The Place to Find All Things Churchill


In Memoriam Paul Addison (1943–2020)

Finest Hour 188, Second Quarter 2020

Page 50

By David Stafford

With the death of Paul Addison, the world of Churchill studies is substantially poorer. No one claiming fully to understand Britain’s Second World War leader can fail to have read his pioneering study Churchill on the Home Front. Equally his biography Churchill: The Unexpected Hero is regarded by many, including myself, as the best short biography. Paul died on 21 January 2020 after a stoic battle with cancer. He is survived by his wife Rosemary and his two sons, James and Michael. For many years he was my close friend and colleague at the University of Edinburgh.

Born outside the small cathedral city of Lichfield in the English Midlands, Paul won a firstclass degree in history at Pembroke College, Oxford. As a postgraduate student he benefited from the inspired supervision of the celebrated historian A. J. P. Taylor to write his Ph.D. thesis on the opposition to Churchill’s wartime coalition government. It was Taylor, Paul often said, who fired his passion for history. The thesis formed the foundation of his path-breaking book The Road to 1945, which was published in 1975. Others followed, such as a BBC book accompanying the TV series Now the War Is Over (1985) and No Turning Back (2010). These all helped set the agenda for other British historians and influenced generations of students. Read More >

“To Have Worked with Him” Churchill and the Future Occupants of No. 10

Finest Hour 188, Second Quarter 2020

Page 33

By Iain Carter

Iain Carter is Director of the Conservative Research Department. He has previously been Political Director of the Conservative Party and a special adviser to the Leader of the House of Lords.

Winston Churchill said, “Politics is not a game. It is an earnest business.”1 There are few who have experienced the gravity of politics quite so acutely as he did, and during his own time in 10 Downing Street Churchill served alongside five men who went on to follow him as Prime Minister. Three of them, Attlee, Eden, and Macmillan, worked much more closely with him than did Alec Douglas-Home and Edward Heath. Yet the relationship all five of them had with Churchill played a part in their individual ascents to the pinnacle of British politics.

Clement Attlee
Ally and Rival

Perhaps the most interesting relationship between Churchill and those who followed him is the one he had with Clement Attlee. Without Attlee’s backing, it is far from certain that Churchill would have become Prime Minister in 1940. Attlee went on to serve with distinction in the War Cabinet, including as Deputy Prime Minister from 1942 onwards. His loyalty saw him back Churchill on major issues of strategy in discussions with the chiefs of staff, as well as facing down criticism from Labour colleagues. Despite this wartime unity, Attlee went on to become one of Churchill’s greatest political rivals, beating him in both the 1945 and 1950 general elections before the Conservatives were returned to power in 1951.

Read More >

Stanley Baldwin and Winston Churchill A Study in Contrasts

Finest Hour 188, Second Quarter 2020

Page 22

By Philip Williamson

Philip Williamson is professor of History at Durham University and author of Stanley Baldwin: Conservative Leadership and National Values (1999) and co-editor (with Edward Baldwin) of The Baldwin Papers. A Conservative Statesman 1908–1947 (2004).

Stanley Baldwin (1867–1947) was one of the most successful and important political leaders of twentieth-century Britain. In October 1935, Winston Churchill described him as “a statesman who has gathered to himself a greater volume of confidence and goodwill than any other man I recollect in my long political career”—and Churchill had been familiar with the greatest figures in British public life during the previous forty years. When Baldwin retired in 1937, he was in Churchill’s words “loaded with honours and enshrined in public esteem,”1 receiving tributes not just from members of his Conservative party and its partners in the National coalition government, but also from leading figures in the Labour and Liberal opposition parties. Yet his reputation declined precipitously after the outbreak of the Second World War. For various periods Baldwin and Churchill had been colleagues and opponents: Baldwin revived Churchill’s political career in 1924, but at other times he had a large part in excluding him from government office. They differed on many of the great issues of the 1930s, and Churchill’s later memoirs for these years, The Gathering Storm, entrenched a persistently harsh historical verdict on Baldwin’s leadership.

