January 7, 2009

Winston Churchill
PROCEEDINGS
of the International Churchill Societies 1987

WARFARE IN PEACETIME
By the Hon. James Courter
The Adolphus Hotel, Dallas, Texas, 31 October 1987
[Introduction of Hon. James Courter]

    Ambassador Robinson, Members of the Board of Directors, Mr. Langworth, Miss Hamblin, Mrs. Reves, Mr. Sampson, Ladies and Gentlemen.

    I feel deeply privileged to have been asked to address you this evening, and I welcome the opportunity to meet so many members of the International Churchill Society. My theme is one the great man attended to most of his life: How the dictators prepare ceaselessly for war, and by contrast how the democracies are unprepared – and sometimes unaware.

2024 International Churchill Conference

Join us for the 41st International Churchill Conference. London | October 2024

More

    One month ago, a dummy warhead from a Soviet superheavy intercontinental ballistic missile plunged into the sea less than 100 miles northwest of Hawaii. The test made confetti of at least three provisions of the unsigned but much-venerated SALT 11 treaty. And then there was a fourth violation, obstruction of U.S. monitoring: American pilots sent to the area to observe the splashdown were temporarily blinded by laser beams from a Russian intelligence ship.

    The Soviet Union offered no explanation of why it would so provoke the United States government on the eve of both a summit meeting in Washington and a major nuclear arms control agreement. The Kremlin’s test also made a sullen counterpoint to the good nature – if not necessarily good sense – which our Congress had just shown by explicitly reaffirming the ABM or anti-ballistic missile treaty.

    And yet to the arrogance of the ICBM flight test, reported on page one of The New York Times, was added the irony of another story on page six: Speaking in Murmansk, General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev proposed that the Arctic become “a zone of peace.”

    There are only a few possible explanations for the apparent incongruity of these two actions. The first is that, over there in the Kremlin, the left hand doesn’t know what the far-left hand is doing. That is precisely how certain Administration officials explained the warheads in the water; they said Gorbachev might not have known much about the test. Apparently, dropping dummy ICBMs around Hawaii is something Red Army generals do on their own. We heard some of the same foolishness when KAL-007 was shot down. The 1968 invasion of Czechoslovakia, according to a famous commentator, was one Brezhnev and Kosygin “opposed.” Brezhnev was even said to have “distanced himself’ from the decision to invade Afghanistan. One wonders what these dictators do, if they don’t dictate….

    Sure enough, several days after the first press reports on the Soviet ICBM test, newspapers reported that other Administration officials believe Gorbachev himself and the Chief of General Staff were in an underground command and control center monitoring the test flight.

    Which brings us to the other possible explanation for the ICBM test so near Hawaii: that is was an act of war, softened immediately by the subsequent Arctic peace zone proposal. The two acts were part of the same program. The one faces the enemy with his vulnerability; the other offers him a way to be comfortable with it. Winston Churchill often noted how vulnerable democratic peoples are to the pulls of comfort and inaction. More recently, an outstanding student of geopolitics, the author of the 1980 volume Kingdoms of the Blind, has echoed this Churchillian theme:

    “The beauty of operating a strategy in peacetime,” writes Dr. Harold W. Rood, “is that its ultimate victims must either conform to each step in the strategy or go to war. Against the inconvenience and exertion of war, accommodation, compromise, and appeasement seem only reasonable, virtuous, and humanitarian.”

    What the ICBM provocation demonstrates is the totalitarian’s distaste for peace. Peace, after all, is nothing but an unsatisfying lull in the struggle. It is struggle which is sacrosanct in the Marxist- Leninist religion. What matters to the revolutionary socialist, whether Lenin or Gorbachev, is the winning of new advantages. There must be movement and a sense of urgency.

    Marxist-Leninist ideology is grounded in the struggle against the bourgeoisie and the bourgeois state. Internally, this means a perpetual war upon the reactionary, the latent capitalist, the independent artist, the religious, and, most hateful of all, the free mind made audible by the free tongue.

    What is the weaponry in this perpetual struggle for domestic control? The systems of education, information control, and propaganda, which explicitly teach hatred of the enemy as the citizens’ duty. This hatred was one of totalitarianism’s more repulsive aspects for Winston Churchill, whose magnanimity was known even to his enemies. In one column for the Evening Standard, he noted how in Nazi Germany, “the hate culture continues, fostered by printing press and broadcast – the very instruments … which philosophers might have hoped would liberate mankind from such perils.”

