Contact

Contact

Ques­tions? Com­ments? Ask away:

52 thoughts on “Contact

  1. Ter­vi­tused, mu sõber, palju aas­taid tagasi!

    Good to hear from you, Mar­gus. I was unable to email to the email address you sent. I am inter­est­ed in your project. What lan­guages of pub­li­ca­tion? I can send you a .jpg pho­to, 300 dpi, which I hope will suf­fice. But I need an email address that works. Yours will not accept mail.

    I am still writ­ing about cars, albeit as a side­line, with all my Churchill work at Hills­dale Col­lege. Gra­ham Rob­son and I have just repub­lished a fine new edi­tion of Tri­umph Cars, revised and updat­ed with many new pho­tos, which we first pub­lished in 1977.
    A sum­ma­ry of my activ­i­ties, and list of books are on this web­site under “about” and “books.”

    Did you know that after my 1992 vis­it, I returned with three col­leagues in 1995, to bicy­cle the coast of Latvia, 660km, from the Lithuan­ian bor­der to Esto­nia? Accounts are avail­able of this mem­o­rable trip. It was the cold­est May locals had expe­ri­enced in years–President Ulma­n­is pro­claimed he heroes of the Repub­lic…..

    I gath­er you are still in Eesti and hope you are pros­per­ing. How is the coun­try doing? I hear it’s the most pros­per­ous of the three Baltic states. Hope so. I well remem­ber our vis­it to your beau­ti­ful bun­ga­low. I think I was with my friend, Cel­wyn Ball Alas he has left us:

  2. How can I con­tact you, old friend? Need your pho­to for a forth­com­ing book about AUTO CULTURE AND ITS SERVANTS. Many have been already col­lect­ed: Gra­ham Gauld, Nick Georgano, Wade Hoyt, Fer­di­nand Hedi­ger, Mike Lamm and so on.

  3. Good ques­tion. On the Nobel Prize, the late John Rams­den writes in his Man of the Cen­tu­ry, 129:

    There was a good deal of con­so­la­tion to be found in beat­ing off the claims of Ernest Hem­ing­way, who was also nom­i­nat­ed for the Lit­er­a­ture Prize in 1953. Hem­ing­way, being as bad a los­er as Churchill him­self could some­times be, com­ment­ed on the 1953 award that Churchill was ‘the great­est mas­ter of the spo­ken word’, which was not what the Nobel Prize for Lit­er­a­ture was sup­posed to be for, though Churchill’s war speech­es were indeed includ­ed in the cita­tion prais­ing his lit­er­ary efforts. This was of course to miss the point, for since he read his speech­es and dic­tat­ed his books, the two were essen­tial­ly the same thing.

    Churchill’s writ­ings are laden with praise of many writ­ers. The Hills­dale Churchill project has post­ed an essay on Churchill and Twain, and will short­ly post one on Churchill and Kipling. See Dar­rell Holley’s out­stand­ing work, Churchill’s Lit­er­ary Allu­sions, which offers scores of exam­ples of Churchill draw­ing on writ­ers from the Clas­sics to the Edwar­dians, many of whom he extrav­a­gant­ly praised. His beau­ti­ful trib­ute to Rupert Brooke can be found in The Churchill Doc­u­mentsVol­ume 6 (Hills­dale Col­lege Press).

    I can find noth­ing of Churchill’s specif­i­cal­ly about Hem­ing­way, though he cer­tain­ly appre­ci­at­ed Hemingway’s war nov­els. The schol­ar Man­fred Wei­d­horn offers an inter­est­ing com­par­i­son of the two as nov­el­ists in his clas­sic work on Churchill’s writ­ings, Sword and Pen:

    [Churchill’s Savro­la] appeared in the age of James and Con­rad and indeed shares some of its sub­ject mat­ter with the soon to be writ­ten Nos­tro­mo, but it is not even remote­ly com­pa­ra­ble in qual­i­ty. A par­al­lel sug­gests itself also with a nov­el that would appear three decades lat­er, Hemingway’s A Farewell to Arms, for here also a man in love turns away from a nation falling apart, from a cause los­ing its mean­ing, from a word like “hon­or” which sounds hol­low. Churchill, unlike Hem­ing­way, avoids the exis­ten­tial­ist depths and tacks on a hap­py end­ing; his stilt­ed Vic­to­ri­an emo­tion­al­ism is whol­ly unlike the American’s impas­sive but mov­ing style. Where­as Hemingway’s book, more­over, makes use of per­son­al expe­ri­ence and reflects his val­ues, Churchill’s does nei­ther, and that per­haps explains the lame­ness of the prod­uct. He nev­er said farewell to pol­i­tics and seems not to have placed the love of a woman above it at any time, at least not in any dra­mat­ic, overt way.

  4. I have not read many ref­er­ences where Win­ston Churchill com­ment­ed on oth­er writ­ers in his life­time. I am curi­ous if he ever com­ment­ed on the writ­ings or the per­son of Ernest Hem­ing­way. Since they won the Nobel Prize for Lit­er­a­ture one year apart from each oth­er, it would seem that they must have been aware of each oth­ers oeu­vre.

