our reemphasis on this aspect of Churchill Studies. Our aim is simple: to encourage fresh thinking among Great Democracies he believed were "the hope of years to come." As he concluded in 1908: "And I avow my faith that we are marching towards better days. Humanity will not be cast down. We are going onswinging bravely forward along the grand high roadand already behind the distant mountains is the promise of the sun." T H E EDITORS
F I N E S T HOUR 135/24

"Let Us Preach What We Practise": The Fulton Speech and Todays War
IT IS TIME TO ADJUST OUR DIRECTION TOWARD THE RHETORICAL PATH THAT IS CENTRAL TO INFLUENCING WORLD OPINION
BY CHRISTOPHER C. HARMON

nounced: "Mr. Churchill came with a message of such interest and importance to our country, to his, and to the world at large that he converted his presence at Fulton into a historic event. "^

The Fulton Address

ery early in 1946, Winston Churchill arrived in America for two months of rest and a speaking tour. Although he was Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons, he carefully disavowed any official role. He came to America as a "counselor and compatriot."1 At the dock in New York City, after the liner Queen Elizabeth had pulled in, Winston and Clementine descended into a crowd peppered with reporters. Q. Will you comment on the socialist program of the Labour Party? A. I never criticize the government of my country abroad. I very rarely leave off criticizing it at home. Q Do you expect to eat much in America? A. After rationing I hope to make up for lost time. Q. What is your reaction to the fact that you will be [staying] in Florida near Al Capone? A. You refer to the former distinguished resident of Chicago. I had not addressed myself to the problem. The Churchills received many invitations they could not acceptsuch as one to visit Dwight Eisenhower's hometown in Kansas, and to fish with Ernest Hemingway in Cuba. Bookings on the statesman's schedule did include addresses in Miami, Fulton, Williamsburg, the Pentagon and New York City. All the speeches were covered by the press, but it was the one in Missouri that made the largest headlines. The New York Times proThrough June 2007, Dr. Harmon was Kim T. Adamson Chairman of Insurgency and Terrorism, Marine Corps University. In September he takes up a new position as Professor of Counter Terrorism at the George C. Marshall Center in Garmisch, Germany. The second edition of his book, Terrorism Today, appears this October from Routledge. This article is derived from his remarks to the Washington Society for Churchill, a Churchill Centre affiliate, at the Old Ebbitt Grill in Washington on March 4th.

At Westminster College on March 5th, President Harry Truman introduced the great Englishman, who paid generous tribute to his hosts. But Churchill's mind was troubled by the rise of Soviet power vis-a-vis Europe and America. He had closely watched the USSR as it made, first, an amazing comeback after 1941, and then remarkable territorial gains in the heart of Europe. A Soviet state of 180 millions, dominated by one man, now also dominated the ancient capitals of Eastern Europe: Berlin, Prague, Vienna, Budapest, Riga, Tallinn, Vilnius, Sofia, Bucharest. Historians quarrel even now over how the Cold War began, but Churchill felt he knew. He had brooded on the matter for several years by the time of his visit to Missouri. He was a historian; more to the point, he had made, and lived through, the relevant history. Taking the long view, Churchill knew the wartime Big Three collusion had been somewhat unnatural, for he understood Bolshevism. He had witnessed Soviet misbehavior during war, and his memoranda and state papers display particular anger at Moscow's violence towards the Poles, the people over whom Britain had entered war. Suppose Churchill had been able to forget that in 1939 the Soviets had invaded eastern Poland almost as hastily as the Nazis had taken western Poland. In 1943, his doubts would have stirred, or even surfaced, when Germans removed the soil over mass graves at Katyn; the Soviet NKVD had murdered and buried 8000 Polish officers on that spot near Smolensk. Then, the next year, came the appalling immobility of the Red Army when Polish citizens rose up, hoping to liberate Warsaw from the Germans. The Russians seemingly preferred to see the brave destroyed. Nineteen forty-five brought the disappearance into Soviet jails of sixteen Polish emissaries who in March had ventured from London to Moscow at >>

FINEST HOUR 135/25

FULTON AND TODAY'S WAR... Stalin's invitation, a shock to all British statesmen. There had been a slow and disturbing change in Soviet rhetoric. Spokesmen of the Kremlin were recurring to the old communist notion that World War II began in capitalist combinations against the innocent; they were now suggesting that similar combinations could lead to World War III. An ugly moment came on 9 February 1946, when Joseph Stalin made it clear in a speech that the good will engendered during the war was gone, and that the future held dark prospects for "another imperialist war. "3 All these signs of chill preceded the Fulton address. There was as yet no NATO. There was no Truman Doctrine for protecting Turkey and Greece from communist expansion. There was the "Long Telegram" from American diplomat George Kennan in Moscow to the State Department, discussing the eerie changes in Moscow and calling for "containment." But it had not yet been published: the following year, as an article by "X" in Foreign Affairs, it would cause a stir. In the language Churchill used at Fulton there is no more ominous phrase than "Iron Curtain." The Soviets hated the hard ring of that metaphor, and the Soviet newspaper Pravda rankled when Churchill did not attribute the term to its originator; the remark, it said angrily, was first used by Josef Goebbels in February 1945. In keeping with long tradition, Pravda was wrong. In fact, the phrase went back long before that.4 Churchill himself had used the term in a letter to President Truman on 12 May 1945, nearly a year before Fulton, when it already had the grim connotations later broadly understood. The Prime Minister's letter spoke of the melting away of the American and British armies, the Canadians' inevitable departure from Europe, and the difficulty of working with the French. He vividly described "this enormous Muscovite advance into the centre of Europe," adding, "An iron curtain is drawn down upon their front. We do not know what is going on behind."5 Some criticized the Fulton speech as militaristic, but there are many sunny aspects of the address. The archetypal old Tory spoke up for the United Nations, the new "world organization"as the planned entity was known during war years.6 I don't think this was a pained genuflection to American internationalists, to the foundational meetings at Dumbarton Oaks and San Francisco, or to Franklin Roosevelt's legacy. Churchill's praise for collective security was consistent with his life-long teaching.

On record was his public support in the 1920s for the League of Nations; his effort for collective security in the 1930s. It does not go too far to say that his Fulton text might shock conservative readers today, with its positive views on the nascent UN. Churchill even argued for a standing military force of components contributed by member states, at the ready for international peacekeeping. The United Nations has always had a small Military Staff Committee for just such work, even though the Cold War flash-froze it in embryo form.7 Churchill never felt that a world organization precluded regional security arrangements among individual partners. He always said, as in Washington in May 1943,8 that beneath the umbrella of the "world organization" there should be strong, inward-looking regional arrangements to deal with normal security concerns. These, together with the UN superstructure, would constitute "the Sinews of Peace" in the postwar world. For Churchill the first of these was the British Commonwealth, which he still spoke of as the British Empire. A close second was the Anglo-American alliance. At Fulton he spoke with his usual richness and warmth on this topic, calling for "fraternal association" and using the phrase "special relationship." Here was a foreigner who openly regarded American power as good for the world. He thought it a very good thing that the atom bomb was still a monopoly of the United States, that it would be criminal to let that change in the short term. The Associated Press suggested in its wire story from Fulton that Churchill had proposed a military alliance 135/26

FINEST HOUR

CC Tspoke earlier of the Temple of Peace. JL Workmen from all countries must build that temple....Indeed they must do so or else the temple may not be built, or, being built, it may collapse, and we shall all be proved again unteachable and have to go and try to learn again for a third time in a school of war, incomparably more rigorous than that from which we have just been released. The dark ages may return, the Stone Age may return on the gleaming wings of science, and what might now shower immeasurable material blessings upon mankind, may even bring about its total destruction." WSC, Fulton, 1946
between London and Washington. He did not say that, but he certainly came close. The press knew where his heart was. Transatlantic bilateral rapport was central to his view of world securityand British self-interest. Consider the remarkable praise he had heaped upon American military powermemorably at the Albert Hall on American Thanksgiving Day, 1944. A few days after Fulton came his speech at the Pentagon, praising U.S. military performance in World War II, delivered to a glittering array of officers including Generals Eisenhower, Bradley and Spaatz and Admirals Leahy and Nimitz. The Englishman's conviction was that the American military partnership must anchor the postwar era. Churchill did not cultivate these linkages in the expectation of war. He believed in the power of deterrence. Most of his talk on his 1946 American tour was of constructing peace. Even at Fulton he told the audience explicitly that he did not think the Soviets wanted war. The broader message was: mankind has the power and the opportunity to save its future. In a metaphor Churchill ascribed to an author he'd been reading on his trip, he spoke of a "Temple of Peace. Workmen from all countries must build that temple [with] 'faith in each other's purpose, hope in each other's future and some charity toward each other's shortcomings.'"

Today's Long War

Churchill's emphasis on allies remains sound policy today. Good alliances are a requisite for what has rightly been called a "global war on terrorism." The fight is

unusual, and without true precedent. It bears many aspects unlike either World War II or the Cold War. Deterrence and negotiation with al Qaeda is hardly possible. Our enemies are not just without uniforms; they are usually unseen. Most do not work for a state; many are stateless, even fugitives. The Taliban, al Qaeda, Jemaah Islamia, the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat, and their ilk live and fight well below the governmental levelthey are what political scientists call (in a phrase Churchill might have detested) "sub-state actors." Churchill had experiences with "terrorists," but he spoke of terrorism on relatively few occasions. Ours is a new generation facing a somewhat new generation of conflict, a product of devolution, not evolution, in moral and martial terms. Terrorism is housed in the basement of barbarity, and Churchill, who hoped to construct a Temple of Peace, would be appalled to know how many terrorists there are today. He also, I feel sure, would not accept terrorism as a new norm, or apologize for it, as many do now. We must fight the enemy, accept the unwanted challenges. They come without crisp tactical remedies from the old captains of war. Churchill, I might guess, would have considered the war of 9/11 as profoundly real, protracted and complex. In it, his prudence as a statesman might have helped him more than his mastery of European military history. While no one can say what Churchill would have done, we do know we have on our hands an unwanted war. So, how are we doing, and, what do we need to do? The opening campaign was a military one of the greatest boldness. The Americans, British and other allies went into the Afghan lairs of the guerrillas and rousted them out. Bin Laden did not expect this. Neither did many of us. A maker of coalitions himself, Churchill might have admired the way our coalition linked up with Afghans to smash the Taliban, up until then the 21st century's leading state sponsor of international terrorism. Efforts by the Taliban today to climb back up the southern skirts of Afghan territory are significant, but take little away from the effectiveness of that quick campaign at the end of 2001. In Afghanistan, even a few years of peace is impressive. There have followed other, lesser martial efforts, especially in the Philippines. In the southern islands, al Qaeda's ally Abu Sayyaf has been battered and beaten by Filipinos enjoying American intelligence and advice, the latest chapter in a long association between Manila and Washington. Abu Sayyaf is on about its fourth leader nowthey keep dying of lead poisoning. Most observers think this organisation has lost whatever religious and political credibility it had. In the Horn of Africa, we are similarly involved. Our armed forces contribute in varying ways to allied indigenous forces fighting Somali warlords, the North

FINEST HOUR 135/27

'y^\TTould a special relationship between the United States and the British W Commonwealth be inconsistent with our overriding loyalties to the World Organisation? I reply that, on the contrary, it is probably the only means by which that organisation will achieve its full stature and strength. There are already the special United States relations with Canada which I have just mentioned, and there are the special relations between the United States and the South American Republics. We British have our twenty years Treaty of Collaboration and Mutual Assistance with Soviet Russia. I agree with Mr. Bevin, the Toreign Secretary of Great Britain, that it might well be a fifty years Treaty so far as we are concerned. We aim at nothing but mutual assistance and collaboration. The British have an alliance with Portugal unbroken since 1384, and which produced fruitful results at critical moments in the late war. None of these clash with the general interest of a world agreement, or a world organisation; on the contrary they help it. 'In my father's house are many mansions.'" WSC, Fulton, 1946

FULTON AND TODAY'S WAR... African terrorists, and al Qaeda agents. Our few uniformed men and women in that theater are engaged in civic action more than direct action; they do not often pull triggers. But every day their corpsmen do shoot vaccines into children, and antibiotics into sickly domestic animals. Wells are dug, schools are built. This part of the battle Churchill would have recognized from the old forms of "hearts and minds" campaigns that the British army waged in places like Oman and Malaya. As this aid work suggests, kinetics is but one part of the grand strategy in the global war on terrorism. And, despite what critics may say, I think there is a grand strategy, and that it has been articulated. The problems come in execution, in the challenges of gaining foreign support, and in the task of meeting the concerns of the citizenry .. .and if all that were not enough, we have Iraq. Within our grand strategy for what we must call the Long War, economic elements of national power may be too focused uponand too drained byresuscitating Iraq. The war has many costs and they mount up in other theaters. Elsewhere we have aid programs, but there are sticks as well as carrots: the sanctions regimes begun under President Clinton and redoubled under President Bush are difficult to torque down, but they do constrict some of the financial lifelines in transnational terrorism. The United Nations is actually engaged in financial counterterrorism: a new UN treaty took effect in 2002, and even though many states will not or cannot obey it, the convention does help the U.S. Treasury and State Departments, and foreign partners, who work to freeze enemy assets. In the field of intelligence our record is mixed. We have made progress at the Central Intelligence Agency

and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and yet both still have their difficultiessuch as an out-flow of experienced people worn down by the past five years, and the challenges of properly training new personnel. Reorganization, too, comes with new challenges. Churchill's war lasted six years; he would have faced similar drains had it continued as long as this war might. There is a mammoth new bureaucracythe Department of Homeland Securitywhich does not yet seem to produce intelligence but always clamors for it from others. It is a cliche to say that intelligence is overwhelmingly important in counterterrorism, but it is a cliche because it is so true. For one thing, intelligence is a product of, and a key to, policing; at this stage of the Long War, police are perhaps even more important than soldiers. In diplomacy, the U.S. was swiftly supported by its NATO allies after 9/11. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization invoked its Article 5 for the first time in a half century of history, declaring that an attack on one is an attack on all. Countries such as Germany and Britain have done a great deal, actually and symbolically. I am disappointed over Canada; I have a very smart Canadian graduate student in class and her disappointment in Canada's role outruns mine. But for such ills there are tonics. Australia has been a most vigorous and impressive ally. Al Qaeda knows it, too, which explains the overt threats, multiple bombings of holiday spots in Bali, and the other plots within Australian cities more recently. There are certainly some diplomatic problems as wellincluding stalemate in the Middle East, and decline in international support for global terror war. These problems merge into the realm of "public diplomacy." A dimension of our power that is under-used and badly used is the public effort to "tell our story abroad."9

FlNHSTHOUR 135/28

When it comes to reaching out to potential friends, we're doing very, very badly. I will waste no time enunciating something that has been talked of in this town for years. We have a problem, and we must face it, belatedly, in this sixth year of war. Churchill would not want us to come here to Old Ebbitt's just to drink and chatter and complain. He would want us to discuss solutions to the problem.. .while we are drinking. In that spirit, here are a few considered ideas to improve things a little in American information operations and public diplomacy. I chose to focus here, at the expense of other issues in grand strategy. Call these rubrics "The Four R's."

"The Four R's"

1) Recreate the Bureaucracy of Public Diplomacy

During the Cold War we had an entitythe United States Information Agencythat specialized at reaching over the Iron Curtain, over the heads of despots, to subject populations. Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty and like programs were deemed by people like Alexander Solzhenitsyn to be powerful. But after the Berlin Wall came down, so did the architecture of USIA. It was folded into the State Department in much smaller form. Now we have a small office for public diplomacy which has been frequently vacant and often badly staffed. I will not name any of the incumbents of that office. But when I puzzle on why this part of government has done so little for so many yearsyears the locusts have eatenI recall an acidic remark incorrectly attributed to Churchill: "an empty car drew up and Clement Attlee got out." There is inadequate leadership at State on this issue, and the same is true on the National Security Council even though one of its six directorships is titled "global outreach." Our best diplomats are schooled to cultivate foreign diplomats, not foreign populations and news editors. We need a separate bureaucracy with its own culture and the special function of public diplomacy. Before 9/11, we didn't know we needed this; we should have created it in 2002; we will be suffering for it when 2007 merges into 2008. 2) Resource the Effort The State Department has been under-funded. If need be I'd take $10 or $15 billion from Defense and reallocate it to State.10 In the present crisis, instead of doing much more to reach out overseas, we've constricted some operations. There are consulates that closed in the 1990s, and so too did some embassy and consulate librariesyet they are exactly the kind of place that students and other curious people can come to learn about the USA and its policies and its people. We have set up a TV station that beams in Arabic language to the Middle Eastal-Hurrah. The concept is good. It will need better supervision, and it will need resources. So do other radio services which are being cropped back for 2007 or 2008. Our government is

apparently eliminating VOA broadcasting in Uzbek, Croatian, and Georgian, reducing VOA and RFE/RL services in the Ukraine and former Portuguese Africa, and reducing broadcasts in Kazakh.11 And then there is this: we are now eliminating VOA broadcasting in the English language. Is this because using English abroad is considered imperialist? Or is it that we are too foolish to see that broadcasting news and healthy entertainment in English is a friendly way to teach other peoples about ourselves? As a congressional staffer, I observed how quick we are to trim away public diplomacy programs. When cuts were proposed in the National Endowment for Democracy, then receiving a mere $17 million, George Will referred to this as "slaying the butterfly of democracy." Some critics think our approach to the Long War is too military. Let them speak up! Words are cheaper than weapons, and often more effective.
3) Restore the Moral Impulse and Argument to Diplomacy

In 2002-03 in the war on terrorists, we were too quiet on the moral front. We felt quelled by Abu Ghareb. Now many of our leaders say little or nothing at all, on most occasions, about the moral obscenity of terrorism. Democracy, the rule of law, and moderation are the best and the obvious alternatives to politics driven by terrorism. That is evident in sad places such as Lebanon, Sri Lanka, the Congo. We should quit apologizing for who we are and make overtly the robust defense that democracy and freedom deserve. No one should defend Abu Ghareb. Nor should we apologize for fighting people who write manuals advising how to torture and how to kill innocents.12 It is time to adjust our direction and proceed with some confidence on the rhetorical path that is central to reaching public opinion in the world. Right action is vital, but we need the right arguments too. Do public spokesmen know how to make the arguments against terrorism? Do they at least remember the ones that used to be made by Jean Francois Revel and Ronald Reagan? Do our social scientists teaching here in America recall what they were taught in civics class? I harbor doubts. As a student in graduate school in the late 1970s, I heard a foreign-born student ask our Poly Sci professor for a definition of democracy. He balked, and then asked me, because he knew I was taking a course in political philosophy. "Self-rule under law" is a wonderful, short, powerful definition of democracy. Churchill wrote and spoke to this question so often. Two years before his Fulton speech, for example, in August 1944, he was asked how he would judge whether the new Italian government was a true democracy. Churchill described what he called "simple and practical tests" by which democratic freedom can be measured: Is there the right to free expression of opinion and of opposition and criticism of the Government of the day? >> 135/29

FINEST HOUR

FULTON AND TODAY'S WAR...

Have the people the right to turn out a Government of which they disapprove, and are constitutional means provided by which they can make their will apparent? Are their courts of justice free from violence by the Executive and from threats of mob violence, and free from all association with particular political Parties? Will these courts administer open and well-established laws which are associated in the human mind with the broad principles of decency and justice? Will there be fair play for poor as well as for rich, for private persons as well as Government officials? Will the rights of the individual, subject to his duties to the State, be maintained and asserted and exalted? Is the ordinary peasant or workman, who is earning a living by daily toil and striving to bring up a family, free from the fear that some grim police organization under the control of a single Party, like the Gestapo, started by the Nazi and Fascist Parties, will tap him on the shoulder and pack him off without fair or open trial to bondage or ill-treatment? These simple, practical tests are some of the title-deeds on which a new Italy could be founded.1-^ A few months later, in October 1944, he said a similar thing in simpler form. In the House of Commons, celebrated over hundreds of years for high-flown ideals and soaring speeches, Churchill declared: "At the bottom of all the tributes paid to democracy is the little man, walking into the little booth, with a little pencil, making a little cross on a little bit of paperno amount of rhetoric or voluminous discussion can possibly palliate the overwhelming importance of that point."^ The tests and procedures Sir Winston recommended are political virtues for all peoples in all times. They are not "ethno-centric." They can exist quite independently of Britain or the USA. The virtues of moderate politics, democracy and the rule of law can and should "sell" abroad, not because we invented them; not because they need to sell; but because they are desirableat least to many peoplefor their own reasons and on their own terms. Democracy worked in ancient Greece; it works today in Bangladesh and Taiwan and the Republic of South Africa. It might even work in a generation or two in North Korea. After all, look how far it has come in a generation in South Korea.