    Other weapons of internal control and militarization include: The youth organizations and so-called military sports groups in which young children learn the arts of field-stripping weapons, reconnaissance, civil defense, and grenade-throwing. Militias, to supplement the oversized armies. The use of the draft or psychiatric wards against political dissidents. “Committees for the Defense of the Revolution, like those the Cubans created in Nicaragua.

    Ration cards. Secret police. Party courts, rather than independent ones. Work brigades. And that final argument against resistance; barbed wire. Perhaps you remember Churchill’s dark joke about how the Communists build the workers.’paradise, and then add immense walls topped with barbed wire entanglements to keep the cherubim and seraphim from escaping.

    Simultaneous with this unending battle for internal control is the war against external enemies. There are not independent human beings, but only classes of them. reactionaries, pre-revolutionaries, or accomplished social activists. Each is judged according to his position in the great march of history, that march being led of course by the vanguard party – Lenin’s term, the Sandinistas’ term for themselves, Kim It Sung’s term.

    Thus does politics become war. And war, as Lenin said, echoing Clausewitz, is nothing but an extension of politics by violent means. My remarks this evening will range over a number of those means. The first of them, ironically, is the use of peace initiatives and peace talks.

    PEACE INITIATIVES

    When Mikhail Gorbachev took power in March of 1985, he was approvingly described by a colleague as a man with “a nice smile, but iron teeth.” The West immediately forgot the second half of that remark, such was the charm of Gorbachev and his wife Raisa. What we need to remind ourselves is that Lenin – and Gorbachev is certainly a Leninist, as is Raisa, a professor of Marxim-Leninisrn – Lenin once wrote to a Bolshevik delegation preparing for an international conference in Genoa in 1922 with orders to advance “a vast pacifist program.” One representative shot back that he had spent his life as a Communist fighting just such “petit-bourgeois illusions.” To which Lenin rejoined; “Tell me where and when the Party has refused to use pacifism to break up the enemy, the bourgeoisie?”

    We might hope this exchange of letters, which proved that Lenin regarded peace proposals as war weapons, would embarrass more modern Communists. Not so. Leonid Brezhnev’s minions boldly reprinted them in the Moscow Literary Gazette in 1972, at the height of détente.

    Some Communists still speak as frankly as did Lenin. The Sandinista army intelligence chief, Ricardo Wheelock, has called the new Central American peace proposal an opportunity for advancing the war on the bourgeoisie: “The agreement is the most devastating weapon we’ve ever used on the counter-revolution. Clausewitz said was is the continuation of politics by other means. We have made politics the continuation of war.”

    Perhaps all this should prompt recollection of the unguarded remarks Adolf Hitler made to a secret meeting of German journalists on the 10th of November, 1938. He’ said: “The prevailing circumstances have obliged me to speak, for a decade or more, of almost nothing but peace. Only, in fact, by continuously declaring the German desire for peace and Germany’s peaceful intentions was I able, step by step, to secure freedom for the German people and to provide Germany with the armaments which have, time and time again, always been the essential pre-conditions for any further move.”

    That is the meaning of the Arctic peace zone proposal which arrived with the ICBM test warheads. The dictator has threatened and smiled at the same time. His message is that submission, so clearly the easier course, is also the wiser course.

    TERRORISM

    Terrorism is the second form of warfare in peacetime I would like to discuss.

    Fateh, the Palestine Liberation Organization newspaper, once printed an old photo taken in 1956 in Prague. It showed a delegation at the International Union of Students Congress. Seated behind a plate marked “Palestine” were Yasser Arafat, a Mr. Alami, future head of the Palestine National Fund, and Sala Khalaf, or Abu Iyad, later to become head of internal security and chief of intelligence in the Palestine Liberation Organization and, as head of Black September, one of those responsible for the 1972 Munich massacre. When the meeting ended, Fateh notes, Alami went to Moscow, and Khalaf went to East Germany. Only a sudden illness prevented Arafat from making a planned trip to Romania.

    Three decades and innumerable crimes later, who do we find in East Germany, in late April of 1985, but the very same Sala Khalaf, Arafat’s second in command. There was nothing unusual about the visit, save that it proved nothing had changed with Gorbachev’s arrival in power. The meetings behind the Iron Curtain with Arafat, with Khalaf, with Abu Nidal, with Palestinian Communists, and with the pro-Syrian wing of the Palestinians, are commonplace. For all their well-known internal divisions, the Palestinian terrorist groups work with the same socialist sugar daddies.

