June 3, 2015

Finest Hour 101, Winter 1998-99

Page 04

CONFERENCE 1998

[To Prof. Muller] I want to express gratitude for the many things I gained from having been a part of the Churchill Conference. The stimuli offered from the lectures to the lunch conversations will not be easily forgotten. I have received some gracious letters that seal this experience for me in a way I had not expected. It was an honor and a pleasure, and I hope to be involved in the future. Thank you for the phone call asking me to rise to a challenge that would enable me to learn more about Winston Churchill, individuals who revere his leadership, and the opportunity to discover more about myself, and what it takes to be a leader.
MARY KEMPER, COLLEGE OF WILLIAM & MARY

THE THANKS ARE TO YOU

I am greatly indebted for your “care and attention” to the layout and impressive illustrations for my piece, “Unswerving Resolution, Glinting Intellect” (FH 97). The op-ed enterprise you outline in your editorial in the same issue is ablaze with opportunities that will handsomely benefit The Churchill Center. Bonne chance.

2024 International Churchill Conference

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

More

I would like also to say how I admired your forthright comments about “terminological inexactitudes” concerning the Churchill Center vs. Societies (FH 96, p. 4), on necessary consolidation and future advantages which must be seized by managing change. I have never understood the dismal philosophy that contemplates essential change as metaphorical blood-letting, especially when applied to institutions.
RON CYNEWULF ROBBINS, VICTORIA, B.C.

FINEST HOUR 100

In the last paragraph of Robert Pilpel’s extract on Theodore Roosevelt, WSC did not speak to President Kennedy who invited him to Washington (from New York) in 1961—I did. WSC never spoke to Kennedy. It was not illwill, just circumstance. (See my book, Long Sunset, pages 289-90.)
ANTHONY MONTAGUE BROWNE, CBE, DFC
READING, BERKS

SEPARATIZING MACKENZIE KING

What a beautiful day it was supposed to be: French and English Canada paying tribute to the two great leaders of the West during World War II, Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt. For this day, a memorial was built to commemorate their meetings in Quebec City in 1943 and 1944. On Rue Saint-Louis, sculptures of FDR and Churchill faced each other with expressions of interest and determination.

But the day was spoiled by ultra-nationalist Canadians and the Prime Minister of Canada, Jean Chretien, who gave a political affiliation to the event that it should never have had. Mackenzie King, Prime Minister of Canada in 1943-44, had hosted the Quebec Conference and they were offended that a statue of King was not displayed with Churchill and FDR.

French and English Canadians should be proud of this memorial because it was Churchill’s wit and boldness that saved England and helped win the war. I am not an admirer of Roosevelt, but I think that these Quebec City meetings between Churchill and Roosevelt were important to the war effort. A statue could be built of Mackenzie King to commemorate Canada’s war effort, but does it have a relation to these meetings, did he fully participate to the discussions? And is it so important to spoil an important commemoration just for partisanship? Could an expert on WW2 or Churchill give his opinion on this matter.
B. GAREAU, MONTREAL, QUEBEC

At the Quebec Conference, Churchill felt that King was using the event for his own political advancement. What better photo opportunity than to be photographed with Churchill and FDR? But their relationship goes back further than that. King met Churchill during the latter’s tour of Canada in the early 1900s. King called Churchill “an arrogant pup” (although they were born three weeks apart!). When King went to England soon after their initial encounter and was told to meet Churchill, he replied: “Anybody but Churchill. I’ve met him and he’s the last man in England I want to see.”
RAFAL HEYDEL-MANKOO, OTTAWA, ONTARIO

Editor’s response: Fm no expert, but I suspect Mackenzie King would be quite satisfied with the statuary at Quebec. He had no plenary role in the Quebec conferences and complained privately that he felt himself an “errand boy. “Nonetheless he recognized the paramountcy of the two leaders, felt little insult over the arrangements and, though he had many policy disagreements, always praised FDR and Churchill alike.

CHURCHILL OR CONGRESS?

Did you know that Herman Kahn, who wrote the classic tome On Thermonuclear War, was at Rand Corporation, and later founded the Hudson Institute, said that he would have traded the entire United States Congress for Winston Churchill at 65?
LARRY HINDS <[email protected]>

Editor’s Response: No I didn’t, and herewith I pass on Mr. Kahn’s delightful quote, which reminds me of William Buckley’s celebrated remark that he would prefer to be governed by the first 535 names in the Boston telephone book than the entire United States Congress (including, I presume, the present one).