Posts tagged as:

Neville Chamberlain

I am a longtime Gone With The Wind collector and researcher, and give presentations at GWTW events. I’ve also been the GWTW Answer Lady on several websites. I was recently asked whether Churchill and Roosevelt had read Gone With The Wind. I found that FDR read quite a bit of the novel, but I couldn’t come up with anything about Churchill. I hope you don’t mind me tossing you this question. Maybe you’ve run across a mention of it. I assume that Churchill did see the film as FDR did on 26 December 1939, after the movie opened in Washington. GWTW opened in London on 18 April 1940.  —K.M., Royal Oak, Michigan

On the contrary, your question sent me on an interesting dive through the archives to learn about my favorite character and my favorite novel.

Leslie Howard as Ashley Wilkes

Before we get started, a side note: Leslie Howard, who played Ashley Wilkes in GWTW, had a business manager, Alfred Chenhalls, who closely resembled Churchill, affecting similar clothing and a homburg hat.

German spies in Lisbon, observing Chenhalls and Howard boarding a flight to London, mistook them for Churchill and his bodyguard. They informed the Luftwaffe, who shot down the plane. Poor Ashley Wilkes, ever the loser!

Churchill wrote of the incident: “The brutality of the Germans was only matched by the stupidity of their agents.”

==============================

THE BOOK

In the late 1930s everybody was reading it, from my mother to Neville Chamberlain. (His biographer Keith Feiling tells us that Chamberlain was “taking delight” in it as the Czech crisis developed in spring 1938.) Churchill was reading it as he wrote the American Civil War chapters of his History of the English-Speaking Peoples (not published until after the war). Thanks to Martin Gilbert’s biography we know quite a lot:

Winston S. Churchill to Brigadier-General Sir James Edmonds, a Civil War authority (Churchill papers: 8/626), 24 March 1939:

When one comes to look at it en bloc, the Confederates never had any chance at all. It was only a question of the North getting under way and the amount of time required to destroy, if necessary, every living soul in the Confederate states. The dramatic point is the wonderful resistance which they made.

Churchill was fearing a new war in Europe at this time:

Have you read Gone With The Wind? It is a terrific book, but I expect you are too pressed with your work to read….I hope you are as sanguine as you used to be about no war and our not getting scragged.

Edmonds quickly replied, still confident of no war in the future:

I have read Gone With The Wind, also Action at Aquia (dealing with the devastation of the Shenandoah valley) and most novels on the war including your namesake’s The Crisis [Civil War novel by the American Winston Churchill]…..Yes, I am still sanguine. Hitler won’t fight without an Ally and Mussolini is “not for it.”

—Martin Gilbert, Winston S. Churchill, Companion Volume V, Part 3, Documents: The Coming of War 1936-1939 (London: Heinemann, 1982), 1406, 1413.

It would be interesting to re-read Churchill’s Civil War chapters in A History of the English-Speaking Peoples in the knowledge that he was reading GWTW at the time he wrote them. Norman Rose writes:

A History of the English-Speaking Peoples is generally acknowledged to be the least satisfactory of [Churchill's] books. It reads as a kind of pastiche that proclaims his “secular [Whig] faith,” its finest section (written as he read Gone With The Wind) telling the story of the American Civil War….[but] the fact that Churchill was not a trained historian had its merits. As every scholar knows, in research it is necessary to be dogged in pursuit of sources, but also ruthless in sensing when to stop and to start writing.

—Norman Rose, Churchill: An Unruly Life (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1994), 211

==============================

THE FILM

Gable and Leigh at their height (www.altfg.com)

Churchill was clearly bowled over when he saw the film production. Witnesss the John Colville diary (Colville papers) 15 December 1940, Ditchley Park, Oxford:

We saw Gone With The Wind which lasted till 2.00 a.m. I thought the photography superb. The PM said he was “pulverised by the strength of their feelings and emotions.”

—Martin Gilbert, The Churchill War Papers, vol. 2, Never Surrender, May 1940-December 1940] (London: Heinemann, 1994), 1241.

And in his main biographic volume Sir Martin writes:

On Sunday December 15, at Chequers, after watching the film Gone With The Wind, he had sat from two until three in the morning discussing the campaign in North Africa with Eden. As they talked, the total number of Italian prisoners of war captured by Wavell’s army reached 35,000.

—Martin Gilbert, Winston S. Churchill, vol. 6, Finest Hour 1939-1941 (London: Heinemann, 1983), 946.