    So does the African National Congress; its people may carry a banner of liberation, but their training is in Soviet colonies like Ethiopia and Libya, where freedom does not exist. SWAPO fighters in Namibia and Angola have been flown by the hundreds to East Germany for medical treatment. Salvadorans are given guerrilla training in Nicaraguan camps, and then nourished by supply lines from Nicaragua. Salvadorans are even trained in Eastern European and Soviet camps, according to guerrilla documents found in 1985. Nicaragua is also host to a variety of European fugitives from the terrorist underworld. Red Brigadists serve in the Nicaraguan army. And American citizens, especially Puerto Rican separatists, have trained by the score in military camps in Cuba.

    Consider the weapons flow. The P.L.O. gets most of its arms from Communist bloc ships sailing from the Bulgarian port of Varna. Czechoslovak plastique was in the false bottom of the bag Nezar Hindawi gave to his pregnant girlfriend boarding an El Al jet in London last October. Fragments of grenades made in the Soviet Union are familiar to the investigators who stepped through the wreckage of the synagogue in Istanbul 14 months ago. The Abu Nidal gang uses as its preferred murder weapon the Polish WZ-63 machine pistol.

    Terrorism leads directly to my third topic, which I call:

    MURDERING S.D.I.

    European terrorists have always attacked NATO bases and fuel pipelines in addition to their usual civilian targets. We expect such strikes just as we have come to expect assassination attempts on our generals posted to the continent. These acts of war achieve in peacetime precisely what the Soviets would want done in the initial period of general conflict. They also serve the Soviets’ central strategic purpose, which is the decoupling of European/American alliance that represents so much of Churchill’s life work. Each attack weakens NATO militarily. Each makes the American presence a burden and an embarrassment to our European hosts. Each bombing leads us to ask whether we ought not bring the boys home.

    Suddenly, in the last 18 months, European terrorists have begun working for the traditional Soviet objective in a new way: forestalling the West’s development of strategic defenses against missile attack.

    In the last war, Britain’s defenses against attack from the air were developed in part by Churchill’s friend Professor Lindemann, an Oxford professor of experimental science. Today Britain is among the countries to have signed memoranda with the U.S. concerning a new generation of air defenses. There is no reason to believe that they can not be found, since an ICBM in flight meets Churchill’s description of the last air threat, the airplane, which, “though a very formidable engine of war, . . . is also a very fragile structure, and an explosive charge no bigger than a cigar is sufficient to bring [it] down . . .”

    However, between August 1986 and May 1987, four British scientists in advanced military work related to SDI have died violently or disappeared in mysterious circumstances. Another two involved in high-tech defense research have apparently committed suicide. This ‘ Id be a statistical aberration. But consider the pattern of deaths on  the continent:

    Ernest Zimmermann, head of the West German Federation of German Aerospace Industries, killed in February, 1985 by the Communist Red Army Faction.

    Karl-Heinze Beckurts, Director of Research at Siemens, an SDI contract holder, and an advisor to Bonn on SDI cooperation with Washington, assassinated in July, 1986 for these “secret negotiations,” as the Red Army Faction chose to phrase it.

    The bombing, two weeks later, of the Fraunhafer Institute of Laser Technology, Aachen, where SDI work was reportedly being done.

    Gerold von Braunmuhl, a West German Foreign Ministry official, shot dead by masked gunmen in October, 1986. The Red Army Faction letter claiming credit accused him of secret diplomacy; he has been reported to have been a party to secret German-American talks on SDI.

    And then, in March 1987, General Licio Giorgieri, the air force general in charge of Italy’s Department of Space and Armaments Procurement, was gunned down in the streets of Rome. According to a 14-page communique left behind by the Union of Fighting Communists, Giorgieri was killed exclusively – that word was underlined – for Italian adhesion to the “star wars” project.

    I don’t know when there last was such clear evidence that European communist terrorists – if that is what they are – are serving Soviet military purposes.