4) Renew the Rhetorical Fight

If Churchill constantly reminds us of anything, I suppose, it is to attend to rhetoric. Good, bad, or indifferent, rhetoric is a centerpiece of policy. So I submit to your judgment five arguments15 which we should be using. Most have been ignored by our leadersespecially key people in the public eye who have the opportunity to talk through VOA and al-Hurrah and the International Herald Tribune and the global diplomatic circuit.

These are points we need added to our public diplomacy. You may have your own, which I would welcome; you may wish to strike out one or two of mine, which is fine with me. The point is that the times demand fresh elements in the world's discussions. We must begin to move people's mindsfortify our friends and allies. (1) Al Qaeda's leaders are not clerics. Most are not even deeply schooled in the subtleties of Islam. Thus they have no credibility when publishing "fatwas." It is astounding that a civil engineer (Bin Laden) or a surgeon (al Zawahiri) should pretend to tell Muslims how to be holy, or whom to kill between rounds of prayers. Washington, correctly, does not try to explain the Koran; but Washington should deprecate these terrorists' impudence and posturing as religious interpreters. (2) Most attacks by "Muslim" zealots have killed or injured Muslimsfrom Egypt's Anwar Sadat to the lowliest soul buying vegetables in a bazaar, or seated with friends at a pizzeria. Apparently the U.S. government declines even to count the Muslims murdered by selfdescribed holy Muslims.16 The tally would be a compelling argument against terrorismespecially for those abroad who imagine that counterterrorism is nothing but Western concern. By the way, any newspaper could make the same countwith the same concentration they now apply to counts of the American war dead. (3) Innumerable terror attacks have been by Shia against Sunni, or vice-versa. These are unseemly invitations to a war within a civilization. Eventually, a Sunni terrorist, Abu Musab al Zarqawi, stated openly his strategy for war upon all Shia in Iraq. Such declarations should be held up to the cold light of shame, and mentioned frequently in explanation of other but similar attacks by other Zarqawis of the world. I have seen social scientists wax indignant when imagining that the U.S. is waging a war of religious civilizations. How many of these same observers speak up against terrorists who actually do try to set off a war between Muslim factions? (4) Purportedly aiming at "Jews and American Crusaders," Islamic terrorists have bombed or shot or burnt alive scores of non-Americans in other countries. In Eastern Africa in 1998, U.S. embassies were targeted but, overwhelmingly, the human damage was to Kenyans and Tanzanians. In Bali, Australian tourists were the target, but many Indonesians and a mix of foreigners died from the Jemaah Islamiya/al Qaeda double-bombing. How can terrorists justify such murders? Their own writings point to their vulnerability on this issue. (5) Some legitimate Muslim clerics have spoken up. The Islamic Commission of Spain, representing some 200 Sunni mosques in that country, roundly condemned Bin Laden and al Qaeda for terrorism, publishing a fatwa against them in 2005. That same year, the Muslim Council of Britain condemned the indiscriminate terrorism of London by bomb plots. The clerics went so far 135/30

FINEST HOUR

TT "Wow could we bear to be treated JL \.like schoolboys...to be turned out on parade by tens of thousands to march and cheer for this slogan or for that; to be forced every hour to conceal the natural workings of the human intellect and the pulsations of the human heart? Why, I say that rather than submit to such oppression, there is no length we would not go to.... We are in the midst of dangers so great and increasing, we are the guardians of causes so precious to the world that we must, as the Bible says, 'Lay aside every impediment' and prepare ourselves night and day to be worthy of the Faith that is in us." WSC, Paris, 1936

Endnotes
1. Pilpel, Robert H., Churchill in America: 1895-1961: An ectionate Portrait (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1976), section title. The press conference notes quoted are on pp. 214-15. 2. Ibid., 223. 3. Taubman, William, Stalin's American Policy: From Entente to Detente to Cold War (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1982), 133. 4. Pravda, Moscow, 1 August 1946, as reported in the same day's Associated Press. Robert Pilpel traced the phrase "iron curtain" to a 1942 usage by a German finance minister. Sir Martin Gilbert traced it yet farther back, to the Russian emigre philosopher Vasily Rozanov in Apocalypse of Our Time (1918): "With a rumble and a roar, an iron curtain is descending on Russian History." 5. "Prime Minister to President Truman," T. 895/5, on 12 May 1945, CHAR 20/218, Churchill Archives Centre, Cambridge University. I appreciate the aid of the Archives, and the support of the Marine Corps University Foundation which made those visits possible. 6. Churchill usually restricted his doubts about the United Nations to private discussions with advisers. He did write a caustic passage against the organization as peopled with so many small states as to be a "Babel" at times, but that prose came later, when writing the final volume of his war memoirs. 7. The Military Staff Committee is mentioned in the UN Charter, articles 26 and 47. The committee meets regularly. Yet it is so obscure that when I asked one speaker who had just lectured on UN peacekeeping operations about it, he balked, asked me to repeat the question, and then had no reply. Books on containment and the postwar world also forget the committee. Dr. Janeen Klinger of the Army War College believes that the onset of Cold War made military activity by the UN so unlikely that its military staff committee immediately proved moribund. She points the reader to Eric Grove, "UN Armed Forces and the Military Staff Committee: A Look Back," International Security, vol. 17, no. 4, Spring 1993, 172-82. 8. A critical meeting between U.S. and British officials took place at the British Embassy in Washington on 22 May 1943. Those present included Vice President Henry Wallace and Sumner Welles, a State Department appeaser before the war and a bitter critic of Churchill's; in 1946 he would say kind things about the Fulton speech. 9. "Telling America's Story Abroad" is the official objective of the Voice of America. 10. While the entire budget for the Department of State and our foreign aid program is less than $35 billion, that of the Department of Defense is nearing $500 billion. 11. "Voice of America: Cuts at a Glance," Associated Press, 23 February 2007. 12. There are several of these, including Military Studies in the Jihad Against the Tyrants, c. 1994, discovered in Manchester, England, some years later. 13. 28 August 1944; see Martin Gilbert, Winston S. Churchill vol. 7, Road to Victory (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1986), 918. 14. Ibid., 1046, speech of 31 October 1944. 15. Harmon, Christopher C, Terrorism Today, 2nd. ed. (Abingdon, Oxford, Routledge/Taylor & Francis, 2007), ch. 5. 16. It is encouraging that the latest White House national strategy for counterterrorism does make a passing mention of this incredibly important pattern in terrorism. 17. Gilbert, Martin, Winston S. Churchill vol. 5, Prophet of Truth 1922-1929 (London: Heinemann, 1976), 788. Paraphrase and quotations, 24 September 1936, Theatre des Ambassadeurs, Paris. M)
c

as to call upon the faithful in Britain to "unite in helping the police to capture these murderers." But the bravery of such moderates was barely noted by the Western press, and hardly mentioned in Washington. It should have been detailed in a White House press conference on developments in foreign affairs.

Conclusion
"Let us preach what we practice," as Churchill said at Fulton, and begin to compete seriously in the struggle for public opinion. No student of Winston Churchill should ever forego the art of rhetoric in the ways we have in these last five years. We will defeat this latest scourge of militant Muslim terrorism. It is a fierce and ugly ideology. But the same was true of international anarchism, Soviet bolshevism, and Nazi fascism, and all those have been defeated. All violent ideologies, from wherever they come, are by their natures less worthy than democracy. And so on this anniversary of Fulton, which marked the commencement of a war of ideas more than a standoff of armies, let us reenergize our convictions. As Winston Churchill said to an ally in a speech entitled "Collective Security" in 1936: all aggressive action must be judged, not from the standpoint of Right and Left, but of "right and wrong....We are in the midst of dangers so great and increasing, we are the guardians of causes so precious to the world, that we must, as the Bible says, 'lay aside every impediment,' and prepare ourselves night and day to be worthy of the Faith that is in us."17

FINEST HOUR 135/31

THE PROTRACTED CONFLICT

Failing in Baghdad: The British Did It First

HERE IS WHAT BRITAIN'S HISTORY of failure at building a democratic state in Iraq in the 1920s and 1930s tells George W. Bush and his successors: If, like Gen. Maude, they fail to deliver on the promises of a better future for the Iraqi people, then Iraq will continue as a font of violent instability long after those who made the promises have been buried.
BY TOBY DODGE

100 200 km t the center of Baghdad's in an ignominious surrender to the Turks in April 1916. neglected North Gate War Cemetery, near the Having rallied from that loss and finally reached Baghdad, Maude edge of the old city walls, As Sulaymanlyah tried to create common cause stands an imposing grave. SamarrSC between the British army and the Sheltered from the weather by a city's residents, whom he saw as havgrandiose red sandstone cupola, it is 1 BAGHDAD ing been oppressed by 400 years of the final resting place of a man from Ottoman rule. "Your lands have whom George W. Bush could have JORDAN been subject to tyranny," he declared learned a great deal about the perils in his proclamation, and "your of intervening in Iraq. SAUDI wealth has been stripped from you Lt. Gen. Sir Frederick Stanley ARABIA by unjust men and squandered." He Maude was head of the British army promised that it was not "the wish in Mesopotamia when he marched of the British Government to impose MESOPOTAMIA, into Baghdad on a hot, dusty day in THEN AND NOW: upon you alien institutions." Instead, March 1917. Soon thereafter, he The boundaries he called on residents to manage issued Britain's "Proclamation to the remain as Winston Churchill laid their own civil affairs "in collaboraPeople of Baghdad," which eerily them out at the tion with the political representatives foreshadowed sentiments that Bush 1921 Cairo conferof Great Britain." and his administration would ence. Lt. Gen. Sir Frederick Maude express eighty-six years later: British Maude did not live to see the (left) arrived and forces, Maude declared, had entered failure of his efforts to rally the peothe city not as conquerors, but as (Photo from www.firstworldwar.com) ple of Iraq to the British occupation. liberators. He died eight months later, having Maude had arrived in Baghdad after a long and contracted cholera from a glass of milk. arduous military campaign. British forces had been After his death, British policy toward Iraq changed fighting the Ottoman army for 2 1/2 years and had sufrepeatedly as the army attempted to dominate the counfered one of the worst defeats of World War I in the sixtry and suppress the population, while the government month siege of the eastern city of Kut, which had ended strove to adjust to Britain's diminished role in the international system after World War I. Initially, the aim was Toby Dodge (t.dodge@qmul.ac.uk) is author of Inventing Iraq: The simply to annex the territory and make it part of the Failure of Nation Building and a History Denied (Columbia University Empire, run in a fashion similar to India. But Woodrow Press). He is associate professor of international politics at the Wilson's Fourteen Points speech in January 1918 did in University of London and a senior fellow at the International Institute that idea. In setting out America's vision for the postwar for Strategic Studies. This article, first published in Washington Post world, Wilson expressly attacked the duplicitous diploOutlook, 25 February 2007, is reprinted by kind permission of the author and The Washington Post. macy of European imperialism, which he blamed for

FINEST HOUR

135/32

dragging the world into prolonged military conflict. This meant that a modern, self-determining state was now to be built in Iraq. Britain was to take the lead, but its effort was to be continually scrutinized by the League of Nations, which had been set up under Wilson's watchful eye at the Paris Peace Conference at the end of the war. In an echo of what is happening under the U.S. occupation, hopes for a joint Anglo-Iraqi pact to rebuild the country were dashed by a violent uprising. On 2 July 1920, a revolt, or thawra, broke out along the lower Euphrates, fueled by popular resentment of Britain's heavy-handed behavior in Iraq. The British army had set about taxing the population to pay for the building of the Iraqi state, while British civil servants running the administration refused to consult Iraqi politicians, judging them too inexperienced to play a role in the new government. The rebellion quickly spread across the south and center of the country. Faced with as many as 131,000

could. After defeating wartime coalition Prime Minister David Lloyd George, whose Colonial Secretary, Winston Churchill, had engineered the organization of Iraq, the victorious Bonar Law pledged that "at the earliest possible moment, consistent with statesmanship and honour, the next government will reduce our commitments in Mesopotamia." U.S. presidential candidates campaigning to seize the White House in 2008 should be forewarned, however: it took Britain ten more years to jettison its financial and military commitments to Iraq. During that period, a number of governments struggled to reduce the size of the forces deployed, and the amount of money being spent. They strove for a decade to stabilize the country and meet Britain's pledges to the international community while trying to placate domestic opinion. The tensions involved in this exercisebuilding a state from scratch with a hostile population, under severe budgetary constraints and in the face of rising domestic anger ultimately led to the failure of the whole exercise.

I ihe policy failure leads to increasingly desperate attempts to stay the course, to pour JL in ever greater numbers of troops, gambling on a resurrection of the initial policy. This middle stage comes to an end with the decision to disengage. Interestingly, this choiceadmitting defeat and going homeis usually taken by a new government."
insurgents armed with 17,000 modern rifles left over from the war, the British army needed eight months to regain full control of Iraq; 2,000 British troops were killed, wounded or taken prisoner and 8,450 Iraqis were killed. To make matters worse, the British government was forced to pour troops back into Iraq, long after the end of the war, to stabilize the situation. The revolt forced Britain to devolve real power to Iraqi politicians. At the head of this new administration the British placed a newly created king, Faisal ibn Hussein, famous for his association with Lawrence of Arabia during the war. But the revolt had as much influence in Britain as it did in Iraq itself. The "blood and treasure" expended in putting down the violence made the continued occupation extremely unpopular. The public's discontent reached its peak in the general election campaign of November 1922. The leader of the opposition, Conservative Andrew Bonar Law, captured the national mood when he declared: "We cannot alone act as the policeman of the world." Newspapers and candidates organized their electioneering around the "bag and baggage" campaign demanding that Britain withdraw from Iraq as soon as it Like Maude's before him, Bush's policy in Iraq has resulted in a series of unintended outcomes. In the face of ever-increasing violence, the stirring rhetoric about Iraq becoming a beacon of democracy in the Middle East has been quietly dropped. Instead, the operation in Iraq has been placed on the frontline of the global fight against terrorism: It is better to battle terrorists on the streets of Baghdad than in Brooklyn or Houston, the mantra goes. Where does this leave U.S. policy toward Iraq? Historical studies often divide military interventions into three general phases. The first phase, the initial decision to invade, is shaped by common misperceptions that the conflict will be short and that military force can be used to achieve political objectives. World War I began with an assumption that British troops would be home by Christmas; Bush declared the "mission accomplished" after three weeks. The second phase is marked by a slow realization that both these assumptions are wrong. The policy failure leads to increasingly desperate attempts to stay the course, to pour in ever greater numbers of troops, gambling on a resurrection of the initial policy. This middle stage 135/33

FINEST HOUR

FAILING IN BAGHDAD... comes to an end with the decision to disengage. Interestingly, this choiceadmitting defeat and going homeis usually taken by a new government. The 1920 revolt, followed by the change of government in London in 1922, led to a prolonged but largely unsuccessful attempt to do nation-building on the cheap. The final transformation of policy was marked by another change of government. The election of May 1929 resulted in a Labour administration. The new foreign policy team found it easier to identify the contradictions at the heart of Britain's relations with Iraq and find ways to overcome them. It recommended Iraq for unconditional membership to the League of Nations in 1932, unceremoniously dumping Britain's commitment to building a democratic and stable state. Iraq became a fully independent state that same year. But it was unable to defend itself against its neighbors, or to impose order without assistance. The government was ultimately dependent on the Royal Air Force to guarantee its survival. Eighty years later, after failing to stabilize Iraq, the U.S. government has come face to face with the high costs of the new "forward-leaning" foreign policy of the Bush doctrine. Comparisons with other military interventions suggest that Bush will continue to pursue a largely unvarying policy in Iraq, deploying all the troops and resources at his disposal in an attempt to correct the mistakes that have been made. The result, as the president himself has recognized, will be to push the difficult decisions about the future of U.S. involvement in Iraq onto his successor. History, however, has two final disturbing lessons for the next president. The governing elite nurtured by the British to take their placethe Iraqi royal family and their associates brought to the country in 1921 proved unfit for the purpose and were swept aside by a military coup in 1941. The British army was forced to reinvade and restore them to power. Yet even this second invasion was not enough. The violent instability that engulfed Iraq and resulted in the rise of Saddam Hussein was triggered by the murder of the royal family by Iraqi army officers in July 1958. The crime was committed in the name of Arab nationalism, as a strike against British interference in a sovereign Arab nation. Here is what Britain's history of failure at building a democratic state in Iraq in the 1920s and 1930s tells George W. Bush and his successors: If, like Gen. Maude, they fail to deliver on the promises of a better future for the Iraqi people, then Iraq will continue as a font of violent instability long after those who made the promises have been buried. $3

But Did Britain Fail?

WHAT BRITAIN'S EXPERIENCE may teach us is that superpowers can only fail voluntarily.
BY DAVID FREEMAN

rofessor Dodge is broadly correct in his outline of the history of Iraq, and his case is compelling for what may happen if promises of a better future for Iraqis are not kept. Our chief concern herethe role of Winston Churchill in the British Iraq Mandateis limited, because his involvement, if not his policies, ended with the fall of the Lloyd George coalition in November 1922. The description of what happened from that point on is accurate. Yet it can be argued that Britain's venture in Iraq was not a failurefor reasons which have little to do with prospects there today. I disagree with the characterization of Britain's initial goals for Iraq in the 1920s, and would challenge the suggestion that what is being attempted now is the same as what was attempted then. There are several important points that should be considered:
1. What was Britain trying to accomplish by estab-

lishing Iraq in 1922? First, to fulfill residual obligations from the war (which Professor Dodge does not mention; but see the accompanying correspondence between Churchill and Lloyd George, particularly the comments of the latter). Second, to establish a stable government broadly friendly to British interests, the most important of which was preserving the link to India. If the British had indeed been trying to build a nation founded on democratic self-determination, they would not have arrested and deported the leader of just such a movement and imposed the alien Hashemite monarchy. In other words, the British were simply trying to keep a lid on things, given their own diminishing resources. They did not consider Iraq a high priority. Churchill made it clear that he was prepared to order a unilateral withdrawal of British forces from the region if the desired

Professor Freeman (dafreeman@fullerton.edu) is a regular contributor to Finest Hour and his last article was "Midwife to an Ungrateful Volcano: Churchill and the Making of Iraq" in FH 132, Autumn 2006. He teaches History at California State University, Fullerton.

FINEST HOUR 135/34

low-cost settlement could not be achieved. 2. British policy was in fact successful in achieving its goal. Relying on support from air power, a relatively stable government friendly to British interests was maintained in Iraq for as long as Britain needed it. If not by Indian independence in 1947, then certainly following the Suez episode of 1956, Britain no longer had either the need or the inclination to sustain the Hashemite government. It had served its purpose, and the British could justly claim that thirty-five years was quite long enough to expect the Hashemites to have established themselves or face the consequences. The Hashemite monarchy established at the same time in neighboring Jordan, after all, survives to this day. 3. The 1920 Iraq uprising came as Britain was in the process of reducing its troop commitments. Professor Dodge correctly notes that it was a troop increase that ended the rebellion, but frames this in a negative context. Surely the troop "surge" is what gave Britain the opportunity to establish its low-cost solution? (The additional troops, by the way, came from India.)