Party Leader and Prime Minister

Baldwin was Conservative party leader for fourteen years, from 1923 to 1937, and prime minister three times: 1923–24, 1924–29, and again—after four years from 1931 as deputy prime minister Read More >

A Difference Between Natures Neville Chamberlain and Winston Churchill

Finest Hour 188, Second Quarter 2020

Page 28

By Stuart Ball

Stuart Ball is Emeritus Professor of Modern British History at the University of Leicester. His books include Portrait of a Party: The Conservative Party in Britain, 1918–1945 (Oxford, 2013).

Although very different in personality, the self-contained and often inflexible Neville Chamberlain and the emotional and often impulsive Winston Churchill had four things in common during their formative years.

First, both had fathers who were amongst the most dynamic and controversial figures in late-Victorian politics. Lord Randolph Churchill rose and fell meteorically in the Conservative Party of the 1880s, whilst the radical Liberal Joseph Chamberlain broke with his party over Home Rule for Ireland in 1886, joined a coalition government with the Conservatives in 1895, and then shattered that party’s unity by resigning from the cabinet in 1903 to advocate “tariff reform”—the campaign for protectionism that led Winston Churchill to cross the floor of the House of Commons and join the Liberal Party in 1904.

Second, neither was expected by his father to have a political career, but instead Churchill was to enter the army and Chamberlain to go into business; in both cases, they did not enter the House of Commons until several years after their fathers’ death. Read More >

Twin Titans David Lloyd George and Winston Churchill

Finest Hour 188, Second Quarter 2020

Page 18

By Kenneth O. Morgan

Kenneth O. Morgan is author of books about Lloyd George, James Callaghan, and Michael Foot. He serves in the House of Lords as Baron Morgan of Aberdyfi.

During his years in the Liberal party from 1904 to 1923, Winston Churchill served under three prime ministers. The third of these was unique. For unlike his relationships with Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman and H. H. Asquith, towards David Lloyd George, Churchill was almost in awe. Robert Boothby, who served as Churchill’s Parliamentary Private Secretary when Churchill was Chancellor of the Exchequer, told a famous story in his memoirs about a meeting between the two great war leaders that took place in the 1920s. The old relationship, Churchill told Boothby ruefully, was quickly restored, “the relationship between Master and Servant. And I was the Servant.”1

Of course, Lloyd George was eleven years older than Churchill. He entered parliament in 1890, while Churchill was still a schoolboy at Harrow, and was first appointed to the Cabinet two and a half years before Churchill. But the ascendancy was personal and psychological as well as political. Even though Lloyd George had been a fierce critic of the South African War while Churchill was an imperialist, when the latter crossed the floor to join the Liberals in 1904, he chose to sit next to the Welshman in the Commons, after a controversial maiden speech, and they joined in onslaughts on the failing Unionist government. Churchill had nothing to do with Lloyd George’s ventures in politics on Welsh and other matters down to 1906 and was first appointed to the Colonial Office as a junior minister while his colleague went to the Board of Trade (with Churchill the more zealous free trader of the two). But after 1908 the pair formed a bold and dynamic partnership as pioneers of social reform. Churchill went down to the Criccieth home of Lloyd George, who was now Chancellor, to plan out a vast prospectus of social insurance, following up his colleague’s visit to examine the insurance system in post-Bismarck Germany. The outcome was a double triumph, Lloyd George brilliantly carrying through the 1911 National Health Insurance Act, and Churchill starting up labour exchanges to tackle unemployment before advancing to the Home Office. Read More >

“The Last of the Romans” Herbert Henry Asquith

Finest Hour 188, Second Quarter 2020

Page 12

By T. G. Otte

T. G. Otte is Professor of Diplomatic History at the University of East Anglia. His next book, Statesman of Europe: A Life of Sir Edward Grey, will be published later this year by Allen Lane.

Next to the monarch who lent his name to the Edwardian era, H. H. Asquith (1852–1928) was its chief representative.1 The period is bathed in the nostalgic afterglow of a late-summer afternoon, but underneath its sedate surface this was a time of searing political and social conflicts. And then there was the war that ended the era, and in which modern Britain began.