    THE EXPERT USE OF SATELLITE STATES

    In the period after the Great War, Churchill served in the government with the geographer Halford J. Mackinder. They shared a conviction that the British must do all they could to help the White Russian armies against the Bolsheviks. Their political efforts were mirrored by Mackinder’s scholarly work on what he called “The Heartland,” the vast northern Asian plain. Mackinder believed that whomever controlled the Heart land could control the world. He further taught that control of the Heartland depended in part upon control of the East European approaches to it.

    For four decades, the Kremlin has controlled both. The rich lands of Eastern Europe have fed their natural and human resources into the frame and musculature of the Soviet empire. The tragedy of the peoples of Eastern Europe is that the harder they work to better their lives, the stronger they make the monkey on their back.

    Today, while learned people expatiate upon the potential for East German non-cooperation in a Soviet invasion of West Germany, the East Germans already deploy on “internationalist missions” abroad more than 2300 of their own military experts. Reinforcing these, in a dozen countries and a half-dozen guerrilla wars, are large numbers of intelligence specialists and people advisors. For example, the Germans apparently have had “technical” control over the Libyan secret police since about 1974.

    What of the Bulgars? Feared by empire builders of older times, today they are so slavishly obedient to the Kremlin that they may anticipate, rather than merely follow, its demands. The country plays an enormous role in the international drugs-for-guns trade, a smaller one in Italian terrorism, And with Syria has toiled at subverting Turkey, our powerful, troubled, and sometimes neglected NATO ally.

    Poland is a strong producer of food, industrial products, and weapons for the Soviet economic bloc. A Soviet book for 1981 lauds Poland’s special role among the fraternal countries as a producer of jet aircraft, helicopters, combat ships, tanks, motor vehicles, various engineering and radar equipment, and communications equipment. The former Polish Ambassador to Japan declares – and the statistics bear him out – that “Polish industrial production is intricately linked to Soviet war production.”

    And what of Czechoslovakia? You remember Czechoslovakia … a democracy whose dismemberment in 1938 bought the West a few months more of peace. Churchill’s description in the Munich speech is immortal: “All is over. Silent, mournful, abandoned, broken, Czechoslovakia recedes into the darkness. She has suffered in every respect by her association with the Western democracies and with the League of Nations, of which she has always been an obedient servant.”

    Snuffed out, the Czech Republic was reborn in 1945, only to die again three years later, a victim of the political “salami tactics” which Communist vanguards would later use in Grenada and Nicaragua. Perhaps the humiliations of the Czechs are not to end in our day. This spring that people was subjected to a visit by Gorbachev who postured as the “liberal reformist” battling for change against ingrained Stalinism. Who was it that built Stalinism in Czechoslovakia? The very party which Gorbachev has served all his life, and serves today.

    The Foreign Report of the Economist has noted that the Czech economy pays as much as 40 percent of the Soviet bloc’s enormous subsidies to the new Indochinese possessions, Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos. Czech intelligence is a Soviet bloc workhorse in the effort to steal Western technology. According to the defector Ladislav Bittmann, Prague’s operatives also stung the West repeatedly during the 1950s with expert disinformation, and served Fidel Castro’s government on security matters in its early days. Now Czech exiles based in Canada allege that Czech police academies host Sandinista trainees.

    ARMAMENTS PRODUCTION

    This, of course is a subject which riveted Churchill. He assumed, unlike so many Westerners then and now, that if a dictator created the means for conquest we must gravely consider the prospect that he is intent upon conquest.

    Ten years ago, a man who is now a senior member of the House Armed Services Committee wrote an article debunking the view, expressed by the Committee on the Present Danger and others, that the USSR was engaged in a military build-up comparable to Hitler’s. The article’s title asked: “What Are the Russians Up To?” The answer was “not so much; don’t worry.” The evidence for this comforting conclusion was in a series of charts, with horizontal lines indicating increases in rates of arms production. One saw quickly that the gradual, steady Soviet growth rates could not compare with those of the Nazis, which shot up to the top of the manuscript pages.

    A fascinating argument. But all the charts show is that the Soviets’ production rates are not growing sharply; what they don’t show is how high production rates already are. Hitter had six years from the time he became Chancellor to build an army which could conquer Europe. He very nearly did it. The Kremlin’s production is altogether different, as perhaps its plans may be. Soviet defense spending has increased undramatically, but that growth tops off an enormous base. Net weapons production did not figure into my colleague’s charts.