4. Bonar Law's statement about reducing commitments in Mesopotamia can be misinterpreted. The settlement worked out by Churchillwith the support of Bonar Law's Conservatives, who made up the majority of Lloyd George's Coalition governmentenabled the reduction of British troops stationed in Iraq. This was already in place when Bonar Law made his remarks. He was simply pledging to carry out the policy. 5. League of Nations scrutiny of Britain's policies was intended, but the United States never joined the League. The Mandate under which Britain governed Iraq was supervised by the League Council, made up of Britain, France and other imperial powers holding Mandates. In short: the Mandate holders were policing themselves. Churchill's solution met the obligations Britain had acquired during and after the First World War and continued to work for as long as it was needed, after which time it was abandoned. Realpolitik? Perhaps, but it worked, and that is the point at issue here. Most likely the only real similarity between the situation in Iraq then and now is the unchanged nature of the populace. U

Correspondence on Iraq, 1922

WINSTON S. CHURCHILL AND DAVID LLOYD GEORGE

WSC to DLG (Churchill papers: 17/27) 1 September 1922 I am deeply concerned about Iraq. The task you have given me is becoming really impossible. Our forces are reduced now to very slender proportions. The Turkish menace has got worse; Feisal is playing the fool, if not the knave; his incompetent Arab officials are disturbing some of the provinces and failing to collect the revenue; we overpaid 200,000 on last year's account which it is almost certain Iraq will not be able to pay this year, thus entailing a Supplementary Estimate in regard to a matter never sanctioned by Parliament; a further deficit, in spite of large economies, is nearly certain this year on the civil expenses owing to the drop in the revenue. I have had to maintain British troops at Mosul all through the year in consequence of the Angora quarrel: this has upset the programme of reliefs and will cerReprinted by kind permission from the official biography, Winston S. Churchill, Companion Volume IV, Part 3, starting at page 1975. "Wee Free" may refer to the Asquith Liberals, who were "free" of the Lloyd George Coalition. An August 1920 letter along the same lines ("There is something very sinister to my mind in this Mesopotamian entanglement") was written but not sent; see Companion Volume IV, Part 2 (Heinemann, 1977), 1199. In 1921 Churchill became Colonial Secretary and went to Cairo to settle Middle East boundaries.

tainly lead to further expenditure beyond the provision. I cannot at this moment withdraw these troops without practically inviting the Turks to come in. The small column which is operating in the Rania district inside our border against the Turkish raiders and Kurdish sympathisers is a source of constant anxiety to me. I do not see what political strength there is to face a disaster of any kind, and certainly I cannot believe that in any circumstances any large reinforcements would be sent from here or from India. There is scarcely a single newspaperTory, Liberal or Labourwhich is not consistently hostile to our remaining in this country. The enormous reductions which have been effected have brought no goodwill, and any alternative Government that might be formed hereLabour, Die-hard or Wee Freewould gain popularity by ordering instant evacuation. Moreover in my heart I do not see what we are getting out of it. Owing to the difficulties with America, no progress has been made in developing the oil. Altogether I am getting to the end of my resources. I think we should now put definitely, not only to Feisal but to the Constituent Assembly, the position that unless they beg us to stay and to stay on our own terms in regard to efficient control, we shall actually evacuate before the close of the financial year. I would put this

FINEST HOUR 135 / 35

issue in the most brutal way, and if they are not prepared to urge us to stay and to co-operate in every manner I would actually clear out. That at any rate would be a solution. Whether we should clear out of the country altogether or hold on to a portion of the Basra vilayet is a minor issue requiring a special study. It is quite possible, however, that face to face with this ultimatum the King, and still more the Constituent Assembly, will implore us to remain. If they do, shall we not be obliged to remain? If we remain, shall we not be answerable for defending their frontier? How are we to do this if the Turk comes in? We have no force whatever that can resist any serious inroad. The War Office, of course, have played for safety throughout and are ready to say "I told you so" at the first misfortune. Surveying all the above, I think I must ask you for definite guidance at this stage as to what you wish and what you are prepared to do. The victories of the Turks will increase our difficulties throughout the Mohammedan world. At present we are paying eight millions a year for the privilege of living on an ungrateful volcano out of which we are in no circumstances to get anything worth having. DLG to WSC (Churchill papers: 17/27) 10 Downing Street, 5 September 1922 My dear Colonial Secretary, I agree that the situation in Iraq requires most careful consideration, and think you should put your views before the Cabinet on Thursday. The whole problem has arisen out of the decision to attack the Turks in Mesopotamia. Strategically, I think that decision was faulty. To be effective we had to leave our base on the sea for hundreds of miles in a torrid country utterly unfit for white fighting. We ought to have concentrated on Gallipoli and Palestine or Alexandretta. The Taurus was then unpierced. The decision was taken when I was hardly on the fringe of the War Cabinet. You were in it. Having provoked war with the Turk we had to fight him somewhere, but the swamps of the Tigris were a badly chosen battle-ground. Whatever, however, the merits or demerits of the original decision to fight in Mesopotamia, it certainly is responsible for our difficulties now; and tracing the story back to that decision, I do not see how any of our subsequent troubles could have been avoided. It was quite clear to me when I became Prime Minister that we could not afford to relax our campaign against the Turks in that region. Such a decision, after the withdrawal from Gallipoli, and the surrender of a British army at Kut, would have weakened our position throughout the Mahomedan world. Having beaten the Turk both in Iraq and in Palestine, we could not at the Armistice have repudiated all our undertakings towards the Arabs. We were respon-

sible for liberating them from Turkish sovereignty, and we were absolutely bound to assist them in setting up Arab governments, if we were not prepared to govern them ourselves. As to the present position, it is very disappointing that Feisal has responded so badly to your excellent efforts to make him self-supporting with a minimum of British protection; but I do not think that an effective case can be made against us on that score, if we stand together and meet criticism courageously. If we have failed in Iraq, it is because we have taken no effective steps during our years of occupation to prospect the possibilities of the country. As you know, I was anxious that the Anglo-Persian [Oil Company] should bore to ascertain the value of the oil deposits. We have, however, done practically nothing in that respect. If we leave, we may find a year or two after we have departed that we have handed over to the French and the Americans some of the richest oil fields in the worldjust to purchase a derisive shout from our enemies. On general principles, I am against a policy of scuttle, in Iraq as elsewhere, and should like you to put all the alternatives, as you see them, before the Cabinet on Thursday.

Retrospect
hurchilPs warnings about Iraq are today quoted frequently, but the situation in 1920-22 had its own characteristics. Britain was quarreling with Turkey (Lloyd George was anti-Turk) and oil was not a major factor, except as a way Britain's Iraq Mandate might "pay its own way." America was then the main oil producer, the vast Arabian oil fields were still undiscovered, and Britain's oil supply was assured via the Anglo-Persian Oil Company in Iran. Oil was suspected to be plentiful in Iraq, and Lloyd George regretted that no effort had been made to confirm this and exploit it. In his unsent 1920 letter to Lloyd George, Churchill declared that the Arabs had "laid aside the blood feuds they have nursed for centuries and that the Suni and Shiah [sic] tribes are working together." Was he right? Perhaps not, but apparently today the opposite situation exists. The Iraqi leader who could get the Sunni, Kurds and Shia to work together would be heralded as a wizard of Bismarckian proportions. The British decision to hold Iraq by air power, bucking up the Hashemite King Feisal while withdrawing troops, was taken in Cabinet. Iraq obtained nominal independence in 1932. The thirty-five-year Hashemite dynasty, after several coup attempts and revolts, finally fell in the revolution of 1958, which led to the Ba'athists and, ultimately, to Saddam Hussein. Ed. M

iST HOUR 135/36

THE PROTRACTED CONFLICT (2)

Churchill and Lloyd George

POLITICAL MYOPIA, 1936-1945: HOPING YOUR COUNTRY WILL LOSE
BY JAMES LANCASTER

here is one conspicuous absentee in the famous David Low cartoon of 14 May 1940, "All behind you Winston," where Churchill and his cabinet colleagues stride forward purposefully, their sleeves rolled up, four days after WSC became Prime Minister. The absentee is David Lloyd George, Churchill's former mentor and Prime Minister for much of World War I. He is not in the cartoon because he was not in the Governmentof his own choice. Lloyd George refused to join the War Cabinet three times, on 13 May, 28 May and 6 June. He also refused Churchill's offer, on 10 December 1940, to go to Washington as Ambassador, following the death of Lord Lothian. During the first six months of Churchill's premiership, friends and colleagues of all parties tried to persuade Lloyd George to support Churchill and join the government. His secretary and mistress, Frances Stevenson, tried as hard as anyone, admitting, "I knew that LG's iron will was set against working with Churchill."1 Stevenson recorded this on 20 June 1940. By October she had come round to Lloyd George's plan, writing to him: "Your time will surely come, and the great thing is to keep fit until that time arrives."2 Why did Churchill want Lloyd George, someone he had, early in his career, referred to as "a chattering little cad,"3 in his coalition government? The principal reason was his belief that in a wartime coalition: "The sense of duty dominates all else, and personal claims recede."4 Although Churchill had become increasingly disillusioned with his old chief in the interwar years, he wanted his government to represent all parties, including that much diminished Liberal faction led by Lloyd George. He also wanted to muzzle the "Welsh Wizard," and with good reason. Lloyd George had proclaimed on many occasions his admiration for Hitler, following their two meetings in 1936. He had consistently attacked the government for incompetence, and had spoken in favour of discussing peace terms with Hitler. With his prestige still intact, his emergence as a British Petain needed to be guarded against one way or another. Churchill cer-

"ALMOST ALL BEHIND YOU, WINSTON": Low would have caused a stir had he added a ghostly Lloyd George, pondering his options in May 1940. (LG image from a cartoon in The Tatler of 26 Apri 1911.) Can readers name all the complete faces depicted by Low? Photoshop modifications by Barbara Langworth.

tainly thought LG could do more good on the team than opposing it from the outside. Why for his part did Lloyd George, who resented being successively spurned by Premiers Macdonald, Baldwin and Chamberlain, refuse to "fall in" behind Churchill? Where was his "sense of duty"? Why did he not bury his "personal claims"? To decline four invitations from your Prime Minister to serve your country in the hour of her peril reveals, at the very least, extraordinary disloyalty. It was also unpatriotic. Worse, it sent the wrong message to the enemy. Many of Lloyd George's articles were so defeatist that many people thought he should be locked up. Duff Cooper replied to one of his harangues in the House in September 1939 saying that it "would be received with delight in Germany, where it would be said that the man who claimed to have won the last war was already admitting defeat in this one."5 One reason for Lloyd George's refusals was his profound pessimism, his feeling that the situation was militarily hopeless. Only a few weeks after the outbreak of war, Harold Nicolson and Robert Boothby met him at Thames House. In his diary entry for 20 September 1939 Nicolson wrote: "He [Lloyd George] says that he is frankly terrified and does not see how we can possibly win the war."" The Welshman even constructed at a cost of 6000 an air-raid shelter sixty feet underground at Churt, his country estate. His secretary, Arthur Sylvester, said it was like Piccadilly underground station. Lloyd George's only formal explanation for not joining the Government was his 29 May letter to Churchill, saying he could not join a War Cabinet containing Chamberlain. When he refused Churchill's final offer, to become Ambassador in Washington in December 1940, he said that his doctor (Lord Dawson

FINEST HOUR 135 / 37

CHURCHILL AND LLOYD GEORGE... whom Brendan Bracken called "the undertaker's friend") advised against it. Dawson had actually given him a clean bill of health. In reality, as he confided to Frances Stevenson, he had no intention of accepting the offer. Lloyd George had every reason to want to stay in Britain at this time. Despite his defeatist leanings he had frequently been canvassed as the only man who could save the country, not only before Churchill became Prime Minister but in the months following. It is significant that when he turned down the post as Ambassador in Washington, the Sunday Pictorial was in the middle of a campaign supporting him as the alternative prime minister.7 He was convinced that, one way or another, he would be called to save the country. He had thus been called in 1916; why not a second time? "I shall wait until Winston is bust," he told Arthur Sylvester.8 Not content with waiting for Churchill to make one blunder too many, Lloyd George led the attack on the Prime Minister in the Vote of Confidence on 7 May 1941. He accused Churchill of surrounding himself with "yes-men." He said it was fatuous to suppose that Britain could ever invade mainland Europe, that it was more important to have manpower in agriculture than in the army, and that the War Cabinet should be sacked. In his reply, Churchill turned on Lloyd George with the remark: "It was the sort of speech with which, I imagine, the illustrious Marshal Petain [WSC always pronounced Petain as "peatayne"] might well have enlivened the closing days of M. Reynaud's Cabinet."^ The vote was carried 447-3, Lloyd George, as usual, abstaining. Although most dissident Tories by then supported Churchill, Lloyd George continued to attack the government whenever the war news was bad. Behind this defeatist attitude lay the continuing hope that his hour was still to come. He listened every night to German propaganda from Berlin, hoping that a stalemate situation would force a peace accommodation. He felt sure he would be the man the country would choose to parley with Hitler. Yet, while continuing to attack the government, at no time did Lloyd George spell out, privately or in a public forum, what peace terms he would propose or accept. Nor did he ever question his own ability to do business with Hitler. Fortunately Lloyd George's opportunity to negotiate an undefined peace, with a man who never respected any agreed terms or conditions, never came. Churchill had not met Hitler, but he had the measure of him. "Each one hopes that if he feeds the crocodile enough, the crocodile will eat him last," WSC had said of the neutral nations in January 1940. His old mentor thought he knew better. In his meetings with Hitler in 1936 Lloyd George had been very impressed (as was Halifax in 1937, and Chamberlain in 1938). He had been deeply touched by Hitler telling him that the Allied

victory in the World War I was owed to one great statesmanLG himself. This "one great statesman," had he been given the opportunity, would, in the best case, have failed to reach an agreement with Hitler. In the worst case, he would have been party to nothing less than German hegemony in Europe, and to Britain's defeat. Lloyd George died on 26 March 1945. In his tribute on 28 March, Churchill concentrated on the deceased's achievements in the days of social reform before 1914, and on his premiership in the critical years 1916-18: "Although unacquainted with the military arts, although by public repute a pugnacious pacifist, when the life of our country was in peril he rallied to the war effort and cast aside all other thoughts and aims."10 Churchill was referring to the First World War. In the Second, Lloyd George conspicuously chose not to "rally to the war effort" nor to "cast aside all other thoughts and aims." In his tribute, Churchill, magnanimously, chose not to say anything about Lloyd George during the years 1936-45. Were Churchill's war policies compromised in any way by the contrary behaviour of his "old friend"? No never at any time. Lloyd George had been sidelined when he failed to bring the government down in the Vote of Confidence. Prior to that debate Churchill did not move one iota to meet LG's stated conditions under which he might serve: removing Chamberlain from the War Cabinet and reorganising the Cabinet along the lines of the War Directorate which LG set up in 1916. Following that Vote of Confidence, in a letter to his son Randolph on 8 June 1941, Churchill considered Lloyd George as one of the "small fry" who "do their best to abuse us whenever the war news gives them an opportunity, but there is not the slightest sign that the House as a whole, or still less the country, will swerve from their purpose."11 Churchill had concluded his closing speech in that critical debate by dismissing the naysayers' defiance: "When I look back on the perils which have been overcome, upon the great mountain waves through which the gallant ship has driven, when I remember what has gone wrong, and remember also what has gone right, I feel sure we have no need to feel the tempest. Let it roar, and let it rage. We shall come through."12

Endnotes
1. The Autobiography of Frances Lloyd George (London: Hutchinson, 1967), 264. 2. Taylor, A.J.P., ed., The Letters of Lloyd George and Frances Stevenson: 1913-1941 (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1975), 241. 3. Gilbert, Sir Martin, Churchill: A Life (London: BCA/Heinemann, 1992), 147. 4. Churchill, Winston S., The Second World War, vol. 2, Their Finest Hour (London: Cassell, 1949), 8. 5. Duff Cooper, Alfred, Old Men Forget (London: Rupert Hart-Davis, 1953), 267.

FINEST HOUR 135/38

CHURCHILL AND LLOYD GEORGE...

6. Nicolson, Nigel, editor, Harold Nicolson, The War Years 1939-1945, Diaries and Letters (New York: Atheneum, 1967), 35. 7. Lysaght, Charles, Brendan Bracken (London: Allen Lane, 1980), 179. 8. Cross, Colin, editor, Life with Lloyd George: The Diary of A.J. Sylvester (London: Macmillan, 1975), 281.

9- Churchill, Winston S., The Unrelenting Struggle (London: Cassell, 1943), 120. 10. Churchill, Winston S., Victory (London: Cassell, 1946), 89. 11. Gilbert, Sir Martin, Winston S. Churchill vol. 6, Finest Hour 1939-1941 (London: Heinemann, 1983), 1105. 12. Churchill, Winston S., The Unrelenting Struggle, op. cit., 133.

WSC on Taxation
"THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A GOOD TAX," Churchill is alleged to have said. But did he say it?
I am doing research for my assignment: Taxation, and various taxes used to raise money. Could you let me know where Churchill says, "There is no such thing as a good tax"? Nicole

here is no occurrence of that statement, or any part of it, in Churchill's 15 million published words of speeches, articles, letters and books. However, there is one that is close: "Taxes are an evila necessary evil, but still an evil, and the fewer we have of them the better."
HOUSE OF COMMONS, 12 FEBRUARY 1906

Churchill, who favored Free Trade, was here attacking protective tariffs. He added: "...every arrangement between protectionist States which takes the form of a reduction in the tariff barriers of the world is a distinct advantage." Using the search feature on our website, enter the word "taxes," and this will lead you to useful articles on Churchill's views of taxation. Especially read the article "Opportunity Lost?" at http://xrl.us/wsac. Churchill thought hard about taxation, and his early beliefs were largely formed on the basis of Progress and Poverty, a book by the American economist Henry George. Following George's ideas, Churchill argued that people have the right to possess what they produce, or receive in exchange for their workbut there is no congruent right to private ownership of the elements upon which all depend: air, water, sunshine and land.

Henry George held that if private ownership of basic elements is permitted, suppression and exploitation of one class by another is inevitable. Churchill wanted to shift taxation from production to land. In 1909 he said: "You can tax wealth or you can tax wagesthat is the whole choice....Taxation should not only have regard to the volume of wealth, but, so far as possible, to the character of the processes of its origin." Churchill believed in this tax because he observed the high prices even then demanded for commercial land. Such land, he said, was created not by any individual but by the existence and work of the entire community. The article explains why the idea did not work out. Henry George's theories are little known todaybut in his early career, they were central to Winston Churchill's thinking about taxation. Your writing about this will probably astonish and impress your teacher.

"...the taxes on incomes over 3,000 a year, upon estates at death, on motor cars before they cause death, upon tobacco, upon spirits, upon liquor licences, which really belong to the State and ought never to have been filched away; and, above all, taxes upon the unearned increment in land are necessary, legitimate and fair; and that without any evil consequences to the refinement or the richness of our national life, still less any injury to the sources of its economic productivity, they will yield revenue sufficient in this year and in the years to come to meet the growing needs of Imperial defence and of social reform."
MANCHESTER, 23 MAY 1909

More Churchill on Taxes

"The great principle which this House ought to guard and cherish is that, when the tax collector comes to the private citizen and takes from him of his wealth for the service of the public, the whole of that money taken shall go for the purposes for which it is intended, and that no private interests, however powerfully they may be organized and however eloquently advocated, shall thrust their dirty fingers into the pie and take the profit for themselves."
HOUSE OF COMMONS, 8 JUNE 1908 FINEST HOUR 135/39

"This refusal to treat all forms of wealth with equal deference, no matter what may have been the process by which it was acquired, is a strenuous assertion in a practical form that there ought to be a constant relation between acquired wealth and useful service previously rendered, and that where no service, but rather disservice, is proved, then, whenever possible, the State should make a sensible difference in the taxes it is bound to impose."
NORWICH, 26 JULY 1909

"The idea that a nation can tax itself into prosperity is one of the crudest delusions which has ever fuddled the human mind."
ROYAL ALBERT HALL, 21 APRIL 1948 M>

MYTH AND REALITY

What Did Churchill Really Think About the Jews?