It fell to Asquith to deal with these challenges. It was he who promoted Winston Churchill to the Cabinet and under whom Churchill served the longest. Asquith “was a man who knew where he stood on every question of life and affairs in altogether unusual degree….He always gave the impression…of measuring all the changing, baffling situations… according to settled standards and sure convictions.”2

Twenty-two years Churchill’s senior, Asquith belonged to a different generation; his background was different, too, middle-class and meritocratic. At Oxford he won early fame for effortless intellectual brilliance, but he had to work hard to establish himself at the Bar. Elected to Parliament in 1886, his assurance, heightened by his infrequent but well-chosen interventions, Read More >

Boris Johnson Presents to Sold Out Conference

Watch Boris Johnson’s ‘Churchill Factor’ Presentation at the 32nd International Churchill Conference in Oxfordshire

The Hon Boris Johnson MP and Mayor of London, was introduced to the speeches of Sir Winston Churchill from a very early age. He recalls his father reciting Churchill’s speeches and used this as inspiration to write his recent book on Sir Winston Churchill. He identified what made Churchill great as the ‘Churchill Factor’.

Read More >

Boris Johnson Presents to Annual Churchill Conference

Watch Boris Johnson’s ‘Churchill Factor’ Presentation at the 32nd International Churchill Conference

The Hon Boris Johnson MP and Mayor of London, was introduced to the speeches of Sir Winston Churchill from a very early age. He recalls his father reciting Churchill’s speeches and used this as inspiration to write his recent book on Sir Winston Churchill. He identified what made Churchill great as the ‘Churchill Factor’.

Churchill Proceedings – Looking Back on the Cataclysms – How Canada Saw Churchill, (and Vice Versa), 1914-39

Finest Hour 161, Winter 2013-14

Page 58


By Terry Reardon


The result of the First World War was a redrawing of the map of continental Europe. The United States entering the war had been, in Churchill’s words, decisive in the defeat of Germany, and Canada emerged as an  independent power in her own right.

When King George V had declared war in 1914 Canada was automatically at war. However as R.H. Thomson recounted this morning, the country lost 68,000 in the war from a population of just eight million, and at the signing of the Treaty of Versailles, Canada’s Prime Minister, Sir Robert Borden, insisted that Canada should sign separately from Britain.

This first gesture of Canadian independence was followed by a second, three years later. Turkey, a German ally in the war, had signed a separate treaty which abolished the Ottoman Empire. But a charismatic and brilliant military leader, Mustafa Kemel, “Ataturk,” led resistance to the Treaty, formed a provisional government and in 1922 routed the occupying Greeks from Turkish soil.

Kemel’s troops then marched on the small British contingent stationed in the town of Chanak on the Asiatic shore of the Dardanelles.

Canada’s newly elected prime minister, William Lyon Mackenzie King, was about to go into the temple of peace at Sharon, north of Toronto, when he was confronted by a Toronto Star reporter who asked him about Britain’s request that Canada join a military action against the Turks. King knew nothing about it but diplomatically replied that any representation from Britain would be addressed by the Canadian Cabinet when he returned to Ottawa. There he was given a cable from the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Winston Churchill, sent via the normal time-wasting route through the Governor General. King replied to Churchill that the request would have to be addressed by the Canadian Parliament, which would require the recalling of the Members, and this would take some time. Actually King had no intention of recalling Parliament, knowing the public “were in no mood for further blood letting.”

Churchill was not satisfied with the response and a follow-up came from the Prime Minister himself, David Lloyd George, who wrote that “the attitude of Canada is most important: a definite statement that Canada will stand by the Empire will do much to ensure the maintenance of peace.” Eventually Chanak was settled without military intervention, and without a Canadian decision on the request Canada had received.

Interestingly, Churchill in his book The Aftermath stretched the truth by writing: “Nevertheless all the Dominions responded to the call and declared their readiness, if a great emergency arose, to bear their part, subject of course to the consent of their Parliaments.”

Mackenzie King was a strong Anglophile, but he was suspicious that the British were determined that Canada should continue in a subservient position. Two years later in 1923 he would encounter further evidence. At an Imperial Conference in London the autocratic British foreign minister, Lord Curzon, proposed “that the Foreign Minister of Britain, when he speaks, may speak not for Britain alone, but for the whole of the British Empire.” Australia and New Zealand supported the motion, since they looked to Britain for protection; Canada did not. King stated that any policy would be decided by the Canadian Parliament.