    Nazi tank production for 1941 – in wartime – was 3,790; that is almost exactly as many tanks as the Warsaw Pact now produces every year in peacetime. The Nazis smashed the French army, said to be the world’s best, using 2,445 German tanks. Today, after years of steady effort by the factories of Russia, Poland, Romania, and Czechoslovakia, the Warsaw Pact has an astounding 46,610 tanks in the Western theaters, ten times more than Hitter had in 1940.

    Today in Europe, the North American and European democracies in NATO have about 20,000 tanks, while the Warsaw Pact dictators command more than, twice that many. They have more anti-tank weapons launchers than we do, too. We have some 9000 artillery pieces and multiple rocket launchers; the Pact could attack with almost three times as many. There are 387 NATO surface-to-air missile launchers, as against some 1200 in Communist bloc hands. We have about 700 armed helicopters to pit against some 2,000.

    That is what we have. The picture is no better when one looks at what we are producing. In 1986, the NATO countries were out-produced nearly 4 to 1 in tanks, and 4 to I in self-propelled artillery. We built 225 pieces of towed field artillery, no unimpressive sum, unless one knows that the Communists turned out 1450. We made no anti-aircraft guns, yet the Pact manufactured 350, which was more than the previous year. This hardly represents “economic reform” of the sort which has brought Gorbachev so much admiration.

    BORDER PROVOCATIONS

    Border provocations are one of the most blatant forms of war waged in peacetime. Each one challenges us to accept an injury without responding in kind, and then to continue on with things like arms control as if nothing ever happened. The number of violent border incidents seems to increase as the Soviets’ power grows; with fearsomeness comes fearlessness.

    There have been two outrages against the United States in only the last six weeks, a supposedly delicate time for superpower relations. Before the Kremlin announced it would bracket a Hawaiian island with ICBMS, it caused or allowed American servicemen to be fired upon. They were on patrol in East Germany, as is their right under the post-war accords. One was wounded. They were detained, despite the wound, recalling the March, 1985 shooting of Major Arthur D. Nicholson Jr., who bled to death while Soviet soldiers barred the summoning of medical aid.

    This latest shooting in September is one of five new incidents since the murder of Major Nicholson. What does this tell us about Mr. Gorbachev? In the years since 1980, servicemen on their lawful business in East Germany have been rammed, tied up, beaten, detained, and fired upon. I have heard that the same things are done to our French and British allies. On each occasion we make our protest. These are no doubt treated with the same gravity as was our protest about what might be called “the bombing of Hawaii.” In spite of the consistency in the incidents, we continue to treat them as if they were accidents. Clearly they are results of policy.

    One might think that the Czech jet which flew 1.5 kilometers into West Germany a year ago and fired rockets at U.S. helicopter had somehow lost his way. One might think that, but it was the 17th violation of German airspace in only six months.

    Swedish pilots and officials from civilian air services find that Warsaw Pact pilots are now going so far as to lock the radar of their live anti-aircraft missiles onto passing commercial flights.

    The territorial waters of Sweden and Norway have been violated repeatedly by Soviet submarines and frogmen. This August, the head of the intelligence and security section of Stockholm’s coastal defense was reportedly silenced by a superior after declaring that during ice- free months as many as 10 Communist incursions take place each day. The refusal of some Americans to recognize acts of war in peacetime was evidenced recently, when one of our most prestigious think tanks confessed after considerable study to being unable to find a “sensible, rational answer” to why the incursions in Sweden take place. Swedish officials have already said why they take place, calling them “preparatory phases of military operations.” They further serve as instruments of intimidation.

    Japan’s airspace was violated 350 times in 1986 by Soviet aircraft. There were 36 incursions this January alone.

    Pakistan’s borders – on the ground and in the air – were violated 757 times in the year that ended in December. Hundreds of civilians inside Pakistan have been killed or injured in bombing raids by Afghan and Soviet aircraft. As of July, there were some 570 casualties this year.

    AFGHANISTAN

    And what of Afghanistan? After all, that grisly war continues. Chatter about troop withdrawals has gone on almost since the 1979 invasion, and probably deserves serious consideration, notably as another example of the use of peace proposals as weapons. If the Soviets had actually pulled out a division for every time they discussed doing so, the war would have ended long ago. In fact. The Soviets took Afghanistan because they wanted it. They surely expected resistance, and are now combatting it. Not yet is there any evidence they are quitting: construction on roads, airbases, and bunkers is being pressed forward. If they do ostensibly quit, will they allow free institutions to resume behind them?