It has been reported, though I have not run down the source, that Churchill once met Vivien Leigh—and was rendered speechless (rare for him) by her beauty. Apparently this stemmed not from her role as Scarlett O’Hara, but as Nelson’s “Lady Hamilton” (“That Hamilton Woman”)—beyond doubt his favorite film. Norman Rose adds:

Late night films, distracting “the mind away from other things,” were “a wonderful form of entertainment” that he did not forsake. He walked out of a “sentimental” Mickey Rooney picture, but stayed for Bette Davis’s splendid tragedy, Dark Victory, and was “pulverized” by the emotional intensity generated by Rhett Butler (Clark Gable) and Scarlett O’Hara (Vivien Leigh) in Gone With The Wind. Once, at a showing of Oliver Twist, when Bill Sykes was coaxing his dog to the edge of the river to drown it, Churchill thoughtfully covered the eyes of his beloved poodle, Rufus, who sat on his lap.

Unruly Life, 283

==============================

IN THE CANON

Margaret Mitchell’s wonderful title inspired Churchill to use it twice. In his World War II memoirs he summed up the results of Appeasement:

Look back and see what we had successively accepted or thrown away: a Germany disarmed by solemn treaty; a Germany rearmed in violation of a solemn treaty; air superiority or even air parity cast away; the Rhineland forcibly occupied and the Siegfried Line built or building; the Berlin-Rome Axis established; Austria devoured and digested by the Reich; Czechoslovakia deserted and ruined by the Munich Pact, its fortress line in German hands, its mighty arsenal of Skoda henceforward making munitions for the German armies; President Roosevelt’s effort to stabilise or bring to a head the European situation by the intervention of the United States waved aside with one hand, and Soviet Russia’s undoubted willingness to join the Western Powers and go all lengths to save Czechoslovakia ignored on the other; the services of thirty-five Czech divisions against the still unripened Germany Army cast away, when Great Britain could herself supply only two to strengthen the front in France; all gone with the wind.

—Winston S. Churchill, The Second World War, vol. 2, Their Finest Hour (London: Cassell, 1953), 271

But it was the march toward Munich in 1938 that saw Churchill’s most effective use of the title:

For five years I have talked to the House on these matters—not with very great success. I have watched this famous island descending incontinently, fecklessly, the stairway which leads to a dark gulf. It is a fine broad stairway at the beginning, but after a bit the carpet ends. A little farther on there are only flagstones, and a little farther on still these break beneath your feet…. if mortal catastrophe should overtake the British Nation and the British Empire, historians a thousand years hence will still be baffled by the mystery of our affairs. They will never understand how it was that a victorious nation, with everything in hand, suffered themselves to be brought low, and to cast away all that they had gained by measureless sacrifice and absolute victory —gone with the wind!

—Winston S. Churchill, Arms and the Covenant (London: Harrap, 1938), 465: “The Danube Basin,” House of Commons, 4 March 1938.


{ 0 comments }

Broadcasting, 1940 (BBC)

Writing in The Independent on April 13th Dominic Lawson, son of Margaret Thatcher’s Chancellor of the Exchequer, says that “the public want honesty, but not when it comes to their taxes.” The voters, Lawson argues forcefully, will never undo the government entitlements that are bankrupting modern democracies. It is ludicrous, he adds, for British Conservatives to deplore the national debt, and then “to propose measures which would do nothing to reduce it, but actually increase it….as if Winston Churchill had declared, ‘I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears, sweat and tax cuts.’”

My interest was piqued when Mr. Lawson ventured into history: “Indeed, it is an enduring myth that even as Prime Minister during the war itself, Churchill’s offer of “nothing but blood, toil, tears and sweat” was invariably welcome to the British people. As Angus Calder pointed out in his iconoclastic book The People’s War, strikes were common, the government not especially popular, and Churchill himself an object of much public disparagement—even if that didn’t find expression in the columns of the newspapers. This pent-up discontent was one reason why the great war leader received an overwhelming raspberry from the public as soon as they had a chance to express their opinion at the ballot box, in July 1945.”

The last is a gross oversimplification. Churchill had his ups and downs in wartime polls, but remained well thought of individually. The people didn’t vote Churchill out in 1945; they voted the Conservatives out, and with considerable justification. Many actually thought they could vote Labour and retain Churchill as Prime Minister!

