From the monthly archives:

October 2009

96h/11/fion/3669/00069

Churchill by Him­self is dif­fer­ent from all other Churchill quote books through “cor­rectibil­ity.” It offers a ref­er­ence to each quo­ta­tion, and a method by which cor­rec­tions may be sent in, ver­i­fied, and made avail­able dig­i­tally to readers.

Pro­duc­ing any work as com­pli­cated as this is a con­stant run­ning bat­tle between con­flict­ing sources, experts who dis­agree with each other, and inex­orable dead­lines. For instance, one expert offered cor­rec­tions based on the 1974 Com­plete Speeches (not com­plete and scarcely free of errors) that con­tra­dict the texts of ear­lier vol­umes by Churchill himself—which to me take pri­or­ity. Nev­er­the­less the process of revi­sion is endless.

Accord­ingly, pub­lish­ers were cho­sen who keep books in print with fre­quent reprints, allow­ing con­tin­ual revi­sion. The Sec­ond Edi­tion, exten­sively cor­rected down even to ellip­sis points, will be pub­lished by Pub­lic Affairs in 2010. The Third Edi­tion will be improved again, and so on.

For read­ers who own First Edi­tions I offer below the most impor­tant corrections—the ones I’d dearly like to have back, and some­times alter by hand when inscrib­ing copies per­son­ally! A mas­ter list con­tain­ing many more cor­rec­tions is being pre­pared for the Sec­ond Edi­tion, and I wel­come being advised of any that my read­ers should find.

Although many per­sons helped com­pile this list, my spe­cial grat­i­tude is owed to Pro­fes­sor David Dilks, for­mer Vice-Chancellor of the Uni­ver­sity of Hull, not only for his fas­tid­i­ous note-taking, but for his lack of pedantry and under­stand­ing in improv­ing the book—qualities which, I have come to learn, are rare. —RML

Note: “106/1” means page 106, col­umn 1.

1. Cor­rec­tions to British and Amer­i­can Edi­tions

Page 1 cap­tion, line 2 should read: With Sir John Ander­son on Vic­tory in Europe Day, 8 May 1945.

16/1 Dif­fi­cul­ties, “Don’t argue the mat­ter”: for “1941” read 1942.

23/1 Per­son­nel. For date “1941” read 1942

25/2 Right and wrong: For date “26 May” read 27 May. In the note, lines 1-2, revise to read: WSC to Clement Davies, who ven­tured to sug­gest that Pres­i­dent Tru­man meet pri­vately with

32, third para­graph, last two lines should read: for a trai­tor. Accord­ing to his last Pri­vate Sec­re­tary Churchill called John Fos­ter Dulles “dull-duller-Dulles,” and it was just like him.

82/2 first note, penul­ti­mate line: for “House of Com­mons” read Guild­hall after the war

100/1, first note, line 4, replace to read: Sid­ney (1622-1683, son of the Earl of Leicester)

3-8, revise to read: divi­sion of power has lain at the root of our devel­op­ment. We do not want to live under a sys­tem dom­i­nated either by one man or one theme. Like nature we fol­low in free­dom the  paths of vari­ety and change and our faith is  that the mercy of God will make things get bet­ter of we all try our best.

101/1 first entry, replace as fol­lows: …elec­tions exist for the sake of the House of Com­mons and not…the House of Commons…for the sake of elections. 1953, 3 November.

106/1, first editor’s note should read: Churchill was refer­ring to Lord Rose­bery (Prime Min­is­ter 1894-95), whose horses, Ladas II and Sir Visto, won the Derby in 1894 and 1895….

106/2, line 2: for “New York Uni­ver­sity” read the Uni­ver­sity of the State of New York

118/1 sec­ond quote should run before the first quote, and its date­line should read: 1940, 20 August.

130/2, sec­ond note, last sen­tence should read: Britain and the Com­mon­wealth con­tributed $6 bil­lion in “Reverse Lend-Lease” such as rent on airbases.

144, cap­tion should read: WSC with Roo­sevelt and Stalin at Yalta, Feb­ru­ary 1945.

155/2, third date from top, for 1919 read 1929.

254/2, Ribben­trop meet­ing credit line should read: 1938, MARCH. (GUEDALLA, 271-72.) Revise the note to read: The Cab­i­net had asked Churchill to join them for lunch to bid farewell to Hitler’s Ambas­sador Joachim von Ribben­trop, while Aus­tria was being absorbed by Ger­many. The quote is…

321/1, “Attlee,” first entry date: for “1935.” read 1940.

328/2, Bro­drick note, last line: for “1860-1907” read 1890-1907

329, last line: for “Con­ser­v­a­tive” read Lib­eral

359/1 last note, last line: for “Dun­can­non” read: Dun­con­nel

369/2 first note should read: Con­ver­sa­tion at a lun­cheon thrown by Cham­ber­lain for the Ger­man Ambas­sador to Britain, Ribben­trop, 11 March 1938, at the time of the Anschluss with Aus­tria…[etc.]

518/1, top line: for “WSC’s pri­vate sec­re­tary” read Lib­eral MP

527/1 sec­ond note, line 2: for “9 May” read 10 May.