SOMEONE ELSE'S OPINIONS, IN AN UNPUBLISHED ARTICLE WHICH NEVER APPEARED IN PRINT UNDER CHURCHILL'S NAME, CANNOT BE LAID AT CHURCHILL'S DOOR. BY SIR MARTIN GILBERT CBE n a press release announcing a book by Richard Toye on Churchill and Lloyd George, Cambridge University Press put its main emphasis on the discovery of a previously unknown article written by Winston Churchill in 1937, containing considerable anti-Semitic imagery. The 1937 article, "How the Jews Can Combat Persecution," was "unearthed by Dr. Richard Toye, a Cambridge University historian," according to The Independent. "Written three years before Churchill became Prime Minister, the article has apparently lain unnoticed in the Churchill Archives at Cambridge since the early months of the Second World War. "Churchill criticised the 'aloofness' of Jewish people from wider society and urged them to make the effort to integrate themselves....Churchill says: 'The central fact which dominates the relations of Jew and non-Jew is that the Jew is "different." He looks different. He thinks differently. He has a different tradition and background.' He then criticises Jewish moneylenders: 'Every Jewish moneylender recalls Shylock and the idea of the Jews as usurers. And you cannot reasonably expect a struggling clerk or shopkeeper, paying 40 or 50 per cent interest on borrowed money to a "Hebrew Bloodsucker," to reflect that almost every other way of life was closed to the Jewish people.' " In fact, this article has not "lain unnoticed," and not one word of it was written by Churchill. Nor did the article ever appear in print, either under his name or that of any other. The article was written in its entirety by a British journalist, Adam Marshall Diston (1893-1956).
Professor Gilbert is official biographer of Winston Churchill, a CC honorary member, and a contributor to Finest Hour. His book, Churchill and the Jews, was published in Britain in June by Simon and Schuster, and will be published in the USA by Holt in October. EDITOR'S NOTE: We trust that readers will appreciate that the painful quotations from this article are neither ours nor Sir Martin Gilbert's, but come from press reports and releases. Reflecting on his four decades as official biographer in Finest Hour 65, Sir Martin said something we should never forget about Churchill: "I never felt that he was going to spring an unpleasant surprise on me. I might find that he was adopting views with which I disagreed. But I always knew that there would be nothing to cause me to think: 'How shocking, how appalling.'" No. Never. RML

This fact was unknown to Dr. Toye, in whose new book on Churchill and Lloyd George the article appears as if written by Churchill. After the press release, I pointed out to Dr. Toye that not a single word of the article was by Churchill, and gave him Diston's name. He replied: "Thank you for drawing my attention to what I hadn't been aware of about the article." It is astonishing that a professional historian should not be aware of the name of the actual author, a name that first appeared in the relevant volume of the Churchill biography, Winston S. Churchill, Companion Volume V, Part 3, The Coming of War: Documents 1936-1939 (London: Heinemann, 1982), page 670, which showed that the article was written in full by Diston. Churchill, who was then writing on average an article a week, paid Distona journalist, a member of Sir Oswald Mosley's New Party in its pre-fascist days, and a would-be Labour Party parliamentary candidate in 1935to draft certain articles. Some of Diston's other drafts were amended by Churchill and published with his amendments; a few were published unamended. The article in question, "How the Jews Can Combat Persecution," was however not published at all. This was fortunate, as it was offered for publication three times: twice in 1937, shortly after Diston wrote it, and once in 1940. Some have claimed the act of offering it to a publisher means that Churchill approved of itbut this was not the way his articles were offered. In 1937, Churchill himself would not have offered the article personally. His private office did that, and was always most efficient. It is not clear that Churchill even read either the original or the retyped Diston article: neither have any markings on them by him, which suggests that he had not, since other Diston drafts are copiously red-penned. In 1940, the then-editor of his war speeches, Charles Eade, unearthed the article and suggested he publish it. But Churchill, alerted to its anti-Semitic overtones by secretary Kathleen Hill, would not permit publication. Someone else's opinions, in an unpublished article, which never appeared in print under Churchill's name, cannot be laid at Churchill's door. 135/40

FINHST HOUR

hat were Churchill's actual views on the Jews? In 1982 I published Churchill's written instructions to Marshall Diston on what the article should cover. Churchill wrote: "Obviously there are four things. The first is to be a good citizen of the country to which he belongs. The second is to avoid too exclusive an association in ordinary matters of business and daily life, and to mingle as much as possible with non-Jews everywhere, apart from race and religion. The third is to keep the Jewish movement free from Communism. The fourth is a perfectly legitimate use by the Jews of their influence throughout the world to bring pressure, economic and financial, to bear upon the Governments which persecute them."* Churchill had always urged the Jews to be good citizens, while retaining their faith and culture. His advice to his Manchester Jewish constituents in 1907 was: "Be good Jews." He explained that he did not believe a Jew could be "a good Englishmen unless he is a good Jew." A year later, at the first public meeting he attended with his wife Clementine, a few weeks after their marriage, he told those gathered to open a new wing of the Manchester Jewish Hospital that he was "very glad to have the experience of watching the life and work of the Jewish community in England; there was a high sense of the corporate responsibility in the community; there was a great sense of duty that was fostered on every possible occasion by their leaders." Avoiding "too exclusive" an all-Jewish association was another consistent theme. Churchill welcomed Jews as part of the wider British community, and was impressed by how many accepted that challenge. His friend Rufus Isaacs became (as Lord Reading) both Viceroy of India and Foreign Secretary. But he was worried when Lloyd George wanted to include three Jewish Cabinet Ministers among the seven Liberals in his 1918 administration, writing to the Prime Minister: "There is a point about Jews which occurs to meyou must not have too many of them. Three Jews among only seven Liberal Cabinet Ministers might I fear give rise to comment." Keeping "the Jewish movement" free of Communism was another consistent theme. The prominence of individual Jews in senior positions in the Communist revolutions in Russia, Bavaria and Hungary had alarmed Churchill since the 1917 Bolshevik revolution. Writing about this in 1920 he urged the Jews to abandon Communism, and either enter into the national life of their own countries, as in Britain"while adhering faithfully to their own religion"or opt for Zionism.
* Martin Gilbert, ed., Winston S. Churchill, Companion Volume V, Part 3, The Coming of War. Documents 1936-1939, London: Heinemann, 1982; Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1983, 654. See also Gilbert's notes on the Diston draft of "King George VI," page 519.

Churchill regarded Zionism as "a very great ideal," writing in 1920: "If as may well happen, there should be created in our own lifetime by the banks of the Jordan a Jewish State under the protection of the British Crown, which might comprise three or four millions of Jews, an event would have occurred in the history of the world which would, from every point of view, be beneficial." Churchill's 1922 White Paper established that the Jews were in Palestine "of right, and not on sufferance." During the Second World War he suggested appointing the Zionist leader, Dr. Chaim Weizmann, as British High Commissioner for Palestine (in 1910, as Home Secretary, Churchill had signed Weizmann's naturalization papers). Fighting persecution was also Churchill's consistent advice to the Jews, at a time when he himself was being abused by Nazi newspapers in Germany for his outspoken criticism of Nazi racial policy. Some of his most powerful words in the House of Commons after Hitler came to power were denunciations of the cruelty of Nazi antiSemitic policies. Anti-Semitism was anathema to Churchill. In a letter to his mother he described the French anti-Semitic campaign against Dreyfus as "a monstrous conspiracy." His main criticism of the Conservative Government's Aliens Bill in 1904 was that the proposed immigration controls could be abused by an "anti-Semitic Home Secretary." When, in the House of Commons in 1921, Churchill spoke in favour of Jewish land purchase in Palestine, a fellow Member of Parliament warned him that, as a result of his advocacy, he would find himself up "against the hereditary antipathy which exists all over the world to the Jewish race." This was indeed so: in 1940 a senior Conservative gave as one reason for Churchill's unsuitability to be Prime Minister his "pro-Zionist" stance in Cabinet, protesting against the Chamberlain government's restrictions on Jewish land purchase. During the Second World War, Churchill suggested the removal of "anti-Semitic officers" from high positions in the Middle East. This led one of those officers, his friend General Sir Edward Spears, a Liberal MP, to warn this writer that "Churchill was too fond of Jews." Following the King David Hotel Jewish terrorist bombing in 1946, at a time of strong anti-Jewish feeling in Britain, Churchill told the House of Commons: "I am against preventing Jews from doing anything which other people are allowed to do. I am against that, and I have the strongest abhorrence of the idea of anti-Semitic lines of prejudice." These were Churchill's consistent, and persistent beliefs. As he remarked when his criticisms of Jewish terrorism in Palestine were being discussed: "The Jewish people know well enough that I am their friend." This was indeed so. $

FINEST HOUR 135/41

Churchill and the Tank (i): Present at the Creation

BY DAVID FLETCHER

"In the first place the Commission desire to record their view that it was primarily due to the receptivity, courage and driving force of the Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer Churchill that the general idea of the use of such an instrument of warfare as the 'Tank' was converted into a practical shape. Mr. Winston Churchill has very properly taken the view that all his thought and time belonged to the State and that he was not entitled to make any claim for an award, even had he wished to do so. But it seems proper that the above view should be recorded by way of tribute to Mr. Winston Churchill."
Royal Commission on Awards to Inventors, in summing up claims in respect of "Invention of Tanks"

"MOTHER": Members of the Landships Committee and its designers with "Mother," the first rhomboid-shaped tank, during an early demonstration at Burton Park, Lincoln in 1916. Winston Churchill was not present on this occasion.

he Inspiration/Perspiration Ratio is well known where inventions are concerned, and it should be recognised that Churchill's contribution falls directly into the former categorybut even then it did not spring from nowhere. His duties to the Fleet and the Royal Naval Air Service notwithstanding, the First Lord of the Admiralty was always looking for an opportunity to gain a toehold in a war zone. It came sooner than he thought when that piratical
Mr. Fletcher is author of War Cars (1987) and The British Tank 19151919 (2001). Photographs were supplied by the author by kind courtesy of the Tank Museum Collection, Bovington Camp, Dorset.

RNAS officer, Charles Rumney Samson (who in earlier times was one of those who taught Churchill to fly), took his squadron to Dunkirk in 1914. Within weeks, whenever the weather prevented flying, these men were tearing around Flanders in home-made armoured cars, shooting up the German cavalry and having the time of their lives. Grasping the opportunity, Churchill encouraged expansion of this armoured car force with newly made vehicles from Britain and before long anyone with a sense of adventure was anxious to join in; among them the legendary "Bendor," the Duke of Westminster. But it didn't last, and couldn't last. Trenches appeared, often dug across the roads: barbed wire likewise. Shell fire began to turn the ground into a quagmire

FlNF-STHOUR 135/42

and the movement of armoured cars was restricted. After all, even the best of them were no more than conventional cars with about four tons of armour bolted on, even if many were Rolls-Royces. Most were handed over to the Army while the men dispersed. Some went back to sea. The Duke took his armoured cars to Egypt but others, fired up with the potential of armoured warfare on land, returned to London and thought up new ideas. Among them was a chap named Tom Hetherington, who somehow managed to retain commissions in the Army and the Navy at the same time. He dreamed up the idea of a huge machine, something one might associate with H. G. Wells, which would roll into Germany on 40-foot-diameter wheels, wade across the Rhine and bring the war to an end in weeks. Hetherington and Churchill came together at a dinner, hosted by Westminster, and there is little doubt that the young officer's impossible design reignited the First Lord's interest. Churchill himself was, above all, a realist, who dealt best with what he could see and understand. Commodore Murray Sueter, Director of the Air Department at the Admiralty, remembers Churchill storming around his office saying, "We must crush the trenches, D.A.D.: It is the only way; it must be done."1 Churchill's first effort along these lines was abortive. Two municipal steam rollers were acquired, linked up side by side and then driven like mad at a trench parapet, only to get stuck in the soft mud and sit there, belching smoke, rollers spinning, going nowhere. On a more practical level the First Lord ordained an Admiralty Landships Committee,2 which met (for the first time in the First Lord's rooms at the Admiralty since he had the flu) under the chairmanship of Eustace Tennyson D'Eyncourt, Director of Naval Construction, in February 1915. This committee, and the driving force behind it, was Churchill's greatest contribution to the evolution of the tank. The Landships Committee's first problem was to decide upon the respective merits of wheels or Caterpillar tracks. Hetherington's huge wheeled design was simply too big, and even a half-scale version, designed by William Foster and Company in Lincoln, was rejected at an early stage. That left tracks. But tracks, as a means of crossing rough ground, were hardly known in Britain and early prototypes mostly had to be imported from the USA. Murray Sueter educated Churchill on the properties of tracks by inviting him down to Horse Guards to push a small tracked truck around. Soon the Landships Committee had experiments going on everywhere and Churchill attended one with Lloyd George, as the following article notes, at a testing ground near Wormwood Scrubs. Even so, Churchill was better with men than machines, and his last great contribution to this saga was to appoint a pushy young merchant banker, one Albert

Stern, as secretary to D'Eyncourt's Committee. Commissioned as a Lieutenant in the RNAS, Stern went at it like mad, with no respect for rank or station. Stern didn't tread on toeshe leapt on them, and managed to make himself very unpopular. But he got things done. A prototype machine, first known as "Little Willie," was running by the summer of 1915. Its successor"Big Willie" or "Mother"the true prototype of all British World War I tankswas completed the following December and a matter of months later, production began. As Marcus Frost relates next, tanks went into action for the first time on 15 September 1916. In the circumstances, it was an amazing feat to imagine, invent, design and produce a brand new weapons system in so short a time. Churchill, by then, was out of the picture. Reaction to the Dardanelles reverse, his resignation from the government and subsequent return to uniform, kept him away from developments in Britain. Yet it did not leave his mind, and from the trenches he sent Sir John French a document entitled "Variants of the Offensive,"^ which proved to be very influential. It was not simply a plea for the tank, but a broad-based look at the prob-

ORIGINS: Tommy Hetherington, above, drives the Killen-Strait tractor through barbed wire entanglements at Wormwood Scrubs. Albert Stern strides at left; Lloyd George and Churchill, though present, are not in the photo. A Pedrail one-ton truck, below, of the type Churchill pushed around on Horse Guards Parade as an example of a track-laying vehicle.

FINEST HOUR 135 / 43

CHURCHILL AND THE TANK (I)... lem and various solutions. Try something, try anything! was its basic cry. Even so, Churchill devoted a good deal of the manuscript to "Caterpillars," as most people called them at the time. In the document he revealed to French that such machines were already being built in Britain and would soon be ready for servicejumping the gun a bit since Fosters of Lincoln were still playing around with the prototype. What makes this appeal interesting is the fact that Churchill, now that he was an Army officer, was soliciting the Commander-in-Chief's support. Months earlier he got very upset when one of the Landships Committee revealed the project to General Smith-Dorrien since, at that time, the First Lord wished his Landships to be a naval responsibility. Douglas Haig saw Churchill's paper when he replaced Lord French as commander of the British Expeditionary Force in December 1915. A far more responsive officer, despite his undeserved reputation as an unimaginative "blunderer and butcher," Haig sent one of his officers to see Churchill and then proceeded to England to witness a prototype demonstration. This officer, Colonel Hugh Elles, Royal Engineers, would take command of the Tank Corps for the duration of the war Churchill missed the first demonstration of a tank, which took place in the grounds of Hatfield Park, Hertfordshire at the end of January 1916; he was in France. He also missed the second demonstration on February 2nd, which was laid on especially for the Minister of War, Lord Kitchener, but at least Churchill was spared hearing Kitchener refer disparagingly to a "pretty mechanical toy" as he strode off, halfway through the performance.

hurchill returned to the government fold in the summer of 1917, as Minister of Munitions under Lloyd George. By this time the tank programme was in full swing and there was no need for him to become involved. In any case there was more than enough to do; the supply of steel alone was getting beyond the critical state and, with the United States as the main source, there was conflict with the French. That first tank attack was not a great success, but at least it was sufficient to convince Field Marshal Haig of the tank's efficacy and cause him to order 1000 more. Basking in a certain amount of reflected glory, Churchill wrote a paper on "The Greater Application of Mechanical Power to the Prosecution of an Offensive on Land," at the behest of the Prime Minister, for the Committee of Imperial Defence and the War Cabinet. As Mr. Frost explains, 1917 was a bad year for

tanks, notably during the summer offensive when they often floundered in the Flanders mud. Thus it is interesting to note that in a memo to the War Cabinet on the munitions programme for 1918, written in October 1917, Churchill places tanks fifth in a list of six desirable factors, with artillery at the top and even transportation (road and rail) above tanks. The irony is that just a month later, on 20 November 1917 at Cambrai, the tanks turned in a performance that changed virtually every mind. Not that it was all plain sailing at home. In his new position, Churchill came under increasing pressure, particularly from senior officers, to get rid of Stern, who had trodden on far too many toes. In an acrimonious interview in August 1917, a transcript of which has survived, Churchill gave Stern the dressing down of his life. Stern stood accused of wasting public money on useless tanks, of failing to anticipate future requirements and technical developments, and failing to create an experimental department to work on new tanks. None of this really stands up to close investigation, but Churchill's anger matched the mood of the time and it was enough to see Stern kicked out of his post, albeit with the promise of a knighthood and a new position as chairman of an Anglo-American tank committee. Churchill's demand for an experimental department seems to have sparked new thoughts and, about a month later, in a paper entitled "Special Tanks," he suggested amphibious and mine-clearing tanks. This reveals remarkable prescience, and work on such projects was actually in progress when the war came to an end. It came into its own twenty-seven years later when adapted tanks, referred to as "specialised armour," cleared the way off the Normandy beaches. Tanks made a major contribution to British success in the Great War, more than justifying Winston Churchill's initial leap of faith. Yet that was not the end of Churchill's association with tanks. As Chancellor of the Exchequer in the interwar years, Churchill made a point of being photographed at significant demonstrations and, of course, his involvement in World War II resulted in the famous Churchill Tank; but that is another story.

Bndnotes
1. Broad, Lewis, Winston Churchill (London: Hutchinson, 1941), 163. 2. Churchill, Winston, The World Crisis, vol. 2, 1915 (London: Thornton Butterworth, 1923), 77. 3. Ibid., 86. 4. Churchill, Winston, The World Crisis, vol. 3, part II, 19161918 (London: Thornton Butterworth, 1927), 302. See also Glanfield, John, The Devil's Chariots (London: Sutton Publishing, 2001); Fletcher, David, War Cars (London: HMSO, 1987; and The British Tank 1915-1919 (London: Crowood Press 2001). $

F I N E S T HOJIR 135/44

Churchill and the Tank (2 In for the Duration

BY MARCUS FROST

By 1915, the bloodbath of World War I seemed endless. The Central Powers, I.M Germany, Austria-Hungary and Turkey, were pitted against Britain, France, Italy and Russia, and the slaughter among their soldjers, was intense. The battle lines were frozen on every front and no advances were being made by ^JtSMy pressing chests against bullets. But Winston Churchill had an idea.

T^Jiv*.** BRITISH TRIBUTE TO A WORLD WAR I ALLY: A British Mark IV tank at Caterpillar, Inc. in Peoria, Illinois, presented "in appreciation of the great service rendered Great Britain by the Holt Manufacturing Company during the war." (Caterpillar, Inc.)

n these solemn days we mourn every life lost in battle, but perhaps we have lost sight of what it was like for our forbears. Ninety years ago in the age of static trench warfare, men were mowed down by machine guns if they rose from their parapets and tried to advance. Each side pummeled the other with deadly artillery fire; shrapnel shredded bodies on both sides. In the battles of Verdun and the Somme between July and November 1916, almost a million were killed, an average of 6600 per day, 277 per hour, five per
Mr. Frost, of Mexia, Texas, is a Churchill Centre Governor, Trustee and Associate (the only individual who is all three). He is active in both our Dallas and San Antonio affiliates, and sponsored the recent teacher seminar in March at Baylor University.

minute. By war's end Germany and Russia would lose 1.75 million men each, France and Austria-Hungary about 1.4 million each, Britain 750,000, Italy 615.000.1 A 42-year-old doctor, John M. McCrae of the Royal Canadian Army Medical Corps, wrote the most frequently quoted English-language poems of the war after days of being surrounded by the human wreckage:
In Flanders fields the poppies blow Between the crosses, row on row, That mark our place; and in the sky The larks, still bravely singing, fly Scarce heard amid the guns below?

