From the category archives:

Research Topics

Churchill and İnönü, 1943 (esc­fo­rums, Istanbul)

A group of his­to­ri­ans asked me about Turk­ish atti­tudes to Churchill, which you would think might be hostile—since Churchill’s Admi­ralty denied Turkey two bat­tle­ships being built in Britain at the start of World War I, and WSC pushed hard (though did not invent) the attack on the Dar­d­anelles and Gal­lipoli in 1915.

One his­to­rian spec­u­lated that Churchill mir­rored the courage and resource­ful­ness of Turkey’s national hero, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. Another said there “might be a lin­ger­ing impres­sion that WSC had helped save Turkey from the red men­ace by his resis­tance to Russ­ian demands on the Dar­d­anelles Straits—of course it was Harry Tru­man who did the heavy lift­ing there [through the Tru­man Doc­trine]”

The Turks had abun­dant rea­sons to feel pos­i­tive toward Churchill, aside from his per­sonal courage, and his resis­tance to Soviet designs on the straits (when of course he was out of office and pow­er­less). They dated back to 1910 when Churchill toured the coun­try, partly on a loco­mo­tive cow-catcher, and “met many of the brave men who laid the foun­da­tions of mod­ern Turkey” (as he wrote Turk­ish Pres­i­dent Ismet İnönü in 1943).

Churchill under­took sev­eral risky trips in World War II and the visit to İnönü was one of them, after Casablanca, in a period when he was away from home four weeks. Nor was the meet­ing entirely in vain, as he told Par­lia­ment in May 1944: despite “an exag­ger­ated atti­tude of cau­tion,” İnönü had per­son­ally inter­vened to halt chrome exports to Ger­many, which was a lot more impor­tant then than it may seem now.

For details of the 1910 and 1943 meet­ings see the “Dardanelles-Gallipoli 50 Years On” fea­tures in Finest Hour 126, including Mar­tin Gilbert’s excel­lent “What about the Dar­d­anelles?”  (A .pdf is down­load­able under “pub­li­ca­tions” on The Churchill Cen­tre web­site.)

Kemal AtatürkChurchill had pro­found admi­ra­tion for Kemal Atatürk, “the only Dic­ta­tor with an aure­ole of mar­tial achieve­ment,” writ­ing in 1938: “The tears which men and women of all classes shed upon his bier were a fit­ting trib­ute to the life work of a man at once the hero, the cham­pion, and the father of mod­ern Turkey. Dur­ing his long dic­ta­tor­ship a pol­icy of admirable restraint and good­will cre­ated, for the first time in his­tory, most friendly rela­tions with Greece.” (Churchill by Him­self, 321).

Sir Mar­tin Gilbert’s Churchill: A Life (and his bio­graphic vol­ume IV in more detail) record Churchill’s per­for­mance in the 1922 Chanak cri­sis, which added to his Turk­ish cred­its. While per­sis­tently argu­ing, in telegrams, let­ters and Cab­i­net meet­ings ,for a firm stance by Britain and the Domin­ions, he restrained a bel­li­cose, pro-Greece Lloyd George from act­ing rashly when the Turks marched near British-occupied Chanak, and even­tu­ally there was a nego­ti­ated settlement—over which, of course, the Con­ser­v­a­tives bolted the Lloyd George Coali­tion, cost­ing Lloyd George his pre­mier­ship and Churchill his seat in Par­lia­ment. Mar­tin Gilbert con­cludes (CAL, 454):

Churchill saw the Chanak cri­sis as a suc­cess­ful exam­ple of how to halt aggres­sion, and then embark on suc­cess­ful nego­ti­a­tions, by remain­ing firm. But “Chanak” had become the pre­text not only for the fall of the Gov­ern­ment but for one more, unjus­ti­fied, charge of his own impetu­os­ity.

Gilbert’s Churchill: A Pho­to­graphic Por­trait records WSC’s 1943 let­ter above, which he handed İnönü when they met. After remem­ber­ing “the brave men,” Churchill continued:

There is a long story of the friendly rela­tions between Great Britain and Turkey. Across it is a ter­ri­ble slash of the last war, when Ger­man intrigues and British and Turk­ish mis­takes led to our being on oppo­site sides. We fought as brave and hon­ourable oppo­nents. But those days are done, and we and our Amer­i­can Allies are pre­pared to make vig­or­ous exer­tions in order that we shall all be together…to move for­ward into a world arrange­ment in which peace­ful peo­ples will have a right to be let alone and in which all peo­ples will have a chance to help one another.

Not bad for the hoary old impe­ri­al­ist, and a decent improve­ment on some of the more recent U.S. over­tures to Turkey. I sus­pect the Turks still feel pretty good about the old man, since the Adana, Turkey sid­ing where the İnönü meet­ing occurred has been turned into a park ded­i­cated to peace.


{ 0 comments }

I’m cur­rently analysing a few of Churchill’s speeces for an aca­d­e­mic paper. After lis­ten­ing to the audio files and read­ing along I found a lot of para­graphs which were left out in the radio speeches. It’s espe­cially evi­dent in “Their Finest Hour” from June 18th, 1940 where only a fifth of the text made it to the radio. At one point it sounds like the audio file has been edited. Were the audio files full radio speeches or just excerpts? —N.K., Copenhagen

What you are lis­ten­ing to is likely a post­war record­ing of speeches Churchill made for HMV/Decca, which were edited and trun­cated in later ver­sions. How­ever, the June 18th speech was rebroad­cast in full by Churchill that evening over the BBC.

Levenger’s book, The Mak­ing of the Finest Hour, includes a CD con­tain­ing the full broad­cast. But many Churchill Speech CDs, and LPs before them, con­tained only excerpts. Some of these were taken from the BBC broad­casts, but most were recorded by Churchill years later.

No record­ings were per­mit­ted in the House of Com­mons at that time, leav­ing us with two infe­rior pos­si­bil­i­ties: Churchill’s broad­cast speeches over the BBC, or in some cases post­war record­ings, both of which—said those who heard them in the Commons—lack the fire of the originals.

See Sir Robert Rhodes James, “Lead­ing Churchill Myths: ‘An Actor Read
His Speeches over the Wire­less,’”
Finest Hour 92, posted on the Churchill Cen­tre website.

Sir Robert noted: ‘Prob­lems then arise from the records, Harold Nicol­son lament­ing that it was nec­es­sary to bully Churchill into broad­cast­ing, and, refer­ring to a June 18th broad­cast, “he just sulked and read his House of Com­mons speech over again.” Nicol­son was Infor­ma­tion Min­is­ter at the time. Churchill never liked broad­cast­ing, but there is no evi­dence what­ever that he was replaced by any­one, and speech researchers have con­firmed this.’

{ 2 comments }

Churchill Clairvoyant: Seeing 1940 in 1891

November 2, 2009

Great web­site! I am a psy­chol­o­gist writ­ing a book man­u­script on the bio­log­i­cal basis of self-confidence. Long an admirer of Churchill, I would like to use a quote from the film The Gath­er­ing Storm to demon­strate Churchill’s tremen­dous con­fi­dence. Can you help me find Churchill’s state­ment (in the film) to Ralph Wigram, that when he was a boy, a feel­ing had come [...]

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 →

Was Churchill a Closet Socialist?

August 30, 2009

After I posted “Churchill on the Stim­u­lus Pack­age” last Spring, I was asked if Churchill, who said he opposed social­ism, was in fact more of a social­ist than he cared to admit. For exam­ple, he was one of the archi­tects of the British Wel­fare State early in the 20th cen­tury. To the many appre­ci­a­tions of Churchill’s career let [...]

Read the full article →