King won that round and in the next conference in 1926 he put forward a motion, recalling the Chanak request, that all communications between Britain and a Dominion government would come direct and not through the Governor General. This was adopted. Further progress in Canada’s independence was the appointment in 1927 of its first minister to the United States.

Churchill was not in favour of watering down the ties of the dominions to the mother country. But the subsequent Treaty of Westminster stated that the dominions were “autonomous communities within the British Empire, equal in status and in no way subordinate one to another, in any respect.” Churchill actually voted for that legislation, but his comments in the House of Commons, showed his disappointment: “If large numbers of our fellow-subjects in the Dominions like to think, and like to see it in print, that the bonds of Empire rest only upon tradition, good will and good sense, it is not our policy—except as I shall hereafter mention—it is not our policy or our interest to gainsay them.”

Canadian ears may have pricked at the exception, but he quickly explained: “Canada, for instance, stipulates that nothing in this Act shall be deemed to apply to the repeal, amendment, or alteration of the various British North America Acts from 1867 to 1930….They assert the inviolability, so far as they are concerned, of the Imperial Statutes upon which their houses are founded.”

Fair enough, most probably concluded: but with the Treaty of Westminster, Canada had political independence and the 1930s would see the country move closer to the United States, which supplanted Britain as her largest trading partner.

Churchill’s political career was in the ascendency in the mid-1920s, when he was appointed Chancellor of the Exchequer, a position he held for almost five years. But he received a setback in May 1929, when the Conservative Party lost in a general election. Churchill won his own seat in Epping, but he was now out of office. He took advantage of what he hoped would be a brief lull in his upward trajectory by embarking on a journey to Canada and the United States with his son Randolph, brother Jack and nephew Johnny.

The Canadian Pacific Railway offered a special rail car for their use when travelling across the country, and Churchill received a great reception at all his stops. He wrote to his wife of “the immense size of this country which goes on for thousands of miles of good fertile land, well watered, well wooded, unlimited in possibilities. How silly for people to live crowded up in particular parts of the empire, when there is so much larger and better a life open here for millions.”

He spoke in Montreal and Ottawa and on 16 August 1929 arrived in Toronto, to speak—here in the Royal York Hotel, which had only been open for two months and at that time was the tallest building in the British Empire.

The Toronto Star reported that well before his speech, long queues formed outside the hall, with a further 3000 listening by way of loudspeakers placed outside the hotel: “He roused his vast audience to applause as he spoke of the ties of love that bind the overseas dominions to the Motherland.”

Churchill continued his journey across the country. From the Banff Springs Hotel he wrote to Clementine: “Darling I am greatly attracted to this country. Immense developments are going forward. There are fortunes to be made in many directions. The tide is flowing strongly. 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 can make you and the kittens a little more comfortable before I die. Only one goal attracts me [he meant of course the premiership] and if that were barred I should quit the dreary field for pastures new….However the time to take decision is not yet.”

Was Churchill serious? If he was, he had ample reasons to emigrate in the years ahead.

After speaking in Vancouver, Churchill’s Canadian journey ended. His son Randolph wrote in his diary, “We are now on a ship bound for Seattle: American soil and Prohibition. But we are well equipped. My big flask is full of whisky and the little one contains brandy, and I have reserves of both in medicine bottles.” The trip concluded with a week in New York City, which coincided with the Wall Street Crash; Churchill opined incorrectly that this was a passing episode.

When he returned to Britain he was faced with a situation which he could not accept: dominion status for India. This was put forward by the ruling Labour Party and supported by the official Conservative opposition. Churchill’s strong stance against the plan led to him being stripped of his position as Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer; and thus the start of his so-called Wilderness Years.

In the 1920s Churchill stated that the foremost enemy facing the English-speaking peoples was the Soviet Union and communism. Shortly into the next decade he changed his opinion, the foremost enemy now being Germany and fascism. Churchill became a lone voice with his demands for increased military spending and a tougher attitude by the British government. In 1934 he told the House of Commons: “I dread the day when the means of threatening the heart of the British Empire should pass into the hands of the present rulers of Germany….I dread that day, but it is not perhaps, far distant.”