Could anything be done to stop the death and carnage? In London, Prime Minister Herbert Asquith received a suggestion from a colleague: "It would be

FINEST HOUR 135/45

CHURCHILL AND THE TANK (2)... quite easy in a short time to fit up a number of steam tractors with small armoured shelters, in which men and machine guns could be placed, which would be bulletproof. Used at night, they would not be affected by artillery fire to any extent. The caterpillar system would enable trenches to be crossed quite easily, and the weight of the machine would destroy all barbed-wire entanglements. "^ The writer was Winston Churchill. His letter marked the first step toward the practical evolution of the tank in World War I. The caterpillar track was invented in 1770 by Richard Edgeworth, an Englishman. During the Crimean War (1853-56) his countryman, James Boydell, constructed a few steam-powered tractors based on this design, which unfortunately were not ready in time for the Crimea, though there were plans to use them. The development of the tank remained dormant until the arrival of the internal combustion engine, first developed in Germany by Gottlieb Daimler in 1885.^ In 1904, Benjamin Holt of Stockton, California, became convinced that a steam traction engine with extended wheels was not practical in farming. Holt had begun to develop and produce steam-powered wheeltype tractors in the mid 1880s. He had turned to the possibility of using a track to replace the wheels because of its superior weight-bearing surface. Holt had gone to England in 1903 to investigate developments in crawler tractors. He had also sent some of his own company officials to view a track-laying design by AJvin O. Lombard of Waterville, Maine, who had developed a tracked log hauler on skids for use in the winter. After gathering as much information as possible, Holt began to perfect his own design on track-laying tractors.5 On Thanksgiving Day, 24 November 1904, Holt successfully tested his first track-type tractor close to the Stockton site of Holt Manufacturing Company. The test tractor had a refitted steam traction engine. The wheels had been replaced with two track frames 30 inches high, 42 inches wide and nine feet long. The tracks fitted to each frame were constructed of 3x4-inch wooden slats. This first crawler was able to operate on ground too soft for men and horses, because of its greater weight bearing surface area. After numerous tests, regular production models of the Holt track-layer were introduced in 1906, priced at $5500 each.6 Although successful in bearing weight in soft ground, these early track layers were cumbersome and expensive to operate, and depended on horses to bring water and fuel to feed the boilers and fire boxes. In 1908 Holt brought out a gasoline-powered crawler which in motion had the appearance of a caterpillar. The famous Caterpillar trademark was born through Holt's efforts.7 Across the Atlantic in 1901, British inventor

Frederick Simms had produced a design of what he called a motor-war car, with a Daimler engine, a bulletproof shell and two maxim guns on revolving turrets. The British War Office rejected Simm's design and showed no interest in similar schemes. By the outbreak of the First World War, a Wisconsin company produced the Killen-Strait Armoured Tractor. Its tracks consisted of a continuous series of steel links, joined together with steel pins. In June 1915 a Killen-Strait with a British armored car body plonked on top was tested at Wormwood Scrubs before Winston Churchill and David Lloyd George, who watched it cut through barbed wire entanglements. (See photo, previous article.) Churchill had just fallen from power, having been relieved as First Lord of the Admiralty on 28 May over the Dardanelles operation. It is possible that the Dardanelles, itself conceived as an alternative to trench warfare, weighed on Churchill's mind as he observed another possible solution to the slaughter in Europe.^ Holt's Caterpillar tractor had by then become famous among both warring sides for its design and workability, and a Holt Agency had been established in Austria by a Hungarian, Leo Steiner. In 1912 the Austrian military was attracted to Holt's design when it proved superior in hauling heavy artillery. In 1913 Steiner was ordered to procure as many Holt tractors as possible but when war broke out with England in 1914, the pro-British Holt refused to fill the orders.9 When the British military became interested in the possibilities of crawler traction on the battlefield, they too turned to Holt. As early as September 1914, Holt engineers were sent to England, while the British War Department sent an officer to Holt's newly opened East Peoria, Illinois factory. One Briton greatly influenced by Holt's Caterpillar was Col. Ernest Swinton, who had the idea to build an armed and armored machine gun destroyer.10 With the help of Col. Maurice Hankey, then Secretary of the War Cabinet, Churchill at the Admiralty was persuaded to set up a "Landships Committee" to look at the possibilities of building a new war machine.11 (Refer to David Fletcher's preceding article.) The Admiralty Landships Committee ultimately commissioned Lt. W.G. Wilson of the Naval Air Service and 135/46

FINEST HOUR

William Tritton of William Foster & Co. Ltd. of Lincoln to produce a small "landship." Built in secrecy, the machine was given the code-name and referred to as a "water tank for Mesopotamia"partly because of its appearance, partly to keep its true nature secret. Thus the name "tank."12 Holt did not build tanks for Britain; those eventually produced were of British production. But it was the Holt design and track laying caterpillar system, according to Swinton, that sparked the development of British tanks.13 On 20 January 1916 the first British tank began its trials. More than a year earlier, Churchill had encouraged the inventors and technical experts to work out an effective design; when the War Office showed no interest, Churchill had found Admiralty money to fund the experiments. He had also encouraged those who believed, as he did, that the tank could effectively end trench warfare, substantially lessening the casualties in France and Flanders.1* Tanks were used for the first time in battle on the Somme, where a dramatic turn in the Entente (Allied) fortunes took place on 15 September 1916. Forty-nine tanks took part in the attack, moving forward on a wide front. Ten were hit by German artillery fire, nine broke down with mechanical difficulties, and five failed to advance. The rest advanced more than 2000 yards, capturing the long-sought High-Wood, and three villages, Flers, Martinpuich, and Courcelette. But a disappointed Churchill wrote to Admiral Fisher, both of them now out of power: "My poor 'land battleships' have been let off prematurely and on a petty scale. In that idea resided one real victory."15 Churchill had wanted to produce tanks in large numbers, and only deploy them when as many as 1000 were available. Recognizing the potential of the new weapon, British Commander General Haig asked the War Office for a thousand. The Germans, fortunately, were far behind in their own tank experiments. As the tanks helped the British advance, Raymond Asquith, the Prime Minister's son, was shot through the chest and died. Also wounded that day was the future Prime Minister Harold Macmillan, who lived out his life with bullet fragments embedded in his pelvis, which gave him a "shuffling walk." During the day he was wounded, Macmillan recalled seeing a tank, one of "these strange objects," bogged down in a shell-hole.16 The tank quickly proved its worth, even in small numbers. Eleven days after its first use, an attack by thirteen tanks captured the village of Thiepval, which had held out since the first day of the Somme offensive. That same day, Combles fell to an infantry attack supported by two tanks, while at Gueudecourt, where tanks were assisted by air reconnaissance, 500 Germans were taken prisoner with only five British casualties.

he new invention was not without its problems. In muddy conditions tanks became stuck and almost completely useless. Deployment methods and tank use in the military arts had not evolved very far, and to use them in the wrong way would actually hinder a battle. The French used tanks for the first time on 17 April 1917, when Gen. Nivelle planned to advance six miles using twenty divisions along a 25-mile front along the river Aisne. The attack was a disaster; his men halted after only six hundred yards. Expecting 15,000 casualties, Nivelle wound up with 100,000. Of the 128 tanks used in the battle, thirty-two were knocked out on the first day. Two villages in the battle zone, Nauroy and Moronvillers were totally destroyed. ^ Far to the south and east in Palestine, meanwhile, the British launched their second attempt to capture Gaza. Despite eight tanks, the use of gas shells, and a two-to-one troop preponderance, this attack was a failure, but Gaza fell to Allenby's troops on 1 November 1917, the tanks doing everything that was expected of them despite harsh desert conditions. By mid-May 1917, Haig's troops had made greater advances than at any time since the start of trench warfare two and a half years earlier: 61 square miles of German-held territory, over 20,000 prisoners of war, and 252 heavy guns were taken in just over a month. The tank had become an integral part of British infantry, and the results were telling. The first German tank trial was held only that month, on 14 May at Mainz, two days before the renewed Battle of Arras ended. The Germans had finally learned to appreciate this new weapon. On 10 August 1917, the British renewed the Ypres offensive, but the advance was impeded four days later by heavy rain. On the 16th the village of Langemarck was taken, but a German counter-attack recovered much of the gains. The initiative lay, however, with the British, who were helped in capturing the fortified German pillboxes by the use of tanks, and also by a ferocious French diversionary attack on the German lines at Verdun, when more than 5,000 Germans were taken prisoner. On 23 October along the Aisne, the French launched a limited but sustained attack on German positions defending the Chemin des Dames, assisted by eighty French tanks. They advanced two miles across the pulverized terrain, taking 10,000 prisoners and depriving the enemy of an important observation point at LafTaux. Among the places captured by the French was the Fort de la Malmaison, a former fortress which had been sold before the war to a private builder, for use as a stone quarry. Known as the Battle of the Quarries, the victory was what one historian has called "neat and compact and satisfying as a gift package; indeed a gift to cheer a tired and discouraged country." The Germans, unwilling to

FINEST HOUR 135/47

CHURCHILL AND THE TANK (2)... face a protracted battle (and also because of the presence of the tanks), withdrew from the Chemin des Dames to a lower position two miles farther north.18 The British launched their third 1917 offensive on 20 November, aimed at Cambrai and beyond. A quarter of a million British troops faced similar numbers of Germans along a six-mile front. Here for the first time in the history of warfare, the main thrust of the attack was carried out by tanks: 324 took part in the opening attack. Their appearance in such numbers was effective. They crashed through barbed wire defenses and within hours had made a break in the German line. "The triple belts of wire were crossedas if they had been beds of nettles," Captain D.G. Browne recalled, "and 350 pathways were sheared through them for the infantry. The defenders of the front trench, scrambling out of dugouts and shelters to meet the crash and flame of the barrage, saw the leading tanks almost upon them." The appearance of these metallic creatures, wrote Browne, was "grotesque and terrifying." The initial success was somewhat dampened because of a design flaw whereby the tank tracks broke down after a short time in action. But the first day at Cambrai marked a decisive success for the new device to breach the enemy front line. The German defences had been broken, five miles gained, and more than 4000 soldiers taken prisoner. The British newspapers trumpeted: "Greatest British Victory of the War....A Surprise for the Germans."'^ On 5 March 1918 Churchill, now Minister of Munitions, assured Lloyd George that he would produce 4000 tanks by April 1919. Victory, WSC said, could only be certain when Britain and France had stronger and better armies than Germany: "That is the foundation on which everything rests, and there is no reason why we should not have it in 1919."20 The first tank-to-tank battle between German and British machines was on 24 April 1918 on the Western Front. German troops, assisted by thirteen tanks, took Villers-Bretonneux; a British heavy tank knocked out its first adversary, but the others turned and fled. Seven British tanks pushed forward into the German infantry positions "and did great execution," General Rawlinson noted in his diary. "They claim 400 killed at least." On the Western Front, the French were seeking to reverse the German victories of early 1918. On 30 June, south of Ambleny, the French attacked with a new type of 5 1/2-ton tank, adopting the earlier German tactic of advancing rapidly to their objective on one flank before turning back to capture the troops in the center. Only then did they search for German soldiers hiding in caves, taking a thousand prisoners. A million American troops and military personnel were in France by the beginning of July 1918, but the month before the influenza that had begun in India and

Britain reached the Western Front. Over 62,000 Americans were to die of influenza in France against 48,909 from enemy action.21 German attacks continued along the Western Front. On 17 July, when the Germans reached NanteuilPourcy, Italian troops drove them off. The atmosphere at German headquarters was very different from the confidence they had held back in March. "Fairly depressed mood," noted Col. Mertz von Quirnheim of the Operations section, and he added: "Difficult question what is to happen from now on?" The answer came from the Allied side on the following day, 18 July, when the supreme Allied commander, Marshal Foch, launched a counter-attack along a 27-mile front. More than 200 tanks took part in the offensive. The German line gave way, driven in to a depth of 4 1/2 miles. Twenty thousand German prisoners and 400 heavy guns were captured. Jaulgonne, where the Germans had crossed the Marne six weeks earlier, was retaken by the Americans, who with the French began a northward march to Fereen-Tardenois. On 10 August, Churchill told Lloyd George that the Tank Corps would need 100,000 men by June 1919. Allied plans for the coming year were gaining momentum. A tank factory had already been built at Chateauroux, France. Churchill, representing Britain on the Inter-Allied Munitions Council, likened the activity surrounding the production of war munitions to that of bees: "At the Ministry of Munitions we were the bees of Hell, and we stored our hives with the pure essence of slaughter. It astonishes me to read in these after years the diabolical schemes for killing men on a vast scale by machinery or chemistry to which we passionately devoted ourselves."22 By August 1918 the tide of the war was turning in favor of the Allies. German morale was low, the Kaiser in a state of deep depression, as the Allies advanced farther and faster with the help of the tank. Gen. Haig had already pictured in his mind how he wished to fight the remainder of the war. On 10 September 1918 he asked the War Office in London for mounted men, and all forms of munitions designed to increase mobility, for a "war of movement." The tank would certainly be involved in this type of warfare.2^ The Great War came to an end with a sudden German collapse, ending with an armistice, on the eleventh hour, of the eleventh day, of the eleventh month, 1918. The tank had firmly established itself as a necessary weapon for use in modern warfare. From the invention of the tracked steam tractor by Benjamin Holt to Colonel Swinton's idea of placing an armored, bulletproof cab with machine guns on a track-type tractor, the tank was developed into a formidable fighting machine that saved lives and helped armies to advance into enemy lines.24 Its development had drastically changed

iisr HOCK 135/48

methods of battle by eliminating deadly trench warfare. After the war, museums were opened and relics of Armageddon became part of many monuments. In England, in 1924, a Tank Museum was established at Bovington, Dorset at which the very first -v> tank, known variously to the troops as "Big Willie," "His Majesty's Landship Centipede" and "Mother," was on display. Alas in 1940, CELEBRANTS: Maj. Gen. Ernest Swinton when the call went out salutes Benjamin Holt on the factory for scrap metal to feed grounds at Stockton, California, 18 April 1918. A mock baby tank (right), powered by the munitions factoa motorcycle engine had been built for the ries, "Big Willie" was occasion, attended by 2500 cheering Holt sent to the scrap heap, employees. (Caterpillar Inc.) to become a part of shells and shrapnel of a new war.^5 Unfortunately also, tank tactics and design in the interwar years gradually became the preoccupation of the Germanswith disastrous results for the French in the debacle of May 1940. Churchill saw this coming too. In 1936 he sadly exclaimed in Parliament: The tank was a British invention. This idea, which has revolutionized the conditions of modern war, was a British idea forced on the War Office by outsiders. Let me say they would have just as hard work today to force a new idea on it. I speak from what I know. During the war we had almost a monopoly, let alone the leadership, in tank warfare, and for several years afterwards we held the foremost place. To England all eyes were turned. All that has gone now. Nothing has been done in "the years that the locust hath eaten" to equip the tank Corps with new machines.2'' On 22 April 1918, Ernest Swinton, now a general, journeyed to the United States, to thank Benjamin Holt and the employees of his California plant for their contributions. The people of Stockton held a huge parade in honor of his visit. Though usually referred to as the "father of the tank," Swinton remarked that "it was the 'Caterpillar' track-type tractor" which inspired his idea and helped change the course of the war. 27 He would never have achieved his goal had it not been for the vision and drive of Winston Churchill. Defending the tank as a weapon that saved rather than squandered lives, Churchill deplored the disarmament conventions

that declared tanks offensive weapons: The tank was invented to overcome the fire of the machine-guns with which the Germans were maintaining themselves in France, and it saved a lot of lives in the process of eventually clearing the soil of the invader. Now, apparently, the machine-gun, which was the German weapon for holding on to thirteen provinces of France, is to be the virtuous, defensive machine-gun, and the tank, which was the means by which these lives were saved, is to be placed under the censure and obloquy of all just and righteous men.28

Endnotes
1. Gilbert, Martin, The First World War (New York: Henry Holt & Co., 1994), 541. References to specific tank engagements are from this outstanding work by Churchill's official biographer. 2. McRae, John Lt. Col., "In Flanders Fields," first published in Punch, London, 7 December 1915. Written on 3 May 1915, the day after McRae witnessed the gruesome death of his friend Lt. Alexis Helmer. The full poem is in Finest Hour 121:6. 3. Gilbert, op. cit., 124. 4. Erickson, Erling A., "Origins of the Cat" in Benjamin Holt, The Story of the Caterpillar Tractor (Stockton, Calif.: University of the Pacific, 1982), 33-34. 5. Ibid., 35-36. 6. Ibid., 37. 7. Orlemann, Eric C, The Caterpillar Century (St. Paul, Minn.: MBI Publishing Co., 2003), 14-15. Letourneau, P.A. (ed.), Holt Tractors Photo Archive (Minneapolis, Minn.: Iconografix, 1993), 9. 8. Tank Development, National Archives Learning Curve. wwvv.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWtank development.htm 9. Caterpillar, Inc., The Caterpillar Story (Peoria, 111.: Caterpillar Inc., 1984), 24. 10. Ibid., 25. 11. Tank Development, op. ct. 12. Caterpillar, Inc., op. cit., 25. 13. Humphreys, Leonard A., "Caterpillar Goes to War," in Benjamin Holt, op. cit., 70-71. 14. Gilbert, op. cit., 229-30. 15. Ibid., 286. 16. Ibid., 286. 17. Ibid., 320-23. 18. Ibid., 331-69. 19. Ibid., 379. 20. Ibid., 402. 21. Ibid., 418-37. 22. Ibid., 442-52. 23. Ibid., 457. 24. Caterpillar, Inc., op. cit., 25. 25. Gilbert, op. cit., 533. 26. Churchill, Winston S., Arms and the Covenant (London: Harrap, 1938), 379. Speech of 12 November 1936. 27. Caterpillar, Inc., op. cit., 24. 28. Churchill, op. cit., 22. Speech of 13 May 1932. The author acknowledges with appreciation the important information in "Benjamin Holt & Caterpillar: Tracks & Combines," American Society of Agricultural Engineers, 1984, supplied by Howard D. Hicks, Vice President Marketing, Holt Cat Inc., San Antonio, Texas. $-5

FINEST HOUR 135/49

The Queen and Mr. Churchill

When Churchill, still Prime Minister and nearing the age of eighty, looked upon the Queen's picture in a newspaper, he murmured "The country is so lucky." Exactly so; we should be less shy of acknowledging the fact.
BY DAVID DILKS

N my innocence I had not realized how pervasive is the influence of the Royal Society of St. George; for I see on the wall before me the portrait of the Queen early in her reign by Denis Fildes, and behind me a study of the elderly Churchill by Egerton Cooper. Thus I find myself in the position described by A.E. Housman, who is said to have remarked just before his translation from the University of London to Trinity College: "Cambridge has seen many strange sights. It has seen Wordsworth drunk and Porson sober. It is now destined to see a better scholar than Worsdworth and a better poet than Porson, betwixt and between."1 To speak to you about the Queen and Mr. Churchill (as he still was when she came to the throne) is to dwell simultaneously upon several planes. There is the personal relationship between a monarch coming unexpectedly to the throne in her mid-twenties and a Prime Minister of vast age and experience, less tempestuous and mercurial than he had once been. Then there is a much longer perspective, for as Churchill liked to recall, he had many a time enjoyed drinking the health of the Queen's great-great grandmother, Queen Victoria, when he was a young officer, determined to live as near as humanly possible to the eye of the storm and then to write about his experiences. Beyond that lay something ancestral and subconscious, for Churchill was an historian in more senses than one. He had made history, and written a great deal
The recent visit of the Queen to America, and subsequent gratuitous references to the quaintness of monarchy by the U.S. media, prompt publication of this address to the Royal Society of St. George, City of London Branch, 6 February 2007. Professor Dilks is the former ViceChancellor of the University of Hull, author of The Great Dominion: Winston Churchill in Canada 1900-1954 (reviewed FH 129), and the biographer of Neville Chamberlain. He memorialized Bill Deakin in Finest Hour 131. We are honored to publish such fine writing. Ed.