    Of course the costs of the war are high. But there are advantages, too; otherwise the Soviets wouldn’t be there. The Kremlin’s aircraft can now readily reach both the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea. The pressures on Pakistan, an old Soviet target, are enormous, and a drive to the sea is more conceivable than before 1979. Thirdly, every totalitarian general likes to blood his troops. A Soviet spokesman has admitted that the Red Army is getting valuable combat experience. Afghanistan has become an arena for the testing of new tactics and new weapons, reportedly including varieties of chemical weapons. Hitler found the Spanish Civil War useful in just such respects.

    Fourth, Soviet engineers are locating and extracting uranium; surely the Afghans will not be the beneficiaries of those efforts. Fifth, Afghanistan’s large natural gas fields are now being siphoned off through pipelines to the North. A Kremlin spokesman named Yuri Gankovsky boasted a year ago that despite the evident losses of life, Hall our expenses, I stress, ‘all’, are paid by Afghanistan.” Now there is a true materialist’s view of warfare.

    What is going on in Afghanistan? Almost every crime known to man, and every crime characteristic of military occupation.

        *
          The theft of natural resources: already mentioned.
        *
          Murder. One million Afghans are dead.
        *
          Mass Murder:  We have seen crimes like those by which the Nazis distinguished themselves, such as that at Oradour sur Glane in France, where they forced the women and children of the village into a church and burned it.
          Torture: Another commonplace.
        *
          Exile: Some four million Afghans, a third of the population, now live outside their homeland.
        *
          National Dismemberment: This “quarrel in a faraway country between people of whom we know nothing” (Neville Chamberlain on Czechoslovakia) may one day be infused with the meaning we now attach to the 1938 annexation of the Sudetenland. Some reports say the northeastern Afghan territory called the Waakan Corridor has already been formally annexed unto the USSR in a secret treaty, a treaty between Moscow’s people in Moscow and Moscow’s people in Kabul. The Waakan Corridor reached out and touched China; its annexation closes off the country from its Chinese neighbor forever.
        *
          Depopulation: Ten thousand youths have been removed to the Soviet Union for training, which aims to turn them against their own’ Perhaps you remember Animal Farm, George Orwell’s satire on totalitarian politics. The Pig-in-Chief, Napoleon, first among equals, stole a litter of newborn dogs, and raised them in secret. They returned as huge mastiffs, ferocious and unrecognizable to all but their master.

    Something else must be said about this war. We are well accustomed to the Kremlin winning or stealing new lands with coups or elaborate subversions; half a dozen countries fell that way in the 1970s alone. But now, for the first time since the states of Eastern Europe were swallowed up, the Soviets have occupied and destroyed a contiguous country by overt military means. What is more, they have proven to themselves that this can be done without causing a world crisis.

    MARATHON IS ALWAYS NOW

    Such are the grim realities which, drunk with the new drink glasnost, we seem so easily to ignore. How badly the democracies need now the two things which made Winston Churchill the man of the twentieth century. the understanding of the perils we face from tyranny, and the strength with which to meet them.

    From the beginning, Churchill saw with absolute prescience the evil nature of Communism. In January, 1920 he wrote: The essence of Bolshevism, as opposed to many other forms of visionary political thought, is that it can only be propagated and maintained by violence. He further saw, at a time when Lenin’s followers could hardly rule the periphery of Moscow, let alone Russia, that Bolshevism would succeed and expand. In 1919 he said it would grow until their armies are menacing Persia and Afghanistan, and their missionaries are at the gates of India, and the border states in Europe have been undermined by want and propaganda or overborne by criminal violence.

    Sir Winston’s powerful opposition to Nazism is what made him most famous in America. But his vision of the absolute incompatibility between democracy and all totalitarianism, communist or Fascist, has made his thought and his life central to the Free World before and after the time when Europe lived under Hitler’s shadow.

    We know no public man in our century who so completely embodied Western Civilization, or loved it more, or labored as tirelessly for its perpetuation. since he left the world in 1965, the communist enemy which worried him has redoubled its powers. Now, surely, it falls to us to show some small trace of the courage with which he overflowed. for it is true, as an American historian wrote when Churchill died, that, “His whole life was a statement that our heritage is preserved only by men of fact as well as faith, that there is no escape from conflict and danger, that Marathon is always now.”

    Copyright ©  The Churchill Center Inc., All Rights Reserved