In October 1936 in London, Mackenzie King sat next to Churchill at a dinner and was told, as he recorded, that “England was never in greater danger and it was possible that inside five years Britain would be a vassal state of Germany.” The following month Churchill berated the government in the Commons: “Thus they go in a strange paradox, decided only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all-powerful to be impotent.”

In May 1937, when Mackenzie King was in England for the coronation of King George VI, he met with the German Ambassador to Britain, Herr von Ribbentrop, who suggested that King go to Berlin to meet Hitler. This was duly arranged and the two met on June 29th.

King’s diary of the meeting makes fascinating reading. Hitler, he wrote, went to great lengths to show he was a man of peace. “We have no desire for war,” Hitler told King: “our people don’t want war and we don’t want war. Remember that I, myself, have been through a war. We know what a terrible thing war is, and not one of us wants to see another war.”

As we now know, Hitler was not being entirely dishonest—as long as he got what he wanted, there would indeed be no war. While King was obviously impressed with Hitler, to his credit he did state that if war came, Canada would be at Britain’s side.

On 12 March 1938 Churchill met with von Ribbentrop. The occasion was a formal luncheon given by the British government for the German ambassador. Churchill was surprised to be invited, but, as he said to someone at the function,  “I suppose they invited me to show him that if they couldn’t bark themselves, they kept a dog who could bark and might bite.”

At the same function Ribbentrop is reported to have said to Churchill: “Don’t forget that if there is a war we will have the Italians on our side.” This elicited WSC’s alleged response (not proven) recalling World War l: “It is only fair. We had them last time.” We do know Churchill warned Ribbentrop that if Germany should plunge the globe into war, Britain would “bring the whole world against you, like last time.”

In his earlier civil service and political life Mackenzie King had made his reputation in negotiating and settling labour disputes, and he strongly supported the Appeasement policy of Neville Chamberlain. In September-October 1938, when Chamberlain flew to see Hitler and signed the infamous Munich Agreement, King recorded in his diary: “It is well for Chamberlain that he was born into this world, and for the world he was born into. His name will go down in history as one of the greatest men who ever lived—a great conciliator.”

One British politician who took another view was Churchill, declaring in the House of Comons: “The German dictator, instead of snatching his victuals from the table, has been content to have them served to him course by course….And do not suppose that this is the end. This is only the beginning of the reckoning. This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigour, we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time.”

Churchill’s predictions of Germany’s unappeased further ambitions came true six months later, when in March 1939 German troops occupied the rest of Czechoslovakia.

Looking back at this time, it seems to many that Chamberlain, then realizing that his appeasement policy had failed, would have resigned. But there was little pressure on him to do so. He was still widely trusted, supported by a vast majority in Parliament. He had—which is little remembered—begun to rearm, at a much faster pace than Britain before the Great War. And when on 31 March 1939 he announced that Britain had guaranteed Polish independence, this was applauded from every quarter, including Winston Churchill. Most didn’t notice that Poland was far less defensible and supportable than the Czechs of 1938, who at least had had a strong fortress line, a powerful modern military machine and a potent armaments industry.

Chamberlain considered bringing Churchill back into the government but as he wrote to his sister, the benefits to having Churchill on the front bench would be outweighed by the damage he could do in the Cabinet itself, where he would wear down Chamberlain with “rash suggestions.” And Chamberlain was no mean politician; even with the darkening scene, he knew he had strong control. Bringing in potential rivals, such as Churchill and also Anthony Eden could only serve to weaken it.

On 20 April 1939 Churchill spoke at a Canada Club dinner in London for former Canadian Prime Minister R.B. Bennett. Churchill said: “We all hope for a peaceful outcome, but everyone can see that danger is afoot. It may not be long before the British Empire will have, once again, to marshal and reveal its latent strength.”

As he had observed in the First World War the importance of a close relationship with the United States was essential for the European democracies, and Canada was the key, as Churchill continued: “Canada has a great part to play in the relations of Great Britain and the United States. She spans the Atlantic Ocean with her loyalties; she clasps the American hand with her faith and goodwill. That long frontier from the Atlantic to the Pacific oceans, guarded only by neighbourly respect and honourable obligations, is an example to every country and a pattern for the future of the world.”