of it; he had devoted no fewer than four volumes to his distinguished ancestor the first Duke of Marlborough, and from that process learnedto the eventual profit of this country and many othersof the perils and frustrations of coalition warfare. In the two years before his return to office in September 1939, he had given himself to what eventually became A History of the English-Speaking Peoples, and

with a serious purpose beyond the immediate task of making enough money to pay for his handsome style of life at Chartwell; for he believed the fate of mankind would rest largely in the hands of those peoples, and that despite crises, misjudgments, blunders and reverses, the British had behaved well towards the rest of the world. He was not ashamed to refer to the "grand old British race, which had done so much for mankind and which had still so much more to give."2 In sum, for Churchill the monarchy represented not only the apex of our society and constitutional arrangements, but a focus for the loyalty and aspirations of many millions; and with a startling suddenness, the role of that monarchy had to be reinterpreted in the present Queen's reign to embrace a world-wide Commonwealth. Churchill had revered Queen Victoria from afar;

FiNKSTHotIR 135/50

CC ' *here is no one here at all except J. the Family, the Household & Queen /sic; Princess] Elizabethaged 2. The last is a character. She has an air of authority & reflectiveness astonishing in an infant."
WSC to his ivife, from Balmoral, 25 September 1928 (Mary Soames, Speaking for Themselves, 328).

he had enjoyed, without always approving entirely, the company of King Edward VII; he respected highly the gruff probity of King George V; he hadto his credit, for it was evident that nothing but political damage could resultplaced a high premium upon his loyalty to King Edward VIII. Later, musing upon that monarch's unsuitability for the heavy duties of the throne, Churchill once said "morning glory," thinking of those flowers which flourish and fade in the forenoon. To King George VI and his Queen he had drawn very close during the war, and his admiration for the two of them knew few bounds. "Your Majesties," Churchill wrote to the King, "are more beloved by all classes and conditions than any of the princes of the past."3 Amidst all the austerities and bleak hardships of Britain in the early years after the war, Churchill received with joy the news of Princess Elizabeth's forthcoming marriage. "One touch of nature makes the whole world kin," he remarked, echoing Shakespeare, "and millions will welcome this joyous event as a flash of colour on the hard road we have to travel." And then there were horses. Churchill had taken to racing late in life, under the inspiration of his son-in-law Christopher Soames, whereas the taste seems to have

been acquired by the present Queen in her early youth. A few months before Churchill came back to office as Prime Minister for the last time, she invited him to lunch with her at Hurst Park. In the same race were running a horse in the Royal colours, appropriately and indeed unexceptionably named Above Board, and Churchill's horse, known with a tinge of political incorrectitude as Colonist II. By a small margin, Colonist II won. To a less adroit correspondent, this triumph might have provided slight embarrassment in the composition of a letter of thanks for the luncheon. Not a bit of it in Churchill's case. "I wish indeed that we could both have been victorious," he wrote to Princess Elizabeth, "but that would be no foundation for the excitements and liveliness of the Turf. "5 When she and her husband left for a prolonged tour of Canada and the United States in 1951, Mr. Attlee was still Prime Minister; by the time of their return, Churchill had come back to 10 Downing Street. He had a wonderful gift of magnification, of capturing the unexpected word or phrase, of putting events into a broad context. To the Princess he said at Guildhall upon her return, "Madam, the whole nation is grateful to you for what you have done for us and to Providence for having endowed you with the gifts and personality which are not only precious to the British Commonwealth and Empire and its island home, but will play their part in cheering and in mellowing the forward march of human society all the world over."'' The Chairman mentioned a few minutes ago that I had the honour to work for Sir Anthony Eden, who told me that one morning early in 1952 Churchill had rung him up with the words, "Anthony, imagine the worst thing that could possibly happen." This was the Prime Minister's way of breaking the news of King George VI's death. In bed at Downing Street, Churchill sat alone in tears, looking straight ahead and reading neither his official documents nor the newspapers. It happened that the Prime Minister's Private Secretary, who described this scene, had previously held the same office with Princess Elizabeth. "I had not >>

FINEST HOUR 135/51

CC * I *he monarchy signified for him JL something of infinite value, at once numinous and luminous; and if you will allow the remark hi parenthesis, ladies and gentlemen, do you not sometimes long for someone at the summit of our public life who can think and. write at that level? "
realized how much the King meant to him," we find in Sir John Colville's diary. "I tried to cheer him up by saying how well he would get on with the new Queen, but all he could say was that he did not know her and that she was only a child."'' This was merely a momentary expression, uttered at a moment of profound sadness, and not one by which Churchill would have wished to stand once his spirit was less troubled. It is a measure of his longevity in politics that when he proposed the motion for addresses of sympathy, he could remind the House of Commons that he had been an MP whenever such a motion had been moved in the past, in 1901, in 1910, and in 1936. It now fell to Churchill to describe Queen Elizabeth as a fair and youthful figure, Princess, wife and mother, "heir to all our traditions and glories, never greater than in her father's days, and to all our perplexities and dangers, never greater in peacetime than now. She is also heir to all our united strength and loyalty"8 The new monarch was ascending the throne, he remarked, at a moment when tormented mankind stood poised uncertainly between worldwide catastrophe on the one side and a golden age on the other. In speaking of catastrophe, he had in mind the enmity between the west and Russia, and the awful prospects opened up in the age of nuclear warfare; whereas if only a true and lasting peace could be achieved and if "the nations will only let each other alone," undreamed-of prosperity, with culture and leisure ever more widely spread, might come to the masses of the people everywhere.9 Churchill adored the Queen. You will perhaps think the language unsuitable or even a little disrespectful; but no lesser expression will do. Gazing at a photograph in 1953, the one which shows her in a white dress and with long white gloves, displaying that enchanting smile which lights up her face as if a blind had suddenly been raised, the Prime Minister mused, "Lovely, she is a pet. I fear they may ask her to do too much. She is doing so well."10 And again a week or two later, as he contemplated the same photograph, "Lovely, inspiring. All the film people in the world, if they had scoured the globe, could not have found anyone so suited to the part."1' Thereupon he immediately began to sing from the hymn, "Yet nightly pitch my moving tent/A day's march nearer home." (If you object that this piece of information seems scarcely relevant to my theme, I merely rejoin that historians are sticklers for completeness and love going off at a tangent.) The Queen wished to confer the Order of the Garter, which he had declined when offered in 1945, upon Churchill. He had then felt that it would be inappropriate to receive such a distinction upon the morrow of his rejection at the General Election; whereas in the summer of the Coronation, the moment seemed more propitious. Her Private Secretary broached the matter with the Prime Minister in persuasive terms. This time, Churchill capitulated without much resistance but with a good deal of emotion. Then he said with a grin, "Now Clemmie will have to be a lady at last."12 Churchill travelled far less than he had done during the war and when Parliament was sitting would normally wait upon Her Majesty at Buckingham Palace each week. Her Private Secretary remained in an anteroom, unable to hear the conversation but catching peals of laughter. "Winston generally came out wiping his eyes," Sir Alan Lascelles once recorded. "'She is < grande ? beaute cesoir,'he said one evening in his schoolboy French."'-^ In those final years of office, Churchill had combined rearmament and the strengthening of NATO with a prolonged effort to build some kind of bridge to Russia. He repeatedly postponed resignation and endured some sharp passages with his colleagues in consequence. By the spring of 1955, he knew it was time to go. A few days after his departure, the Queen wrote in her own hand from Windsor to say that while her confidence in Anthony Eden was complete, "it would be useless to pretend that either he or any of those successors who may one day follow him in office will ever, for me, be able to hold the place of my first Prime Minister, to

RxiiST HOI'R 1 3 5 / 5 2

whom both my husband and I owe so much and for whose wise guidance during the early years of my reign I shall always be so profoundly grateful."1 We may think of Churchill as an amiable or even reverent agnostic, who conceived of himself not as a pillar of the church but perhaps as a flying buttress. He did not invoke the Deity casually or cynically, a fact which confers its own interest upon his touching and heartfelt reply to the Queen: Our Island no longer holds the same authority or power that it did in the days of Queen Victoria. A vast world towers up around it and after all our victories we could not claim the rank we hold were it not for the respect for our character and good sense and the general admiration not untinged by envy for our institutions and way of life. All this has already grown stronger and more solidly founded during the opening years of the present Reign, and I regard it as the most direct mark of God's favour we have ever received in my long life that the whole structure of our new-formed Commonwealth has been linked and illuminated by a sparkling presence at its summit. The monarchy signified for him something of infinite value, at once numinous and luminous; and if you will allow the remark in parenthesis, ladies and gentlemen, do you not sometimes long for someone at the summit of our public life who can think and write at that level? Sir Winston was not mistaken in drawing attention to the Queen's role within the Commonwealth. He could not have foreseen how quickly governments in this country, as distinct from many millions of individual citizens, would cease to feel any serious interest in the Commonwealth. Indeed, it is not clear that the association could have survived in a recognisable form but for the Queen's unfeigned commitment to it. We have failed in knowledge, by which I mean that we have been far too ready to accept one-sided accounts of our relations with countries in every part of the Commonwealth; and we have failed in self-belief, for if we cannot be troubled to defend ourselves against assertions that Empire was nothing more than a cloak for greed and extortion, we should scarcely be surprised if others multiply such allegations, sometimes on the most grotesque scale. Now we need an exercise of constructive imagination, to realize what Commonwealth connections can do, not only for us but for a much wider community. Though much has been lost beyond retrieval, a good deal remains. To give fresh life to those connections, to promote better understanding between countries and friendship between races, is of supreme importance. Perhaps that fact is now a little more apparent than it was, say, ten or twenty years ago. It is a task in part for politicians, but also for all of us; and, given

the Queen's identification of herself and the monarchy with the Commonwealth over a span of sixty years, for the coming generarion in the Royal Family. When Churchill, nearing the age of eighty, looked upon the Queen's picture in a newspaper, he murmured, "The country is so lucky." 16 Exactly so; we should be less shy of acknowledging the fact.

have failed in knowledge, by which I mean that we have been far too ready to accept one-sided accounts of our relations with countries in every part of the Commonwealth; and we have failed in self belief for if we cannot be troubled to defend ourselves against assertions that Empire mas nothing more than a cloak for greed and extortion, ive should scarcely be surprised if others multiply such allegations, sometimes on the most grotesque scale. "

Kndnotes
1. There are many versions of this story in print, but the most reliable is in Chambers, R.W., Man's Unconquerable Mind (London: Jonathan Cape, 1939), 380-81. 2. On the resignation of Anthony Eden as foreign secretary, 20 February 1938. Churchill, Winston S., The Second World War, vol. 2, Their Finest Hour (London: Cassell, 1949), 201. 3. WSC to the King, 5 January 1941, ibid., 554. 4. Churchill's capacious memory produced this quotation of Shakespeare (Troilus and Cressida, iii. 3) in the House of Commons, 22 October 1947. Churchill, Europe Unite (London: Cassell, 1950), 168. 5. WSC to Princess Elizabeth, 20 May 1951. Gilbert, op. cit., 613. 6. House of Commons, 19 November 1951. Churchill, Stemming the Tide (London: Cassell, 1953), 194. 7. Colville, John K.,The Fringes of Power (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1985), 640. 8. House of Commons, 11 February 1952. Stemming the Tide, op. cit., 244. 9. Ibid., 245. 10. WSC to Lord Moran, 3 February 1953. Moran, Charles, Churchill: The Struggle for Survival (London: Constable, 1966), 427. 11. Ibid., 429. 12. Hart-Davis, D. (ed.), King's Counsellor (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2006), 344. 13. Ibid., 340. 14. The Queen to WSC, 11 April 1955. Gilbert, op. cit., 1126. 15. WSC to the Queen, from Sicily, 8 April 1955, ibid., 1128. 16. WSC to Lord Moran, 4 November 1953. Moran, The Struggle for Survival, op. cit., 528. !?

FINHST HOUR 135/53

5ooks, Arts 3c Curiosities

Sinking Stone
ROBERT A. COURTS
Blood, Sweat and Arrogance and the Myths of Churchill's War, by Gordon Corrigan. Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 496 pages, hardbound 20, member price $45. "*his book might be subtitled, "What does an iconoclast do when the icons are broken?" Corrigan built his reputation with his previous Mud, Blood and Poppycock, a strident but generally well-received attack on the World War I generals. Now the exGurkha major turns his gaze upon Churchill, with a professional soldier's contempt for politicians, but certainly not a historian's professionalism. Corrigan, who lists "pricking the pompous" among his hobbies in the credits, is unable to understand that in total war, politics cannot be totally ignored. For example, he blithely asserts that Churchill's "demands to sink the French fleet [at Oran in 1940 were] unnecessary, for.. .the French would have come to an agreement without the threat of force." He has the luxury of such assumptions today; Churchill in 1940 could not take the risk. And he ignores the dynamic political effect of Britain's action in the USA, where it was seen as proof that Britain would never surrender. Anyone is free to hold Churchill in contempt, but to do so requires learning something about him. Significantly, Corrigan's bibliography lists four books by David Irving but only one by Martin Gilbertand that one not about Churchill. Yet, despite his title, Corrigan actually spends little time on Churchill, and almost none in analysis. His critical comments are rarely sourced, never explained, and overtly glib ("in view of his later treatment of Bomber Command")which avoids the tiresome evidential business of proving what one means. Corrigan calls Churchill "a man who found it difficult to look beyond what he knew and was familiar with," a statement that would not be made by anyone who has seriously studied the astonishingly prescient and innovative Prime Minister (tanks, Mulberry harbours, naval aviation, SOE, commandos, ad infinitum). Another criticism cites Churchill as overruling the Chiefs of Staff, despite the well-known fact that he did nothing of the kind on a military issue, no matter how much he might have pressed them, much to his credit. And Churchill did meet serious resistance, not least from the iron-willed Brooke, whom Corrigan astonishingly refers to as "Churchill's creature." The tone throughout is irritatingly smug, at times unworthy of a serious writer: "There is no question that Churchill was personally brave and completely unafraid of death. The trouble was that he was not afraid of anyone else's death either." (This is a bizarre comment to anyone who has read of Churchill's anguish over Gallipoli, or his concern, expressed to Marshall, that a premature invasion of Europe would result in "a sea full of corpses.") And the book is often factually wrong. For example: ".. .originally desFINEST HOUR 135/54

Churchill Centre Book Club

Managed for the Centre by Chartwell Booksellers (www.churchill-books.com), which offers member discounts up to 25%. To order contact Chartwell Booksellers, 55 East 52nd Street, New York, New York 10055, email bscb@dti.net, telephone (212) 308-0643, facsimile (212) 838-7423.

T:

tined for the infantry, [Churchill] chose instead to join an expensive and gorgeously caparisoned cavalry regiment." Actually Churchill was never "destined" for the infantry. Where he is not wrong, Corrigan is selective: he praises Britain for inventing the tank, but does not mention Churchill's role in that enterprise. Nor does he give WSC credit for making the most of the few resources he had in 1940. Whatever "damage" Churchill may or may not have inflicted on the war effort, without him there would have been no war effort at all. When Corrigan does stumble upon a valid historical controversy, he deals with it little better than he does Churchill. To one of the most hotly debated topics of the postwar years, the strategic bombing of Germany, he devotes three paragraphs, reaching the heights of analysis: "Dresden was just one more raid in a long war and was totally justified." Worse, he does not seem to know whether he supports the policy or not, for when Churchill is involved, he is castigated for being "quick to evade the blame for his own policy." On the attempt to forestall Hitler in Norway, Churchill is seriously vulnerable to critical analysis; but Corrigan fails to provide it. He offers only his trademark snide remarks ("the great strategist himself.. .the great man") and inappropriate language (WSC replaces a naval commander with a "chum.") Corrigan fails the basic requirement of a historian: to judge decisions made at the time by the facts known at the time. He criticises Churchill's belief in the French Army as being "idiocy" that was to prove "utterly and completely erroneous in such a short space of time." But he ignores the fact that everyone in Europe thought "la Grand

Armee" unbeatable, and its swift defeat in 1940 was a shock for all Europe. Proper historians, moreover, do not describe actions or events with such simplistic phrases as "crassly idiotic," nor describe those who disagree with them as "the Churchill faction." Corrigan holds that Churchill "was.. .the man who by his political actions between 1919 and 1929 contributed in very large measure to Britain being unready" for the Second World Waras if there was no difference between Weimar Germany and the Third Reich. Churchill's change of view on rearmament in the 1930s was owed, he says, to being "out of office, and increasingly unlikely to regain it.. .Churchill underwent a conversion that makes the Black Death look like a minor outbreak of the sniffles." Such language is worse than

mere silliness; it is, er, "crassly idiotic." The coverage of military aspects of the war is acceptable, but sadly, to use a Corriganism, the sound of grinding axes drowns out sensible narrative. Corrigan prefers the quick judgement and the glib throwaway, not a sustained and detailed analysis of difficult and controversial times. If you want reasoned criticism, you must turn to far better books, by such authors as Lamb, Charmley, Roskill, R.W. Thompson, and the Alanbrooke Diaries. In proving his case that Churchill "was very nearly responsible for losing [the war]," Corrigan can only be judged to have failed. When ripples of such weird accusations subside (as they already have) the biggest stones sink fastest. In the great pool of Churchill literature, this book is destined to sink without trace. $

Heroes of the Air: Archibald Sinclair and Hugh Dowding

CHRISTOPHER H. STERLING
Winston & Archie: The W I N S T O N Letters of Sir Archibald Sinclair and Winston S. Churchill 19151960, edited by Ian Hunter. London: JAN H U N T E R Politico's, 530 pages, hardbound, 30, member price $36. " "VVTinston" needs no introduction W but "Archie" may not be familiar to Z7//readers. Sir Archibald Henry MacDonald Sinclair (18901970) was the leader of the fading Liberal Party from 1935 to 1945, and served as Air Minister in Churchill's wartime coalition government. The two men had been introduced long before by American Maxine Elliottand despite a sixteen-year difference in age, they became good friends. Both had American mothers. As with all upper class Britons (Sinclair was a Scot), they wrote reams of letters, often long and detailed. Luckily for us, many of those letters were saved despite occasional notes at the end of one or another that because of its content it should be destroyed after being read. Ian Hunter, a longtime Churchill Centre member and London-based author of three earlier books on business management, as well as articles in The Journal of Liberal History, has painstakingly pulled most of the surviving letters together and annotated them to describe people and events mentioned. Many of the letters (the originals are either in the National Archive at Kew, or the Churchill Archives Centre in Cambridge) have not appeared in print before. Alas, others by Sinclair are sadly lost, thanks to the wartime bombing of the Liberal headquarters, and a postwar fire at his home at Thurso. Over several periods, we have only Winston's letters. What does survive, however,
FINEST HOUR 135/55

is both fascinating and insightful. Hunter has arranged the letters and events in five parts. The first concerns World War I, both before and after Churchill's service on the Western Front, following his departure from the Admiralty in the crisis over Dardanelles policy. In August 1915, we see Sinclair an officer until invalided out in 1917urging WSC not to come to the fighting front as he would rapidly become frustrated with military policy that he could not affect. He would be more useful in London, Sinclair said, even in his depleted political state (19). After Churchill left the war planning group in November, however, his tone and that of Sinclair changed. Sinclair was seconded (at Churchill's request) to serve under WSC in 1916 for the several months that WSC was in active service, commanding a unit of Scots. Their letters back and forth when one or the other was on leave in London provide a peek at front-line life and lore, along with their assessments of political warfare at home. The second part focuses on the brief, bitter war against the Russian Bolsheviks after World War I, when Sinclair served as principal military secretary to Churchill, who was Secretary of State for War. The scattered missives (much has been lost) are nearly all annotated for context, and some show the pressures Churchill was under with demobilization of Britain's conscript army on the one hand, and trying to shore up the White Russians on the other. Included is Churchill's controversial (even acerbic) memo on the possible use of gas against insurgents in India and Afghanistan (64). Many of these letters (really inter-office memos) are more formal in tone, given the roles of the two men in the same ministryand mostly from Sinclair to Churchill. The third section centers on the fifteen years from 1924 to 1939, when both men saw varied roles, Sinclair entering Parliament and becoming a political figure in his own right. They remained close friends, and eventually political allies with their mutual concern over Nazi Germany by the late 1930s. This period, marked by brief and scattered memos, includes >>

WINSTON & ARCHIE...

