Talk:Winston Churchill/Archive 5

Joining the Druids

Why is there no mention of Churchill's inauguration to the Druids at Blenheim Palace? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.64.48.122 (talk) 14:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Is 59 categories a bit much? Stwalkerster talk review 12:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Most of the categories aren't about Churchill, but about the mess that is Wikipedia. I also blame the assessment scale. Rosier 19:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• I must disagree. Categories exist as a navigation aid for readers and are really an addendum to the article proper. As Churchill was involved in a vast range of activities it's hardly surprising that he sits in lots of categories. However, if you have specific concerns about this article being wrongly categorized in one or more categories, then please state which categories you have in mind and we should look at that. Greenshed 19:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

he's got a really big article simply because he was a really big character in history, he stopped hitler and saved the world so lots of people would know obscure info about him, its simply all those obscure pieces of knoledge

Zionism versus Bolshevism

Should we include the artilce that he wrote in the International Herald on Zionism versus Bolshevism? The article is real. I didn't find the article anti-Semitic per se.

Actually the article skimps on the subject's most controversial espects. See for example this page from the The Guardian From which I quote some of the juicier bits:

"I do not understand the squeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisonous gas against uncivilised tribes." Writing as president of the Air Council, 1919

"I do not admit... that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America, or the black people of Australia... by the fact that a stronger race, a higher grade race... has come in and taken its place." Churchill to Palestine Royal Commission, 1937

"One may dislike Hitler's system and yet admire his patriotic achievement. If our country were defeated, I hope we should find a champion as admirable to restore our courage and lead us back to our place among the nations." From his Great Contemporaries, 1937

I guess this tops them all:

"This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States)... this worldwide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the 19th century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire." Writing on 'Zionism versus Bolshevism' in the Illustrated Sunday Herald, February 1920.

The quote is discussed in detail in this article by Michael Lind in The Spectator. L'omo del batocio 09:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

mau mau and NPOV

I altered the vocabulary a little. To "root out rebels" and to "break the back of the rebellion" are not neutral expressions. No-one ever says that the aim of fighters for independence is to "root out" British soldiers...90.16.110.205 09:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Popular Culture - Greatest Briton

I'm dismayed by the rather pejorative use of the word supposedly; "from supposedly BBC viewers". It implies some underhanded dealings in the results. Quite why the million votes is then followed by a census of the amount of people in Britain is beyond me. Almost this entire section feels like it has an alterior motive. He was voted The Greatest Briton irrespective of who voted or of how large the sample size was. VonBlade 22:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The Nomination for "Greatest Briton" was made by MP "Mo" Mowlam and it was to support Tony Blair's quest to follow in Churchill's footsteps down to starting sentences, "And I say to you . . . " Churchill said that "history would be kind to me because I intend to write it" and Blair said that history would vindicate him; meaning it would be rewritten as Churchill's bogus history has been these last 60 years.

Edits

Just a little note on my recent edits to the article. I have tidied up quite a lot of sections, removing some of the repeated information, doing some edits for blatant copyvio etc. I have added about a dozen references from Roy Jenkins biography of Churchill, mostly to his early life and army years. Ive also tried to clarify his seperate visits to different places, by creating some new subsections. Hopefully it should now be clear that Malakand and the seige of Malakand was an action that took place in Pakistan and not south Africa. Churchills visit to South Africa was also after an unsuccessful first attempt as an MP in Oldham, which is now recorded chronologically in the order of the article (after his trip to the Sudan but before South Africa). I have added references to reflect this change. I've also done a lot of other maintanence/tidy up things. Over the coming weeks I will try to edit the rest of the article, adding references and rewriting/wikifying/copyvio removal etc. I have also archived this talk page. Any queries about my edits please let me know. LordHarris 14:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Wartime criticism of Churchill (copied from WP:RD/H)

It's a truism that history is written by the victors, one that achieves, perhaps, its most perfect expression in the wartime career of Winston Churchill; for he was both a writer and a victor. In retrospect, his position seems assured: the craftsman of victory, standing above all others. By 1945 he was in a position of great srength, both as Prime Minister and as leader of the Conservative Party. However, if one takes a bottom up, rather than a top down, approach to history, it can be seen that there were times in the first half of the war when he was subject to quite detailed criticism, criticism that could conceivably have led to his political downfall, much like that of Neville Chamberlain in May 1940. He survived in part because of the personal support he enjoyed in the country, in part because of his standing in international politcs, and in part because his chief rivals had none of his determination. He survived, above all, because he was a superlative manager of the whole Parliamentary process, arguably the greatest of his singular talents.