Canada had grown steadily closer to the United States, economically and also culturally. However the attitude of the vast majority of the population to the Mother Country had not changed. Except in the province of Quebec the people were strongly attached to Britain and the Imperial Crown.

This attachment became even stronger in May 1939, when, in spite of war clouds gathering. King George VI and Queen Elizabeth kept a previous commitment, arriving for a royal tour of Canada. It was a great success and augmented the ties of Canada to Britain.

When Britain declared war on 3 September 1939, there was a short debate in the Canadian Parliament, with Prime Minister King, speaking of the task ahead, uttering Churchillian phrases:

“When it comes to a fight between good and evil, when the evil forces of the world are let loose upon mankind, are those of us who believe in the tenets of Christianity, and all that Christianity means, going to allow evil forces to triumph without, if necessary, opposing them by our very lives?” With almost unanimous support in Parliament, Canada was once more at war at Great Britain’s side.

Mr. Reardon, a retired banker, is Vice-Chairman of the International Churchill Society – Canada, a contributor to Finest Hour, winner of its Somervell Award for the best article of 2005-06, and author of Winston Churchill and Mackenzie King (2012).

Postscript: “New Zealandness” in the Postwar World

Finest Hour 161, Winter 2013-14

Page 25

By Gerald Hensley

New Zealand emerged from the Second World War with two convictions: the hope that international peace could be maintained and the importance of maintaining the alliance between the United States and Great Britain. The hope of collective security under the UN was quickly crippled by Soviet vetoes and the second aim became as dominant as it had been during the war.

For a few years New Zealand clung nostalgically to the hope that an imperial system of security could be reestablished. This was impractical: Britain was a fading power and the security of the Pacific clearly depended on the United States. So New Zealand joined Australia in seeking a guarantee from Washington. The U.S. was reluctant to take on a new burden but finally agreed to the 1951 ANZUS treaty as the price of getting the two southern countries to agree to a Japanese peace treaty.

New Zealand still sought regional security by working closely with Britain, again agreeing to contribute a division to British forces in the Middle East to counter an assumed Russian thrust towards the oilfields. At a prime ministers’ conference in 1953, however, Churchill pointed out that the possession by both sides of the hydrogen bomb made future war unthinkable. Australia and New Zealand, he argued, should ensure that regional “brushfire” wars did not ignite a global catastrophe.
Read More >

Churchill Proceedings – “Fearful Colonials” or Smart Ones? – Canada Between the British and American Empires

Finest Hour 162, Spring 2014

Page 55


By Warren F. Kimball


Canadians valued their independence even while cherishing their special political relationship to Britain and the Empire. With Churchill’s Britain the major ally, Canada tended to be subsumed in Anglo-American negotiations over the conduct of the war, a pattern that alternately pleased and annoyed wartime Canadian Prime Minister Mackenzie King, who projected a world role for Canada as the most important member of the British Commonwealth. Because Canadians sought, within the clear limitations of their economic and military strength, to play a global role during and after the war, hemispheric organizations and structures [which FDR promoted] held no appeal.*

Churchill from 1939 through 1945 subordinated Canada to the Anglo-American alliance that, along with the Soviet Union, defeated Nazi Germany. In his wonderful way, Sir Winston blithely assumed—a dangerous act for leaders—that the Empire would support the mother country. He was wrong to a greater degree than he expected about the Indians and the Irish, but not about the Canadians.
Read More >

The Rt Hon Nicholas Soames MP

Finest Hour 162, Spring 2014

Page 36

My family and I thank you most warmly for the great honour that you have accorded the memory of my grandfather in accepting the donation from The Churchill Centre of this magnificent bust of Sir Winston, to be permanently displayed in the United States Capitol.

My grandfather visited Washington often during his long career, perhaps most notably as a guest of President Franklin Roosevelt during the war. On 26 December 1941, nineteen days after the atrocity at Pearl Harbor, he addressed a Joint Session of Congress just yards away, famously joking that if his father had been an American and his mother British, instead of the other way round, he might have got here on his own.