544/1 sec­ond entry: For “Nazim” read Naz­imud­din. For the date “1941” read 1953

556/1 “Prac­tice,” note, line 2: for “Mose­ley” read Mosley.

561 foot­note line 1: for “1954” read 1945.

570, para­graph 4 line 1: revise last sen­tence to read: For exam­ple, “The heav­i­est cross I have to bear is the Cross of Lor­raine” is so well estab­lished that I was sur­prised to learn that some­one else said it.

573: delete “Dull, duller, Dulles” which has been attributed.

575: delete “Grace of God” and “Impromptu remarks” which have been attributed.


UKjacket2. Cor­rec­tions to the First British Edi­tion only.

(All of the fol­low­ing have been made in the Amer­i­can edi­tion)

11 cap­tion line 2 should read: In a tommy’s hel­met vis­it­ing the defences at Dover, 1943.

132/2 top entry: for 27 read 28 June.

380 cap­tion, line 2: delete “in Wood­ford”

532 cap­tion: For “study” read bed­room.

3. Addenda

I have found two instances where Churchill’s words were incor­rect (or, more likely, his tran­scribers were): On page 528, col­umn 2, line 7, Churchill said “six­teen years later” but should have said “six.” On page 553, col­umn 2, “Inter­rup­tions, answer­ing,” Churchill is recorded as say­ing “abro­gated,” but almost cer­tainly he said “arrogated.”

Page 20, col­umn 2, first entry: Man­fred Wei­d­horn brings to my atten­tion a pre­vi­ous occur­rence of almost the same words, in Churchill’s essay, “A Sec­ond Choice” (1931, March. Strand Mag­a­zine; Thoughts, 11): The jour­ney has been enjoy­able and well worth making—once.”

Page 322, Stan­ley Bald­win: A dis­tin­guished his­to­rian has sug­gested to me that Churchill’s atti­tude toward Bald­win was not as uni­formly crit­i­cal as the quotes here listed. He quoted WSC’s praise of SB at the Party Con­fer­ence in Octo­ber 1935 and in pri­vate let­ters, and noted that Churchill vis­ited Baldwin’s home in 1950, after SB’s death. I believe how­ever that Churchill was sin­gu­larly crit­i­cal of Bald­win, per Mar­tin Gilbert’s In Search of Churchill, as quoted here, and out­lined my rea­sons in “How Churchill Saw Oth­ers: Stan­ley Bald­win,” Finest Hour 101, Win­ter 1998-99.

Page 360, Mar­shall, note 2: It has been sug­gested to me that Churchill met Lazare Carnot (see under Trot­sky, page 375), but I am not sure. Sadi Carnot was a rec­on­ciler, Lazare a rev­o­lu­tion­ary. Though the lat­ter was known as “the orga­nizer of vic­tory,” I am not sure Churchill thought of Mar­shall in quite those terms.

Page 573 (main entry), also 32, 570: “Dull-duller-dulles” (with the hyphens) has been attrib­uted, by Sir Anthony Mon­tague Browne (Long Sun­set), 126.’’ Thanks to Jim Lan­caster for dig­ging out this and sev­eral other attri­bu­tions in Sir Anthony’s book.

Page 576, col­umn 2: Leise Chris­tensen has advised me that when the Duke of Northum­ber­land said “A liv­ing dog is bet­ter than a dead lion,” he was him­self quot­ing from Eccle­sastes 9:4.

Page 579, “Best of Every­thing”: Thanks to Robert Pilpel for report­ing that George Bernard Shaw pre­ceded both F.E. Smith and Churchill with this line in his play, “Major B” (1905), when Lady Brit­o­mart says (act 1, scene 1): “I know your quiet, sim­ple, refined, poetic peo­ple like Adolphus—quite con­tent with the best of everything!”


{ 0 comments }

I am hop­ing you can place in con­text a state­ment by Win­ston Churchill, which has been offered to show that he would sup­port cur­rent U.S. heath care reform pro­pos­als. My own Catholic parish recently pub­lished the afore­men­tioned state­ment in its weekly bulletin.

What Would Win­nie Do? Here’s an inter­est­ing quote. It’s from con­ser­v­a­tive British Prime Min­is­ter Win­ston Churchill explain­ing his view on  health care and gov­ern­ment in 1948: “The dis­cov­er­ies of heal­ing sci­ence must be the inher­i­tance of all. That is clear: Dis­ease must be attacked,  whether it occurs in the poor­est or the rich­est man or woman sim­ply on the ground that it is the enemy; and it must be attacked just in the sane way as the fire brigade will give its  full assis­tance to the hum­blest cot­tage as read­ily as to the  most impor­tant mansion….Our pol­icy is to cre­ate a national health ser­vice in order to ensure that every­body in the coun­try, irre­spec­tive of means, age, sex, or occu­pa­tion, shall have equal oppor­tu­ni­ties to ben­e­fit from the best and most up-to-date med­ical and allied ser­vices available.”