On balance, however, Mr. Lawson may be right about British attitudes when Churchill first spoke as Prime Minister on 13 May 1940. At the 1988 Bretton Woods Churchill Conference, Alistair Cooke spoke of  growing up in Britain after World War I, constantly reminded of a lost generation: “The British people would do anything to stop Hitler—except fight him.” Remember too that the applause in the House of Commons on was then still louder for Chamberlain than for Churchill.

But that was on 13 May, and Churchill’s speeches quickly turned attitudes around. By June, after the French debacle and Dunkirk, there was a different mood. Churchill’s postwar bodyguard, Ronald Golding, then an RAF Squadron Leader, recalled: “After his ‘fight on the beaches’ speech [4 June 1940], we wanted the Germans to come.”

Lawson also misrepresents Churchill’s proposals for franchise reform:

Churchill, admittedly, had never been completely persuaded of the benefits of the universal franchise: in 1930 he had published an essay—Parliamentary Government and the Economic Problem—which advocated its abandonment and a return to a property franchise (combined with proportional representation). I imagine that if he were dropped into our present predicament, as some political time-traveller, Churchill would argue that it is next to impossible to persuade a majority of the need for sharp public expenditure cuts, when millions of households would feel that such a policy would cost them more in benefits than they would ever get back by way of a reduction in taxes.

(Coincidentally, Finest Hour 146 contained a similar Churchill article from 1934, “Restoring the Lost Glory of Democracy.”)

Churchill frequently floated “trial balloons,” thinking out loud about the nature of democracy. In both of these articles, he did ponder the benefits of a “bonus vote” for what he vaguely defined as the “more responsible” level of citizens; but it is salient to note that he never led a movement or tabled a bill for such a reform. Moreover, neither there nor in “Parliamentary Government and the Economic Problem” (reprinted in Thoughts and Adventures), did Churchill advocate “abandonment” of the universal vote or a “return to a property franchise.”

What he did suggest, in the midst of the Depression, was

…an Economic sub-Parliament debating day after day with fearless detachment from public opinion all the most disputed questions of Finance and Trade, and reaching conclusions by voting, would be an innovation, but an innovation easily to be embraced by our flexible constitutional system. I see no reason why the political Parliament should not choose, in proportion to its party groupings, a subordinate Economic Parliament of, say, one-fifth of its numbers and composed of persons of high technical and business qualifications.*

Churchill argued that the House of Commons had the adaptability to organize this form of deliberation, but it is important to distinguish that he did see such a “sub-Parliament” as representative of the electorate. Today, we see much less democratic forms in the boards or individuals (“Czars” in current American political parlance) who are unelected, yet possess sometimes plenary power. There is room to argue that Churchill would have been opposed to these. Certainly he never favored the “abandonment of Parliamentary Government.” Indeed quite the opposite, as he wrote in 1930:

I see the Houses of Parliament—and particularly the House of Commons—alone among the senates and chambers of the world a living and ruling entity; the swift vehicle of public opinion; the arena—perhaps fortunately the padded arena—of the inevitable class and social conflict; the College from which the Ministers of State are chosen, and hitherto the solid and unfailing foundation of the executive power. I regard these parliamentary institutions as precious to us almost beyond compare. They seem to give by far the closest association yet achieved between the life of the people and the action of the State. They possess apparently an unlimited capacity of adaptiveness, and they stand an effective buffer against every form of revolutionary or reactionary violence. It should be the duty of faithful subjects to preserve these institutions in their healthy vigour, to guard them against the encroachment of external forces, and to revivify them from one generation to another from the springs of national talent, interest, and esteem.**

* Winston S. Churchill, Thoughts and Adventures, James W. Muller, ed. (Wilmington, Delaware: ISI Books, 2009), 255.

** Ibid., 246-47.

{ 0 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 [...]

Read the full article →

The Un-great Non-debate

September 22, 2009

The Great Debate: “Resolved, that Winston Churchill was more a liability than an asset to the free world.” Sponsored by Intelligence Squared, viewable on C-Span. LONDON, SEPT. 3RD— It was avidly awaited but fell flat. Tabling a truly ridiculous motion, Intelligence Squared (“the only institution in town aside from Parliament to provide a forum for debate [...]

Read the full article →

War and Shame

February 2, 2009

What did Churchill say about those who trade honor for peace having in neither in the end? —D.B. There are two likely quotations. The first was Churchill in a letter to Lloyd George on 13 August 1938, just before the Munich Conference: I think we shall have to choose in the next few weeks between [...]

Read the full article →