Now he is here in his own right—not as a guest, but as a member of an illustrious pantheon in Statuary Hall. It is a wonderful and fitting tribute and one which would have given him the greatest pleasure. Born to an American mother, he cherished above all his relationship with America and the American people, often describing himself as “an English-Speaking union.”
Read More >

GUNS OF AUGUST 1914-2014 – The First World War: Riddles, Mysteries & Enigmas

Finest Hour 163, Summer 2014

Page 32

By Paul H. Courtenay

Sinking the Lusitania, and Other Conspiracy Theories

Q-My book on Churchill and the Lusitania (which FH will reprise in a future issue —Ed.) will rebut the allegations that Churchill conspired to cause her sinking. I am wondering if you know of any other “conspiracies” he was accused of, like knowing about Pearl Harbor but keeping mum. —DAVID RAMSAY, INDIAN WELLS, CALIF.

A-This and other alleged conspiracies are on our “Myths” web page, The Pearl Harbor story was refuted by Ron Helgemo (ex-CIA), and is the best we’ve read on the subject. Also dismissed is the claim that Churchill conspired to starve occupied Europe by withholding food shipments. Then there are… Read More >


Finest Hour 163, Summer 2014

Page 05

Quotation of the Season

The danger which threaten the tranquillity of the modern world come not from those powers that have become interdependent upon others…. They come from those powers which are more or less aloof from the general intercourse of mankind….” —WSC, HOUSE OF COMMONS, 8 MARCH 1905

Denmark Remembers

BLADON, MAY 4TH— In the annual Holger Danske Clubben ceremony, Claus Grube, Danish Ambassador to Britain, laid a wreath in commemoration of the Danish Resistance and in thanks to Winston Churchill for Denmark’s liberation. The short service, organised and attended by local British Legion groups, gave thanks for “all those who served in the Resistance and other Forces…for the life and memory of Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill, who led the free world in the fight for peace during the Second World War.”

Getting to Chartwell

WESTERHAM, MARCH 20TH— Chartwell opened today and through November 2nd, although the studio, exhibition room, gardens and estate are open throughout the year. Opening times are Wednesday through Sunday from 11am to 5pm, with the last house admission at 4:15 pm. Entry fees (house and gardens) are £12.50 adults, £6.25 children, £31.25 family. Visitors may opt for a small premium, “Gift Aid on Entry,” which is a donation. For the gardens and studio only, entry is £6.25 adults, £3.10 children and £15.60 family. There are no guided tours (although guides are present to help), but there is a reduced group rate of £10.70 adults for house and gardens. Telephone (01732) 868381.

Read More >

Despatch Box

Finest Hour 163, Summer 2014

Page 04


At random I opened my copy of the new document volume of the Official Biography, Testing Times: 1942 (FH 162: 8), to page 357, and a 6 March 1942 letter from Averell Harriman to President Roosevelt: “It is curious how, when criticism starts, a coalition government suffers from lack of party loyalty and support.” I think that is remarkably apposite in Britain at the moment!


I just wanted to say what a superb production FH 161 is in all respects, and to thank you. Special praise to Charlotte Thibault for the cover: strong, visually arresting and appealing. She is clearly a designer of exceptional talent.


Amazing! You and your authors carried off an issue on Churchill and New Zealand that works, and works well. Reading the Pacific War Council minutes, I was struck by the differences between Australians and New Zealanders in the policy statement of 1942-43. The Aussies almost formally declared they were depending on the U.S. for defense. Not so New Zealand, which Churchill saw as a “strong, loyal, positive and uncomplaining supporter,” in Mike Groves’s words. I do suspect that “uncomplaining” was the key virtue!
Read More >

Join Now

Join or Renew NowPlease join with us to help preserve the memory of Winston Churchill and continue to explore how his life, experiences and leadership are ever-more relevant in today’s chaotic world. BENEFITS >BECOME A MEMBER >

The International Churchill Society (ICS), founded in 1968 shortly after Churchill's death, is the world’s preeminent member organisation dedicated to preserving the historic legacy of Sir Winston Churchill.

At a time when leadership is challenged at every turn, that legacy looms larger and remains more relevant than ever.