To begin with we have to understand one salient point: Churchill is unlikely ever to have become Prime Minister but for the military crisis of 1940. For years before this he had been an isolated and unpopular figure within the Conservative Party, prepared to say things that nobody wanted to hear. It's almost certain that the bulk of his fellow MPs would have preferred Lord Halifax to replace Chamberlain; but Halifax, unlike Churchill, was not a fighter. Both country and Parliament united behind Churchill in the summer of 1940, and his position was consolidated by victory over the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain. But once the immediate danger had passed, and final victory became ever more elusive, then the potential weakness of his position began to show. The first crisis came with the virtual collapse of the Mediterranean front in 1941.

Churchill had taken the decision to spread British forces across two theatres of war, in Libya and in Greece. Inadequate for the task, by the spring of 1941 the army was forced to give way to Axis forces on both fronts. In Parliament Churchill's opponents, under the leadership of David Lloyd George, who had led the country to victory in 1918, prepared for their own onslaught. Churchill, whose strategic judgement on this occasion was at serious fault, neverthless was superb in Parliamentary counter-attack. He decided to force a vote of confidence at just the right time. In the debate that followed he likened Lloyd George, effectively head of the 'peace party', to Marshall Petain. This was enough for the waverers, fearful of the political consequences of voting against the Prime Minister. For Churchill the debate probably came at just the right time, between the British withdrawal from mainland Greece and the German airborne assault on Crete. The eventual evacuation of Crete in May was likely to have been just one Dunkirk too many.

The second crisis, which came in early 1942, was if anything, even more serious, because the Prime Minister at last looked as if he was losing the suport of the country at large. The Japanese entry into the war led to a succession of military disasters in the Far East, peaking in February 1942 with the loss of Singapore. There were many, even among Churchill's supporters, who believed the government was effectively 'doomed', likening the situation in Malaya to that in Norway earlier in the war, which had caused the demise of Chamberlain. Fortunately for Churchill, there was no-one as well-placed as he had been in 1940, no-one with the same dregree of determination. Critics were 'silenced' by fresh promotions, or, in the case of Stafford Cripps, sent off on impossible political missions. The ambitious Anthony Eden, the 'crown prince' of the Conservative party, was consoled by assurances that the Prime Minister's departure was 'imminent'; it was to remain 'imminent' for years after. Parliament grumbled; but with no leadership contender, retreated into silent acquiescence.

The fall of Tobruk in June 1942 was the last great strategic disaster of Churchill's career. Criticism surfaced yet again, but, once again, no acceptable alternative leader emerged. Besides, Churchill had proved his value on the international stage, by ensuring that Stalin, disappointed by the failure of the western allies to open a second front in Europe, would not be tempted to make a separate peace with the Germans. The military news might be bad, but Churchill's relationship with both Stalin and Roosevelt made him 'an asset of incalculable value', as one of his former opponents remarked at the time. And thus he remained, and thus he passed into history. Clio the Muse 01:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The division of Europe between Churchill and Stalin lacks references

Someone pointed out to me on my talk page that the reference used for the paragraph on the British and Soviet decision to divide the countries of eastern Europe into zones of influence, for example giving the communists a 90% share of Romania, is in fact not properly referenced. It seems that he/she is correct, the given reference says virtually nothing relevant to the paragraph. There may be more mentioning of the topic in the other telegrams available from the site where the "reference" comes from, but additional references should be provided. I suggest someone insert these two. [1], [2] cheers, --Stor stark7 ^Talk 19:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Link cleanup

I've gone through the external links and removed those that do not seem to meet the Wikipedia guidelines on external links (WP:EL). There were a variety of blogs, sites looking to get traffic for advertising, self-promotional additions, etc. The remaining list might still use some attention, but a lot of weak links are gone. Bytwerk 14:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Jewish Mother

Is it true that Churchill's mother Jenny Jerome is Jewish? Searching the web, sources, some sketchy, say that the Jerome lineage changed their name from Jacobson (a Jewish surname) to Jerome in efforts to hide their identity.24.5.13.165 23:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)BB

"The Real Churchill"

There is a link to an essay called "The Real Churchill" by Adam Young. However this essay is very contentious and the Churchill Centre has published a point by point rebuttal. I provided a link to this rebuttal however somebody has removed it. Could the person who removed it tell me why? It seems a valid thing to do, provide a link to a rebuttal (given the inaccuracies in "The Real Churchill"). Led125

This essay is not merely contentious, it is plain wrong. To take one paragraph at random And what the neocons forget, or don't know, is that Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin acknowledged in the House of Commons that, had they told the people the truth, the Conservatives could never have won the 1936 election. "Supposing that I had gone to the country and said that Germany was rearming and that we must be armed, does anyone think that our pacific democracy would have rallied to that cry?" It was Neville Chamberlain who began the rearmament of Britain after the Munich Crisis, the arms which Churchill would not have had during the Battle of Britain, including the first deployment of radar, which Churchill mocked while in opposition in the 1930s.