The head­ing and quo­ta­tion imply that we Catholics should sup­port national health care. Lack­ing the rhetor­i­cal con­text in which the state­ment was made and given, and knowl­edge of con­di­tions exist­ing in Britain sixty years ago, I am won­der­ing: what was Churchill’s  actual posi­tion on national healthcare? —J.R., Chicago

We tend to dep­re­cate arti­cles sug­gest­ing that Churchill would do this or that about mod­ern sit­u­a­tions. His daugh­ter always likes to ask peo­ple who say such things: “How do you know?” The answer is, of course, that none of us know. (What we do know is that, except when very young, he hated that nick­name “Winnie.”)

The Churchill quo­ta­tion you sent is not from 1948, but taken from his trib­ute to the Royal Col­lege of Physi­cians on 2 March 1944. (Com­plete text avail­able from this web­site by email.)

You will have to decide whether the excerpts joined together in your church bul­letin are in con­text. (I have inserted the break.) You are right to sug­gest that con­di­tions in Britain in 1944 were dif­fer­ent (more crit­i­cal health-wise) than con­di­tions in the USA in 2009.  Also, in 1944, the words “national health ser­vice” did not nec­es­sar­ily mean what the Labour gov­ern­ment cre­ated after the war. Nor do they define what is pro­posed in Amer­ica. Pres­i­dent Obama and his sup­port­ers are not propos­ing a British National Health Ser­vice. The argu­ment is over whether what they pro­pose might lead to prob­lems sim­i­lar to the British system.

With­out ques­tion Churchill believed that new med­ical dis­cov­er­ies are “the inher­i­tance of all.” But that leaves a fairly wide array of options. On 3 July 1945, too late to affect the gen­eral elec­tion (which came two days later), he issued a Cab­i­net Paper call­ing on his col­leagues to move for­ward on leg­is­la­tion or National Insur­ance and a National Health Ser­vice. What they would have come up with we’ll never know, since the Con­ser­v­a­tive Party lost big, and the Labour Party took over and cre­ated their own plan. But con­sider that “National Insur­ance” to some peo­ple means an alter­na­tive to “National Health Ser­vice,” in which the cit­i­zen might have, for exam­ple, a med­ical sav­ings account accru­ing to the indi­vid­ual through reg­u­lar, required deposits from pay­checks, like a bank account. The mir­a­cle of com­pound inter­est is a great thing.

It seems evi­dent that Churchill did not oppose the Labour Party’s National Health Ser­vice, though he was not among its advo­cates. In the begin­ning every­thing was to be free, of course. When, inevitably, costs began to rise, and the Chan­cel­lor of the Exche­quer intro­duced charges for spec­ta­cles and den­tures, he protested the heavy gov­ern­ment expen­di­tures in the House of Com­mons (10 April 1951), sug­gest­ing that other economies should have been made to accom­mo­date the increases:

Those who hold that tax­a­tion is an evil must rec­og­nize that it falls upon this coun­try in a most griev­ous man­ner at the present time, con­tin­u­ally bur­den­ing the mass of the nation and con­tin­u­ally clogging—or, at any rate, ham­per­ing our efforts. There is to be an increase of tax­a­tion. I am not at all con­cerned today to exam­ine even cur­so­rily the detailed pro­pos­als which the Chan­cel­lor has made, but tax­a­tion is to be increased; it is to be heav­ier still. Nat­u­rally, many peo­ple will feel that the issue should be argued out very tensely as to whether other economies in Gov­ern­ment expen­di­ture might not have relieved us from the need of apply­ing new bur­dens and new tax­a­tion. Of course, we know the times are difficult.

…So in 1951, as we can see, Churchill was argu­ing for decreased gov­ern­ment expen­di­tures instead of higher taxes on the cit­i­zenry as the best approach to the prob­lem. In 1945, it had seemed much eas­ier of solution.

Churchill con­sid­ered socialism—a far milder form than we know today—incompatible with human lib­erty, and sought a way of ame­lio­rat­ing the com­plaints of the poor (or rel­a­tively poor) with­out con­fis­cat­ing the wealth of those who pro­duce it. To this end you may be inter­ested in read­ing the com­ments on this mat­ter by Larry Arnn in our the autumn 2009 Q&A col­umn Finest Hour 144: 11). If you are not a Churchill Cen­tre mem­ber, Arnn’s remarks are avail­able from this web­site by email.

{ 0 comments }

“Winston” Olbermann and the Healthcare Debate

October 19, 2009

N.B.: If Mr. Olber­mann had done more research, he would know what Churchill did say about national health­care, which is more to the point: see Churchill and Health­care. MSNBC com­men­ta­tor Keith Olber­mann is for the pro­posed Amer­i­can health­care reform bill, which is nei­ther here nor there. What is inter­est­ing to Churchillians is his use of Winston [...]

Read the full article →

Churchill as Motorist

October 2, 2009

Could you tell me if Win­ston Churchill drove an auto­mo­bile?  I’m inter­ested in estab­lish­ing whether the major World War II lead­ers, on both sides, could drive a car.  So far, I know only that Franklin Roo­sevelt drove his own Ford at Hyde Park (hand con­trols but he was his own dri­ver when he needed to be).  This [...]

Read the full article →