Churchill's wilderness years (1929-39), the early part of which saw Sinclair in the National Government. The Liberal decline is evident in each succeeding election, until Sinclair takes over the severely depleted party in 1935. The longest part of Hunter's collection, and perhaps the one of primary interest, concerns the air war from 1940 to 1945. As Secretary of State for Air, Sinclair was the senior civilian official to whom all RAF marshals at least nominally reported. He was such a staunch supporter of their recommendations and campaigns, however, that many saw him more as a representative of their views rather than as the RAF's political master. The letters and memos (more selective than in other sections given the huge amount of material) show occasional heat as wartime pressure built on both men. There is a scattering of "Action This Day" notes and more than a few expressions of asperity on Churchill's part. There is constant reference to the friction between Lord Beaverbrook, at the Ministry of Aircraft Production, and Sinclair's Air Ministry. Two factors jump out in many of the memos exchangedChurchill's well-known detailed interest in the war effort, and the role that statistics played in monitoring operations and in policymaking. Also evidentas Hunter makes clear in his useful editorial insertionsSinclair played a stronger role in developing air policy than Churchill would give him credit for after the war. A final brief section covers the last fourteen years of the relationship, from 1946 to 1960, five years before Churchill's death and a decade before Sinclair's. Having lost his 1945 bid to retain his seat in the House of Commons, and another attempt five years later, Sinclair became a member of the House of Lords as Viscount Thurso in 1952, part of the first Honours List of Churchill's postwar government. He suffered a stroke that year (he was 62) and would not actually sit in the Lords until 1954. Four years later another stroke sadly ended his active career and left him an invalid for the remainder of his life.

Collections of letters are hugely valuable windows into both the correspondents and their era. Edited as well as this one, with careful editorial guidance as to what we are reading and about whom, they are fascinating as well. We can only hope that more "Churchill and..." correspondence will appear covering other Churchillian friends and colleagues. A Summer Bright and Terrible: Winston SUMMER Churchill, Lord BRIGHT"" Dowding, TERRIBLE Radar, and the Impossible Triumph of the Battle of Britain, by David E. Fisher. New York: Shoemaker & Howard, 304 pages, hardbound $26, member price $20.80.

n engaging if sometimes odd work begins with a piled-up title, which tries to push every sales button all at once. In fact it is mainly devoted to the dour and enigmatic Air Chief Marshal Sir Hugh "Stuffy" Dowding. Despite suggesting that the story has not been told, Fisher covers ground others have trod more successfully because they didn't try to stretch their coverage as far as Fisher does. Divided into four chapters or parts, one for each season of 1940, the bulk of it covers the Battle of Britain in the summer and early autumn of that year. But Fisher also provides background the just-in-time development of radar (a later American term for radio direction finding) and the Spitfire fighter aircraft. The two protagonists, Churchill and Dowding, face off in June 1940. The former wants to send more British fighter aircraft to help the crumbling French; Dowding warns that England will be defenseless if he does. Unlike most who went up against the new Prime Minister, Dowding carried the day in an unusual appeal directly to the War Cabinetand was proved right when the Luftwaffe attacked Britain after the fall of France.
FINEST HOUR 135/56

In November, after the worst of the German onslaught seemed past, Dowding was relieved by the Air Ministry. Churchill, who had earlier backed him strongly, apparently made no move to save him. Granted, Dowding had planned retirement and had reached retirement age, but the Air Ministry (Air Minister Sinclair and chief of staff Portal, among others) did seem rather cavalier, given all he'd done to meld radar, radio, and telephone networks into a Fighter Command that probably saved Britain by controlling the air. Fisher is an experienced writer with an eye for narrative. There are parts of this volume that take one back to the English countryside on a warm, dry September day, looking up at the crossing contrails of German and British fighters, dueling while Luftwaffe bombers plod toward London and other targets. Or one could be on an RAF airfield, as fighters are scrambled to meet the latest onslaughtor cramped in one of the control buildings of the new radar system, trying to gauge how many German aircraft are coming and where they are headed. Fisher is excellent at describing the many facets of Dowding's personality, including (and here many earlier accounts have been silent) his belief in the supernatural, which at times appeared to give him strength to persevere. He went so far as to "speak" with some of his lost pilots (his "chicks" as he referred to them), as well as with his deceased wife. It is to the author's credit that Dowding comes across in these scenes as understandably exhausted and concerned, rather than as a mere flake. Fisher also describes and defines Dowding's two chief lieutenants, Air Vice Marshals Trafford Leigh-Mallory (backer of the "big wing" notion of massing defending fighters) and Keith Park (who agreed with Dowding's "bits and pieces" use of defending aircraft). Flying hero Douglas Bader (who flew with artificial legs owing to a prewar flying accident) served under LeighMallory; thus we get a pilot's-eye as well as command view of the conflict. Though the Dowding/Park tactics succeeded, Leigh-Mallory replaced Park, while Air Vice Marshal Sholto

BRIGHT AND TERRIBLE...

Douglas, a critic of Dowding's approach, took over Dowding's post in what seemed to some as a coup. The issues and personalities involved in these changes in command have been debated by historians ever since. Fisher clearly is sympathetic with the embattled if cold and "stuffy" Dowding. A nuclear chemist and professor of "cosmochemistry" and environmental science at the University of Miami, Fisher has authored a number of earlier popular science histories with his son: notably Tube, a history of television.

His scientific background combines with an ability to make technical topics like radar and aeronautics easier to grasp. There are many past and present accounts of these gripping events and players. But Fisher offers a readable melding of them, especially for those unfamiliar with the story. Dowding, after two other postings which did not work out, retired in mid1942 and was later raised to the peerage as Lord Dowding, his first Battle of Britain command post, Bentley Priory, being his territorial designation. He is the unappreciated hero of Fisher's tale. M>

Vital Insights to a Key Colleague

PAUL H. COURTENAY
Churchill's Man of Mystery: Desmond Morton and the World of Intelligence, by Gill Bennett. London, Routledge, 372 pages, hardbound, 49.95. Not available from Churchill Centre Book Club. We suggest Amazon UK. Morton was born in 1891 and was severely wounded in 1917, a bullet lodging so near his heart that it was too dangerous ever to remove; he nevertheless lived to be 79. Lady Soames tells a delightful story of observing him playing tennis at Chartwell. Her father, fascinated by Morton's permanent bullet, had informed her that "he could keel over at any moment," and she could not help but watch in fearful anticipation for this possibility! Morton first met Churchill in 1916, when he provided 6th Battalion, the Royal Scots Fusiliers with artillery support at Ploegsteert, Belgium. After recovering (to some extent) from his wound, Morton became aide-de-camp to Field Marshal Haig, C-in-C of the British Expeditionary Force. In this capacity he frequently escorted important visitors. One of these, Churchill as Minister of Munitions, remembered him from their Ploegsteert encounter. Their early relationship centred on technical matters but developed into friendship, WSC later writing: "I formed a great regard and friendship for this brilliant and gallant officer." Morton joined the Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) in 1919 and specialised in longer term intelligence gathering on Soviet Russia, to which he was dedicated. He later expanded his interest to the whole field of industrial intelligence, studying the economies of potential enemies in order to assess
FINEST HOUR 135/57

rom 1995 till 2005 Gill Bennett was Chief Historian of the Foreign & Commonwealth Office, and this book is the latest in the Government Official History series; series authors are afforded free access to all relevant material in the official archives (which remain closed to the public). Thus Bennett has found as much as is ever likely to be known about the official life of Desmond Morton. Her quest for information has been frustrated because of Morton's extreme sense of privacy: he was unmarried and destroyed all his private papers. Despite this handicap, the author has unearthed as much as possible from other sources, though these remain scanty.

their sustainable military capabilities. He was the driving spirit for the study of industrial intelligence in Britain, and for its contribution to defence, rearmament and economic planning in the years leading up to World War II. He also bought a house only three miles from Chartwell one year after WSC's purchase; from that time he became a frequent visitor and the two men often held long discussions together. Morton was involved in the 1924 saga of the Zinoviev Letter, addressed to the Communist Party of Great Britain by the President of the Comintern's executive committee, urging the party to rouse the proletariat in preparation for armed insurrection and class warfare. Copies were distributed (possibly by SIS) to those with vested interests, and the first Labour government (under Ramsay Macdonald) was severely embarrassed. It has never been proved whether or not the Zinoviev was a forgery. Gill Bennett gives several examples of obfuscation by Morton when things went wrong; he thus protected SIS and his own situation. In 1931 Morton was appointed Chairman of the Industrial Intelligence Centre, and this became his main activity. Between 1934 and 1937 his correspondence with Churchill became more frequent and less restrained, WSC being free actively to campaign in order to arouse the government to the dangers ahead. There is no hard documentary evidence to suggest that Morton supplied anything which Churchill was not entitled to knowindeed the evidence points in the other direction. Morton's chief value was checking and correcting information supplied from other sources; he even received valuable information from WSC himself. It is interesting to read some of Morton's facetious letters and reports, which were often not appreciated by the traditional Civil Service. Much of Desmond Morton's time in die years leading up to World War II was devoted to developing plans for a Ministry of Economic Warfare to be established in the event of war; by the time of Munich this planning was complete, Morton continuing with his intelligence work and maintaining his

"Morton himself wrote that he could not imagine a better epitaph than: "Desmond Morton might have been a greater figure in the affairs of his country had he been less of a gentleman..."
VITAL INSIGHTS...
links with Churchill. When the war began he developed a role for himself as liaison between covert and overt spheres of decision and action, with Churchill as Prime Minister setting a high value on this activity. From the outset of WSC's premiership Morton doubled the role of intelligence interface with that of liaison with the Allied governments-in-exile, and was consulted by Churchill on a wide range of other issues, yet had no official position other than as a member of the Prime Minister's personal staff. An advantage of this arrangement was that he could access government at any level without bothering about subverting the chain of command; this was a vital resource when the PM wanted a rapid, flexible response on any topic, or if he preferred to send messages other than through official channels. Morton was the PM's eyes and ears in quarters WSC did not have time to inspect personally and became the personal embodiment of WSC's will to make things happen. As a "gatekeeper" he took the blame if things went wrong, for example if someone failed to secure an interview with the PM or received an unfavourable response to a message. By late 1941, as Churchill's control of government machinery became more solid, Morton's involvement and influence lessened; but he stayed with WSC till the end of the war. In addition to the official files, much of the author's research has been facilitated through the voluminous correspondence between Morton and the writer R.W. Thompson, author of The Yankee Marlborough, an early critical work (FH 27). Morton felt that Thompson had been over-critical of Churchill and corrected much of what he had drafted. Nevertheless, in Churchill and Morton (FH51), published after Morton's death, Thompson revealed that in later life, Morton had become bitter and disillusioned by his loss of close contact with Churchill. Still, Morton had told Thompson that later historians would be bound to may have been a page limitation, too, with the result that we have a breathless presentation, almost telegraphic in style, and often confusing. The book and the story seem rushed. Higham jerks the reader from topic to topic, with little sense of flow or connection. Subjects jump about with nary a transitionwe are reading about Jennie, then suddenly about one of her friends, or her son Winston. Specific source notes are not offered. There are the (now sadly usual) signs of inadequate editingdouble words, misspellings, and the like. Sometimes the editing is unwittingly funny, as when we read: "whether or not [Jennie] had been his mistress as Prince of Wales, she was deeply fond of him," which suggests a sex-change operation. (196). The facts get more than a bit hazyare readers aware that around 1911, Churchill "used 50,000 troops to crush a railway strike" (199)? The jacket on the British edition has a picture of Jack Churchill labeled as Winston!
FINEST HOUR 135/58

write WSC's name in Valhalla, "even though it may be more difficult to find it in Heaven." The truth was that events and time brought a gradual end to a friendship that was always based more on shared interests than on shared psychology. Morton himself wrote to Thompson that he could not imagine a better epitaph than: "Desmond Morton might have been a greater figure in the affairs of his country had he been less of a gentleman"; such an aspiration by Churchill, according to Gill Bennett, would have been an irrelevance. This book is much more than a biography of Desmond Morton; it is also a textbook on the history of the SIS, including many tedious details of internal jealousies. So, together with its high cost, it is unlikely to achieve major sales. But as a piece of detective work uncovering information about an intensely private man, it will be required reading for those who want to know everything possible about an important figure at Churchill's elbow. $5 Higham, author of "secret lives" of Howard Hughes and the Duchess of Windsor, seems as interested in the seamy social history of the 19th century elite. We get lots of asides about the sharp economic and social divides of the gilded age, and the sexual peccadilloes of the rich, interspersed with details of Jennie's life. Indeed, we dwell more on her roguish father Leonard (with almost nothing on her mother) during the first two decades of Jennie's life. Some of this commentary almost seems like filler to flesh out a relatively brief book, in spite of the rushed character of other sections. Broad comments carry no support or commentary, such as the notion that Jennie loved Jack more than Winston while having more in common with the latter (213). While the text appears to have been researched through a long list of archives, how could the author fail to mention Ralph Martin's two-volume, 900-page biography in his listing of published sources, even though he >>

Hack Work
CHRISTOPHER H. STERLING
Dark Lady: Winston Churchill's Mother and Her World, by Charles Higham. New York: Carroll & Graf 250 pp., hardbound, $25.95, member price $20.75.

his is a disappointing, perplexing and decidedly odd book. It appears to have been written with, on the one hand, a listing of people and events to include and, on the other, a soup bowl of scandals to be detailed and a forest of family trees to wend through. There

makes text references to it? Martin barked up some of the same seamy trees (his book was withdrawn in England for falsely alleging that Jack was not Lord Randolph's son). Higham implies that he corrects his predecessors, but there are no real notes and only informal documentation; we are told simply that earlier biographers (usually unnamed) have erred in one way or another, and here is the true story. Too many asides are unexplained or have nothing to do with Jennie. Queen Victoria allegedly "detested" Lord Randolph (41), but we are not told why. And it gets almost numbing trying to keep up with the bed-hopping. Perhaps there should have been a family tree as a guide to who was sleeping with whom. Does Higham add to our knowledge of Lady Randolph Churchill? No. There are hardly any aspects of her life here that have not covered more thoroughly in previous biographies and Jennie's memoirs. Higham does mention an unusual 1914 lawsuit filed by Jennie against Jack and Winston (over, of course, money, specifically the terms of Randolph's will). Her lawyer was her son's good friend F. E. Smith, and Jennie won. Having produced this case, which he says no previous biographer has mentioned, Higham gives it all of one page, based apparently on a single press account (206-07). At virtually the same time, Higham tells us that Jack supported his mother in her divorce proceedings from second husband George Cornwallis-West, and that all the family summered together. Something is odd about this story. Take the bit about the Lusitania sinking (214), which had nothing to do with Jennie; the tragedy is Winston's fault and all but described as the reason he was forced from the Admiralty. Gallipoli is mentioned, but with little detail. We are told incorrectly that the Cabinet prevented WSC serving on the front after he left the government. Higham's entire analysis of Lady Randolph, in wrapping up his tale, consists of three paragraphs added as a "postscript." Readers, please save your money for something more useful. This seems little better than hack work. M>

No Churchill, None of the Time

DAVID HATTER
From Churchill's War Rooms: Letters of a Secretary 1943-45, by i ROM CHURCHILL'S Joanna Moody. WAR ROOMS otters Jf n ^rulsr;- 19*;-^ Stroud, Glos. Tempus, 256 pages, hardbound $50, member price $40. everyday story of wartime folk and, apart from what looks like a mix-up on page 47 over the dates when Dudley Pound and Andrew Cunningham^ served as First Sea Lords, it tells yet again an unexceptionable story about life in the Thirties and about the shortages of lavatories in the War Rooms. The second part covers Olive's correspondence with her fiance and contains protestations of affection, which engender a feeling of sympathy for the separated sweethearts but are remarkably mundane otherwise. There are a few howlers, such as the reference to HMS Renown and HMS Penelope as "battleships." All in all, it was a relief to reach the end. The book is fundamentally a personal record and, while it will evoke memories of the way things were during the Second World War, it really adds nothing to our knowledge of Churchill. The main body of readers will comprise enthusiasts who default to buying anything with the Great Man's name in the title. I am left with the feeling that if I had really wanted to read another book about what life was like during the war, I could have written it myself.

he disappointments begin with this book's misleading and potentially deceptive title. The implication is that it's about Churchill; or has some connection to himor someone who at least dealt with him, who remembered witticisms we hadn't heard before. Any connection would do, in fact, other than that the person merely worked in the Cabinet War Rooms. Yes, they were "Churchill's War Rooms," but it's difficult to recall their ever being so described. Apart from this rather tenuous connection, you are left wondering why Churchill's name is in the title. It really is the publisher's responsibility to ensure that a title reflects a book's content. Churchill's name is so valuable that in this case, the publisher used it to maximize appeal. Readers will be let down by the discrepancy between the title and the content. The subject of the book is the delightful Olive Margerison, who appeared on a television news programme last December. She is 92 and looks and sounds 29: sharp, vivacious, altogether engaging. Her story is, however, not particularly remarkable. She worked for General Leslie Hollis1 (Secretary, Chiefs of Staff Committee). She went on some of the official wartime journeys with Hollis (and, ipso facto, Churchill). Then Olive Christopher, she was engaged to Neil Margerison, who was away serving with the forces. The first part of the book deals with Olive's life through 1943. It is an
Mr. Hatter, of Ongar, Essex, is a Chartwell guide, who wrote about the Chartwell Visitors Book in Finest Hour 131. FINEST HOUR 135/59

Endnotes
1. General Sir Leslie Chasemore [Jo] Hollis KCB KBE (1897-1963). Secretary, Chiefs of Staff Committee, travelled a with Ismay and Churchill, and is mentioned in WSC's The Second World War, but the context is usually that of carrying out routine tasks. He is not mentioned in Gilbert's Churchill: A Life, or in the Macmillan Dictionary of the Second World War. 2. Admiral of the Fleet Sir Alfred Dudley Pickman Rogers Pound RN (1877-1943). First Sea Lord, June 1939-September 1943. 3. Admiral of the Fleet Sir Andrew Browne Cunningham, First Viscount Cunningham of Hyndhope KT GCB OM DSO (1882-1963). Succeeded Pound as First Sea Lord. A member of the Chiefs of Staff Committee, Cunningham was responsible for strategic direction of the navy for the remainder of the war. He attended the conferences at Cairo, Teheran, Quebec, Yalta and Potsdam. Cunningham served as First Sea Lord until his retirement in 1946. g

INTERVIEW

Churchill's Lessons of Leadership

SIR MARTIN GILBERT "ONE ON ONE" WITH PETER MANSBRIDGE

W "% eter Mansbridge is a British-born I -^Canadian journalist, for twenty JL years the chief correspondent and anchor of The National, CBC Television's premier nightly newscast. This November 2006 interview is published by kind permission of the Canadian Broadcasting Company, Peter Mansbridge and Sir Martin Gilbert. Finest Hour thanks Mike Campbell in Halifax, Nova Scotia, for arranging permission with the CBC. Mr. Mansbridge began by saying that although he would like to talk about all of Sir Martin's thirty books on Sir Winston Churchill, the show was unfortunately only a half hour long. He then asked Sir Martin what defines leadership and great leaders. SIR MARTIN GILBERT: I think a great leader has to have a sense of moral purpose, he has to know exactly where he stands on the crucial issues of the day, and, if he is going to be a leader of a western democracy, he must have a real sense that democracy matters, that it has to be defended; a real conviction in his beliefs, and, of course, an ability to transmit his convictions. There are many people who have intense and good convictions but, for one reason or another, do not have the means to transmit them, to get them acrossto you and me. PETER MANSBRIDGE: So, it's that combination of knowing where you want to go, being convinced that it's right, and having the ability, not only to attract others to follow you, but to help you get there? MG: Absolutely. You have to reflect public opinion, but you also have to be able to lead itperhaps in directions it is a little reluctant to go. It is a complicated balancing act. PM: How do you judge a leader, and do you have to wait and look back on what they did?