Point by point

A the election was in 1935

B Baldwin's comment (which is misquoted in any case) referred to a by election in 1934 (see the article's main page under Indian Independence)

C rearmament started in 1935 with the Hawker Hurricane and the Supermarine Spitfire in the RAF and with the construction of the HMS King George V (41) battleship class in the Royal Navy more then three years before the Munich Crisis

D radar was first deployed in 1935, the radar stations were in place by May 1939 see History of radar and Chain Home

E Churchill did not mock development of radar

F Churchill was an influential backbencher (With some additional privileges - e g he was sent briefing papers from the Committee of Imperial Defence see R R James Churchill A Study in Failure p 315ff) of the Conservative Party which formed the main part of the National Government throughout the 1930s. He was not in "Opposition"

I suggest that the link be deleted, it is biased, it is factually false, its conclusions are not accepted by (so far as I am aware) any scholars on the point. In fact it is typical libertarian drivel (perhaps that is a reason for leaving it there- so people can see the lies libertarians spew).

If I dont have any response within 5 days I shall delete the link I propose to leave the rebuttal -its got good information- but amend the referenceBacknumber1662 04:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

A True, but a minor slip. Baldwin's speech was made on 12 November, 1936, so perhaps the author has taken that date in error. This speech was highly contentious and often misinterpreted by critics, perhaps intentionally. Baldwin was not referring to the 1935 General Election, but a by-election in East Fulham. The error was first introduced by Michael Foot, writing as "Cato" in the book Guilty Men in 1940, repeated in many other works, and was not corrected for many years.

B the East Fulham by-election occurred on 25 October 1933. A minor slip on your part, which in itself is neither here or there. If we were to be hyper-critical of such minor errors, we would probably have to throw out every reference work ever cited!

C, D, E. I cannot comment in detail, except to say the author's arguments are by no means unique.

F It is commonly accepted, I think, that while Churchill was technically a member of the governing party in the House of Commons, he was so out of tune with the prevaling current in his own party that for all practical purposes he was "in Opposition.", except of course in the formal sense. I believe there was even a move to deselect him in his own constituency.

The bottom-line, surely, is biography should not be hagiography. The article in question deals with many serious issues. The author of The Real Churchill writes for an established Institute; the article is well-referenced, and is not in any way gibberish. It is only an external link, with a linked rebuttal. Your removal of it smacks of censorship and personal point of view. It is abundantly clear Churchill did not place a high price on human life, and that alone is worthy of comment. RodCrosby 09:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree biography should not be hagiography, its ironic in the present discussion that my edits on India were reversed by Czrisher because I was too anti Churchill

dealing with points C,C E above, please provide

1 any source that agrees with the comment that It was Neville Chamberlain who began the rearmament of Britain after the Munich Crisis,

2 any source that claims that the Spitfire, the new battleships were not part of a rearmament programme

3 any source that claims radar wasn't developed in 1935 and the radar stations were not being planned before September 1938

dealing with F I am pre empting myself, You may have noticed I am progressively rewriting and inserting much more detail in the section between the wars. I will be writing (and supplying footnotes) showing that Churchill enjoyed a great wealth of information, including briefings from the Admiralty, from the Air Ministry and that he served on some government committees. Its true he opposed some government policies, but he did so because he thought rearmament did not go far enough, the Labour Party at least up to and including the 1935 general election opposed rearmament altogether.

Once more the article is simply false.

dealing with your comment about references, I note the article has no footnotes at all. Where are the references? The general books at the foot of the article?

dealing with your comment this is a recognised institute: recognised by whom? where are the peer reviewed articles. The institute believes that the only real money is gold, and we should be on the "gold standard" http://blog.mises.org/archives/007325.asp and the contributors to this "institute" believe that Lincoln was wrong to free the slaves http://mises.com/forums/p/115/476.aspx#476. To use your word its gibberish.

