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 Churchill’s [...]

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 [...]

Read the full article →