MG: Churchill's case is interesting, in that he judged himself a failure because during the Thirties, during the great appeasement debate, when he was in opposition and so few were listening to him, he felt he had failed to produce acceptance for his views that war could be averted by armaments, by alliances, by faith in one's own ideological, democratic positions. Being called in, as it were, to pick up the messto make good the neglect of his advocacyhe did not see as a great achievement: he saw it as a failure that he had been unable to convince the Baldwin and Chamberlain governments to take measures that he Churchillbelieved could prevent war. Of course, for us, his coming to power was a great achievement. One has always to think, what would have happened if he had not had the full confidence of his convictions? What would have happened, when the Blitz was at its height, if he had said to himself, "I don't think I can go ahead with this"? He came near to thatvery near to losing his nerve, to feeling that the power of the enemy was too strong to overcome. PM: Is leadership different in wartime? MG: I think so. I think it is much harder also to get to the bottom of what wartime leadership is. So much of wartime leadershipeven, indeed especially Churchill's is working with a large group of people, drawing on their expertise, allowing fighting men and women get on with the job, encouraging effort and achievement, and not necessarily being a micro-manager. Churchill was not primarily a micromanager, despite his incredible fascination for and grasp of detail. His
FINEST HOUR 135/60

leadership was that of an inspiring presence, rather then a finger in the pie. In times of peace, perhaps, a leader has to be more pro-active. PM: Has television changed leadership? MG: Probably. People often ask me, "Would Churchill have been any good on television?" We do not know. In his prime he would probably have been magical on television, as he was on public platforms. PM: He became Prime Minister in his mid-Sixties. Was that his prime? MG: I think some of his greatest days were in the five or six years before the First World War, when he spearheaded the great social revolution in Britain, creating the social system in Britain under which we still live. Then there was the greatness of his struggle against appeasementsuch an up-hill and dedicated struggle. But yes, certainly his prime was in those first months of the Second World War. In May 1940, when everything seemed hopeless, he also feared that Britain might be defeated. He confided to Anthony Eden six months later, "I awoke every morning with dread in my heart." Yet he was able to go out and about into the bombed areas and show defiance, and people said, "He does not think we're beaten." Even the "V for Victory" sign

was "cocking a snook" at the prospect MG: Churchill was a very adaptable of utter disaster. person. In his enormously long life In June 1940 Churchill was going his time in Parliament spanned sixtyinto the back door of 10 Downing two yearshe had to adapt to all sorts Streetthe door on the Horse Guards of aspects of politics. Where he was Paradefumbling with his key. A very goodand this was unexpected group of men around the nearby statue for his contemporarieswas on the of Kitchener, putting up scaffolding so radio in its early days. I was astonished it would not be hit by shrapnel (which to discover that when the BBC wanted in fact it was a year later; the marks can in 1926 to have someone make the be seen to this day), started cheering, Christmas appeal for the blind, they "Good Old Winnie!" The Private Secre- chose him. It was a wonderful appeal, tary with Churchill was puzzled that he because he spoke with wit as well as orkept fumbling with his key to open the atory, with light touches as well as doornormally he would go and chat heavy touches. So, he adapted to the with them or wave to them. So the Priradio, as we now know with the famous vate Secretary tugged at him and said, Second World War speeches. "Prime Minister, the men on the scaffolding..." Suddenly he saw the tears PM: A question about political streaming down Churchill's face. At hangers-on.... that moment, with France having capitulated, and German invasion barges MG: Churchill did not use imagegathering in the North Sea and Chanmakers, but I came across a fascinating nel ports, he must have thought the sitcase where he recommended one. uation was hopeless. But he did not When General de Gaulle arrived in want the men to feel his doubt; to see London in 1940the one hope really him without his grin, his defiance, his of maintaining a fighting France in cigar, his V-sign. exileChurchill was impressed that Churchill's emotions often surthis man wanted to go on fighting the prised those who knew him best. GenGermans. I found a note that he wrote eral Sir Hastings (later Lord) Ismay, the to the Cabinet Office, the theme of head of his Defence Secretariat, has which was that General de Gaulle is our recorded in his memoirs accompanying man but he has such a poor personality Churchill to the London docks immeand presentation that government diately after the first heavy attack of the money should be used to get a leading Blitz. "Our first stop," Ismay writes, PR firm to boost his image. So a con"was at an air-raid shelter in which siderable sum of money was paid to a about forty persons had been killed and PR agency, which trained de Gaulle for many more wounded by a direct hit, a month before he made his first great and we found a big crowd, male and fe- speech from London to the French peomale, young and old, but all very poor. ple. Although Churchill did not have a "PR man" per se, he did have an excel"One might have expected them lent literary agent, Emery Reves, who to be resentful against the authorities arranged for his articles to be published responsible for their protection; but, around the world between 1937 and as Churchill got out of his car, they the outbreak of war in 1939. literally mobbed him. 'Good old Winnie,' they cried. 'We thought you'd come and see us. We can take it. Give it 'em back.' "Churchill broke down, and as I was struggling to get to him through the crowd, I heard an old woman say, 'You see, he really cares; he's crying.'" PM: I interrupted you over Churchill's ability to continue his leadership in the television age... PM: After thirty books and having gone through fifteen tons of material during your research, if he were alive today, what would be the one question you would ask? MG: It would be a question he himself asked, and I would like to know what his answer would be. While the Second World War was in its final stages, he
FINEST HOUR 135 / 61

asked a friend, "Do you think I spent too much energy on the German question and not enough on the Soviet question?" I would ask if he thought that he had not done enough, or all that he could have done, in dealing with Stalin in 1944. PM: What do you think his answer would be? MG: I would like to feel that it would be "no," that he would say that he had done all that could be done, that he did his best. But he was a very self-critical person, so he might feel that that he did fail in that regard. PM: What was Churchill's greatest contribution in helping us to define leadership? MG: I think it was a combination of drawing on his vast experience, and his perseverance. So often knocked down, so often marginalized, so often out of power, out of office, he never gave up. On one occasion, when he came to Canada in 1929, he thought perhaps he should give up politics altogether, buy a ranch in Alberta, and become a Canadian rancher! PM: Really? MG: He wrote to his wife from Banff in 1929, "I am greatly attracted to this country...I have made up my mind that if Neville Chamberlain is made leader of the Conservative Party or anyone else of that kind, I clear out of politics and see if I cannot make you and the kittens a little more comfortable before I die."* But by the time he had completed his holiday, he was back in the cut and thrust of British politics. PM: Lucky; who knows what would have happened to us if he hadn't been here? MG (laughing): Perhaps he'd have become a great Oil Baron!
*Sir Martin Gilbert, Winston S. Churchill. Companion Volume V, Part 2, The Wilderness Years 1929-1935 (London: Heinemann, 1981), 62. $

JAMES LANCASTER'S

CHURCHILL QUIZ
Mr. Lancaster welcomes reader input and comments: jimlancaster@wanadoo.fr
ach quiz includes four questions in each of six categories: Churchill contemporaries (C), literary matters (L), miscellaneous (M), personal details (P), statesmanship (S) and war (W). Questions are graded into four levels for difficulty, the hardest being Level 1. How far can you get before you miss one? Level 4: 1. Which is Churchill's best-selling book? (L) 2. What went really terribly wrong for Churchill in World War I? (W) 3. The British government distanced itself from one of Churchill's 1946 speeches and the U.S. government declined to endorse it. Which was it? (S) 4. Whom did Churchill marry? (C) 5. Who was the aloof Frenchman whom Churchill befriended in the Second World War? (C) 6. Name five kinds of animals and pets Churchill kept at Chartwell. (P) 7. What are the titles of Churchill's two major biographies? (L) 8. Which country did Churchill call "The Great Republic"? (M) Level 3: 9. Why did Churchill visit the Blenheim battlefield in September 1932? (L) 10. When did Churchill visit Canada for the first time? (S) 11. When and why did Churchill order church bells to be rung for the first time during World War II? (W) 12. In 1945 Churchill told Harry Hopkins, "If we had spent ten years on research we could not have found a worse place in the world [for the next Big Three Meeting]." Where was it? (M) 13. Which of Churchill's greatest friends died on 30 October 1929? (C) 14. In December 1900 Churchill told reporters, "I am not here to marry anybody." Where was he? (P) 15. In which Canadian city did WSC and Roosevelt meet twice? (C) Level 2: 16. Of whom did Churchill write when he was in Bangalore in 1897: "She left no stone unturned, she left no cutlet uncooked"? (M) 17. What was the name of Churchill's most successful thoroughbred? (M) 18. For what was Clementine Churchill awarded the CBE in 1918? (P) 19. How did Churchill sum up Admiral Jellicoe's three lost opportunities to destroy the German fleet at Jutland in May 1916? (W) 20. Who described Churchill's The World Crisis as "Winston's brilliant autobiography disguised as a history of the universe"? (L) Level 1: 21. In which constituency was Churchill de-selected? (S) 22. Who was the first American President Churchill met? (P) 23. The Fates looked after Churchill because he was only once wounded in combat. When was this? (W) 24. When did Churchill speak of Britain as "This great country nosing from door to door like a cow that has lost its calf, mooing dolefully now in
FINEST HOUR 135/62

Berlin and now in Romewhen all the time the tiger and the alligator wait for its undoing"? (S)

Ui
Answers
'86I HDJB1A[ I u o snDoj E ay (fz) -Bijoiajj UI uosud 01 XEM 3lp UO J33IJJ0 |EDip3UI J3OQ E Xq p3SS3jp J3JEJ SBA\ pUEtJ S] [ p3J3pU3JjnS I 3t| sjojsq jsnf jsiuijds isjjnq E Xq puEtj aua ui iiu '6681 JaquisAOM c,\ (z) '0061 J3qui333Q y\ uo uoaSuiusB^ ui
<X3 U

rr ?

I DPW m.W./A {ZZ) 3P B -LL 33J i

u0

3DUB3S Sm J3AO 9 0 6 1 UI UIEUpJQ (\Z)

unojreg J'jntpjy
J3UIJOJ

,,, (61)
UI SUEIJIAID J3t{3O pUE SJ35JJOM SUOUIU -nui JQJ SU33JUED jo spsjpunij SUISTUES

-JO puE dn upj3s J O J (gj) '1SIUOJ03

SE ssi>[ooq puB sjsjund oj UMOU>J

'II I s r a e l (a) TOtjaoui SIH (91)

AJI^) osqsriQ (C, 1) 'UUBUJ -J3UIUIJ2 BU3J3J-J SS3JI31J pBUUIDUI^) 3UJ psIJJEUI JSnf pBtj J3JS3t[3UET/J

jo 35jnQ sqj^ piuvm'j sqa pjBoq uo 'jjjq^ A\3|vj (fl) ^'UOiuBduiOD mjjuSipp
'p3UJB3J '3SIAV B pUB '3AEU pjnOD UEUI XUB p u s u j JUEIJBA 'jnjqjiBj 'JEXO| :sotu

sip SBM 3j^ ; ) 'saojM jjiijDjnq^) XjEnaiqo sit] uj (ipiuis -gy) pE3tfU3>[jig pjoq (\) -B3UJU3 3UJ UI BIJE^ (Z\) -UI3UJEjy
jg :B XJOJDIA aiEjqspD 01 'Zf61
J3C

-UJ3AON $1 UQ ( I I ) "0061 J3qUI333a

(01) -uSnojoqjjEjAj j o s^jnQ ISJIJ sip,

JO Xl{dEJOiq S L JOJ JEIJ33EUI J3 OJ^ ((,) TJ EDUsuiy (g) 'S3uiij^ puv zfij sifj :c/2no -jLoqfj.pj/q puB jjicfMnqj (Z) 'MSTJ I ^ j d o j j '3
'spjiq 'SJJO uspjoS 'sjEU3pnq 'SUEMS 'SSSJOtJ 'SMOD 'd33t|S 'SJB3 'SOQ

(9) ' 3 n n B D 3
uojjnj 3uj^ () uS sajpuBp

(z)

Churchill Centre Regional and Local Contacts

Local Affairs Coordinator: Gary Garrison (ccsgary@bellsouth.net) 2364 Beechwood Drive, Marietta GA 30062 tel. (770) 378-8389; fax (770) 565-5925 Deputy Coordinator: Paul Courtenay (ndege@tiscali.co.uk) Park Lane Lodge, Quarley, Andover, Hants. SP11 8QB UK; tel. (01264) 889627 England: ICS (UK) Northern Branch Derek Greenwell, "Farriers Cottage" Station Road, Goldsborough Knaresborough, North Yorkshire HG5 8NT tel. (01432) 863225 Churchill Centre North Florida Richard Streiff (streiffr@bellsouth.net) 81 N.W 44th Street, Gainesville FL 32607 tel. (352) 378-8985 Winston Churchill Society of Georgia William L. Fisher (fishl947@bellsouth.net) 5299 Brooke Farm Rd., Dunwoody GA 30338 tel. (770) 399-9774 Winston Churchill Society of Michigan: Michael P. Malley (michael@malleylaw.com) 3135 South State St., Ste. 203, Ann Arbor MI 48108 tel. (734) 996-1083; fax (734) 327-2973 Churchill Round Table of Nebraska John Meeks (jmeeks@wrldhstry.com) 7720 Howard Street #3, Omaha NE 68114 tel. (402) 968-2773 New England Churchillians Joseph L. Hern (jhern@fhmboston.com) 340 Beale Street, Quincy MA 02170 tel. (617) 773-1907; bus. tel. (617) 248-1919 Churchill Society of New Orleans Edward F. Martin (tmartin@joneswalker.com) 2328 Coliseum St., New Orleans LA 70130 tel. (504) 582-8152 Churchill Society of Greater New York City Gregg Berman (gberman@fulbright.com) c/o Fulbright & Jaworski, 666 Fifth Avenue New York NY 10103 tel. (212) 318-3388 North Carolina Churchillians A. Wendell Musser MD (amusser@nc.rr.com) 1214 Champions Pointe Drive Durham NC 27712; tel. (919) 417-1325 Churchill Centre Northern Ohio Michael McMenamin (mtm@walterhav.com) 1301 East 9th St. #3500, Cleveland OH 44114 tel. (216) 781-1212 Churchill Society of Philadelphia Bernard Wojciechowski (bwojciechowski@borough.ambler, pa.us) 1966 Lafayette Rd., Lansdale PA 19446 tel. (323) 661-9856 South Carolina: Bernard Baruch Chapter Kenneth Childs (kchilds@childs-halligan.net) P.O. Box 11367, Columbia SC 29111-1367 tel. (803) 254-4035 Tennessee: Vanderbilt University Young Churchill Club; Prof. John English (john.h.english@vanderbilt.edu) Box 1616, Station B, Vanderbilt University, Nashville TN 37235 North Texas: Emery Reves Churchillians Jeff Weesner (jweesner@centurytel.net) 2101 Knoll Ridge Court, Corinth TX 76210 tel. (940) 321-0757; cell (940) 300-6237 Churchill Centre South Texas James T. Slattery (slattery@fed-med.com) 2803 Red River Creek San Antonio TX 78259-3542 cell (210) 601-2143; fax (210) 497-0904 Washington Society for Churchill Dr. John H. Mather, Pres. (Johnmather@aol.com) PO Box 73, Vienna VA 22182-0073 tel. (240) 353-6782

AFFILIATES ARE IN BOLD FACE (National organizations on inside front cover) Rt. Hon. Sir Winston S. Churchill Society of Alaska Judith & Jim Muller (afjwm@uaa.alaska.edu) 2410 Galewood St., Anchorage AK 99508 tel. (907) 786-4740; fax (907) 786-4647 Churchill Centre Arizona Larry Pike (lvpike@Chartwellgrp.com) 4927 E. Cresrview Dr., Paradise Valley AZ 85253 bus. tel. (602) 445-7719; cell (602) 622-0566 California: Churchillians of the Desert David Ramsay (rambo85@aol.com) 74857 S. Cove Drive, Indian Wells CA 92210 tel. (760) 837-1095 Churchillians by the Bay Richard Mastio (rcmastio@earthlink.net) 2996 Franciscan Way, Carmel CA 93923-9216 tel. (831) 625-6164 Churchillians of Southern California Leon J. Waszak (leonwaszak@aol.com) 235 South Ave. #66, Los Angeles CA 90042 tel. (323) 257-9279 bus. tel. (818) 240-1000 x5844 Churchill Friends of Greater Chicago Phil & Susan Larson (parker-fox@msn.com) 22 Scottdale Road, LaGrange IL 60526 tel. (708) 352-6825 Colorado: Rocky Mountain Churchillians Lew House, President (Ihouse2cti@earthlink.net) 2034 Eisenhower Drive, Louisville CO 80027 tel. (303) 661-9856; fax (303) 661-0589 England: ICS (UK) Woodford/Epping Branch Tony Woodhead, Old Orchard, 32 Albion Hill, Loughton, Essex 1GI0 4RD tel. (0208) 508-4562

THE RT HON SIR WINSTON S. CHURCHILL SOCIETY, CANADA Calgary: Dr. Francis LeBlanc, Pres. (neuron@platinum.ca) 126 Pinetree Dr. SW, Calgary AB T3Z 3K4 tel. (403) 685-5836; fax (403) 217-5632 Edmonton: Dr. Edward Hutson, Pres. (jehutson@shaw.ca) 98 Rehwinkel Road, Edmonton AB T6R 1Z8 tel. (780) 430-7178 British Columbia: Christopher Hebb, Pres. (cavell_capital@telus.net) 1806-1111 W. Georgia Street, Vancouver BC V6E 4M3; tel. (604) 209-6400 Vancouver Island: Barry Gough, Pres. (bgough@wlu.ca) 3000 Dean Ave., P.O. Box 5037, Victoria, B.C. V8R 6N3; tel. (250) 592-0800

FINEST HOUR 135 / 63

"TJE OLYMPIANS AT PLAY," 1912: POSTCRIPT

LORD CHARLES BERESFORD GCB GCVO

E like to get things right on our back cover! Per John McLeod's letter on page 4, the swimming Admiral in the Punch cartoon on FH 134's back cover is, we now believe, Lord Charles Beresford, longtime Churchill critic (thus the telescope trained on WSC). By 1912 Beresford had retired from the Navy and was seg as Conservative MP for Plymouth. On 20 December 1912, Churchill would deliver a devastating blow in response to a Beresford speech in the House of Commons: "He is one of those orators of whom it was well said, 'Before they get up, they do not know what they are going to say; when they are speaking, they do not know what they are saying; and when they sit down, they do not know what they have said.'"

LEWIS VERNON HARCOURT, VISCOUNT HARCOURT PC

aul Courtenay is now fairly certain that the bald-headed gentleman standing behind and between the two javelin throwers (Prime Minister Asquith and Leader of the Opposition Andrew Bonar Law) is Lewis Vernon Venables, First Viscount Harcourt (1863-1922), who served as Liberal MP for Rossendale, Lancashire from 1904 to 1916. At the time of the cartoon, Harcourt was Secretary of State for the Colonies. Port Harcourt, Nigeria, was named after him in 1913, when the Governor-General of Nigeria, Sir Frederick Lugard, wrote to Harcourt, with the somehow rather cutting request: "In the absence of any convenient local name, I would respectfully ask your permission to call this Port Harcourt."

HERBERT SAMUEL GCB OM GBE PC

ESSENCE OF PARLIAMENT.

he character with the telephones above, and coddling Andrew Bonar Law at left, is Herbert Samuel (1870-1963), the first practising Jew appointed to a British Cabinet. In 1915 Samuel proposed a British Protectorate over Palestine, which led to the Balfour Declaration on a Jewish National Home. He became the first High Commissioner of the Palestine Mandate in 1920. He served as Asquith's Postmaster General and Home Secretary, sided with Asquith in the 1916 split with Lloyd George, and lost his seat in 1918. (He was an MP again, 1929-35). Churchill, left, is patting Ulster Unionist Edward Carson (shown wrestling with Home Ruler John Redmond above), who had come out in favor of appropriations for more submarines. "How are the mighty fallen, and the weapons of battle perished..." 2 Samuel 1:27

I 1 ' 1 -!

OPPOSITION APPROVAL OF TIIE NEW U0Y3. Mil. WiXft-ros CHUBCHILL (paUuiQ air EctrAno CAKXOS on tho back) Jin. ItaiBiBT SAHUEI. (patlint) Mr. EusjxLiW ontUback)

BFEN TAUCIXQ BK5SE."

"Essence of Parliament" by Frederick Townsend in Punch, oT

917 John Frost