Generally this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, links like this which are simply false are not warranted here. Another comment, the article says the the bombing of Dresden killed 135,000. Not even David Irving believes this. from his own site the deaths were 18,375 http://www.fpp.co.uk/History/General/Dresden/TheTimes070766.html

I again invite comments about its deletion Backnumber1662 11:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Honorary fellow

Should the statement Honorary Fellow of the Chartered institute of building be in the Chancellor of Bristol box? It seems strange to me. I am not sure where it should go which is why i won't edit it, could someone with a good knowledge put it somewhere? Thanks Woodym555 17:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Conservative and Liberal?

It says on his infobox that he was Conservative and Liberal. Where in the article does it discuss hin being Liberal. I thought that he was just Conservative. Reginmund 01:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

No he changed parties (in 1904) and changed back again (in 1924).

Although strictly speaking Churchill had several party labels as he was never an easy "party man" and oftern seeking strange coalitions. A full list of his labels could include: "Unionist" (the label generally used for the Conservatives in this period) until 1904, "Independent Free Trader" or somesuch for a bit of 1904, "Liberal" for 1904-c1918, "Lloyd George Liberal" or "Coalition Liberal" or "National Liberal" for 1918-1923 (the party split), "Liberal" again for 1923-1924 (the party reunited), "Independent Anti-Socialist" for some of 1924 (he broke with the Liberals over their support for the first Labour government and ran as an independent in a by-election), "Constitutionalist" for 1924-1925 (a label generally indicating a combined Conservative-Liberal anti-Socialist effort), "Conservative" again from 1925 onwards (when he formally signed up - yes he was technically a non-party member of a Conserative government in a very senior role!). Timrollpickering 03:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Churchill and his two-faced cheek

I think it would be appropriate to include in this article Winston Churchill's apparent two-faced cheek towards Northern Ireland during and immediately after WWII. During the war he offered Northern Ireland to the Irish Free State in an attempt to get them to join the war on Britains side and thus gain access to Irish ports, yet when the war was over he had the gall to praise Northern Ireland's war effort and place within the British Empire. Mabuska 23:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

A lot of hot air. This is well-covered on The Emergency Jooler 23:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Pet Sematary

The cat in the movie Pet Sematary by Stephen King and the book as well is named Winston Churchill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.117.246.163 (talk) 03:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Departure of cortege from Waterloo

It is a myth without foundation that the cortege departed from Waterloo as some sort of message to President de Gaulle. The only source quoted previously was a letter to "The Independent". The letter itself, [3] , offers no evidence. It may well be based on a previous erroneous article here, which I edited February 2005. At that time, I asked the Churchill Centre in Washington, D.C., [4] , for their view and they replied in a private email that there is no truth to the rumour. Yesterday I contacted the Churchill archives in Cambridge, [5] , for their opinion. The reply contained the following.

it is purely a legend, as far as I was able to determine by going through the "funeral files" in the Churchill Papers, which contain all the documents relating to the planning of "Operation Hope Not" (Sir Winston's funeral)...it is not very likely that Churchill made such a request. Waterloo is simply the most logical station if the cortege was to go along the Thames and follow the route most able to handle the anticipated crowds. Also, Sir Winston actually had very little to do with planning his own funeral, although the planning did begin several years before his death. Instead, as the "funeral files" (e.g. CHUR 1/137 & 1/138) reveal, the bulk of the funeral arrangements were left to his Private Secretary Sir Anthony Montague Browne, and the Churchill family (particularly daughter Mary Soames)...if you do update the Wikipedia page for Churchill, please feel free to reference the Churchill Papers, held at the Churchill Archives Centre, Cambridge.

In addition it should be noted that the departure of the cortege from Waterloo is not part of the public ceremony; it is the private journey of the coffin to Bladon. The guests of honour, including de Gaulle, were miles away.

The Churchill Archives will also confirm that they told the producers of the British television programme "University Challenge" that this story is without foundation. JohnPet 17:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Marlborough and Drake

I removed an image of Drake that was included opposite one of Marlborough. I can't see the significance of the distant connexion but I removed it because of the formatting errors. The excised image and text are reproduced here, if anyone cares to correct and replace it. Czrisher 01:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:sfdrake42.jpg|thumb|left|Miniature of Sir Francis Drake, age 42 by Nicholas Hilliard in 1581. {{right} {John Churchill's mother Elizabeth Drake was a 1st cousin 3 times removed of Sir Francis Drake}. }