  5. There is not. It was a ver­bal fusil­lade. The gen­er­al­ly agreed best ver­sion of it is in Ben Pim­lott, ed., The Sec­ond World War Diary of Hugh Dal­ton (Labour MP, then Min­is­ter of Eco­nom­ic War­fare in Churchill’s coali­tion gov­ern­ment). Pim­lott writes in an edi­to­r­i­al note: “Although there is an entry for vir­tu­al­ly every day for much of the peri­od of the Coali­tion, Dal­ton did not com­pose his diary dai­ly. His usu­al prac­tice was to dic­tate a week’s mate­r­i­al at a sin­gle sit­ting.” From inter­nal evi­dence, his entry for 28 May was writ­ten at least two days lat­er. It is repro­duced by Mar­tin Gilbert in The Churchill Doc­u­ments, Vol. 15 Nev­er Sur­ren­der May-Decem­ber 1940 (Hills­dale Col­lege Press, 2011), 182-84:

    28 May 1940
    In the after­noon all min­is­ters are asked to meet the PM. He is quite mag­nif­i­cent. The man, and the only man we have, for this hour. He gives a full, frank and com­plete­ly calm account of events in France. When the Ger­mans broke through on the Meuse, French morale for the moment col­lapsed. There­fore, he flew to France and saw Rey­naud and Gamelin. The lat­ter said, ‘We have been defeat­ed by Ger­man supe­ri­or­i­ty in num­bers, in mate­r­i­al and in meth­ods.’ Churchill said, ‘What then are you going to do?’ Gamelin mere­ly shrugged his shoul­ders. Churchill said, ‘Will you please leave the room’, and then, alone with Rey­naud, they went into every­thing, includ­ing the High Com­mand.

    The French, before this war, had giv­en up all ideas of the offen­sive. They were hyp­no­tised by the Mag­inot Line. Gen­er­al Bil­lotte com­mand­ing the forces north of the Somme, includ­ing our own, had giv­en no impor­tant or sig­nif­i­cant order for four days! Since then he had been killed in a motor acci­dent and suc­ceed­ed by Blan­chard. The French had failed to make a push north­wards from the Somme. They had had too few Divi­sions between the sea and Amiens and their com­mu­ni­ca­tions had been bad­ly bombed. There­fore, though we had done our best from the north, it had been impos­si­ble to close the gap, and we were in grave dan­ger of being sur­round­ed. Now, there­fore, it was nec­es­sary to fight our way through to the Chan­nel Ports and get away all we could….

    Only Dunkirk was left to us. Calais had been defend­ed by a British force which had refused to sur­ren­der, and it was said that there were no sur­vivors. We could only use the beach­es east and west of Dunkirk in addi­tion to the port itself. Dunkirk was under a great pall of black smoke, to which our ships were adding arti­fi­cial smoke so as to screen our embarka­tions from the air. The Air Force were main­tain­ing the most pow­er­ful pos­si­ble fight­er patrols over this scene, and the Ger­mans were suf­fer­ing immense loss­es in the air, as on the ground, in their attempts to inter­fere with the embarka­tion. The supe­ri­or­i­ty of our fight­ers was once again being man­i­fest­ed, and on two occa­sions great flights of Ger­man bombers had turned away and declined bat­tle when they saw our fight­er patrols.

    The PM went on to say that our claw­ing-down rate was grad­u­al­ly ris­ing, tak­ing an aver­age of one day with anoth­er, to 3:1, to 4:1, and late­ly to 5:1. It was clear that we had killed off most of the best Nazi pilots, unless, which seemed unlike­ly, they had been hold­ing some of their best in reserve. ‘They’re cold meat,’ our air­men say. He was deter­mined to pre­pare pub­lic opin­ion for bad tid­ings, and it would of course be said, and with some truth, that what was now hap­pen­ing in North­ern France would be the great­est British mil­i­tary defeat for many cen­turies.

    We must now be pre­pared for the sud­den turn­ing of the war against this island, and pre­pared also for oth­er events of great grav­i­ty in Europe. No coun­te­nance should be giv­en pub­licly to the view that France might soon col­lapse, but we must not allow our­selves to be tak­en by sur­prise by any events. It might indeed be said that it would be eas­i­er to defend this island alone than to defend this island plus France, and if it was seen through­out the world that it was the for­mer, there would be an immense wave of feel­ing, not least in the USA which, hav­ing done noth­ing much to help us so far, might even enter the war. But all this was spec­u­la­tive. Attempts to invade us would no doubt be made, but they would be beset with immense dif­fi­cul­ty. We should mine all round our coast; our Navy was immense­ly strong; our air defences were much more eas­i­ly organ­ised from this island than across the Chan­nel; our sup­plies of food, oil, etc., were ample; we had good troops in this island, oth­ers were on the way by sea, both British army units com­ing from remote gar­risons and excel­lent Domin­ion troops, and, as to air­craft, we were now more than mak­ing good our cur­rent loss­es, and the Ger­mans were not.

    It was idle to think that, if we tried to make peace now, we should get bet­ter terms from Ger­many than if we went on and fought it out. The Ger­mans would demand our fleet—that would be called “disarmament”—our naval bases, and much else. We should become a slave state, though a British Gov­ern­ment which would be Hitler’s pup­pet would be set up—”under Mosley (1) or some such per­son.” And where should we be at the end of all that? On the oth­er side, we had immense reserves and advan­tages. There­fore, he said, “We shall go on and we shall fight it out, here or else­where, and if at last the long sto­ry is to end, it were bet­ter it should end, not through sur­ren­der, but only when we are rolling sense­less on the ground.” (2)

    There was a mur­mur of approval round the table, in which I think Amery, Lord Lloyd and I were loud­est. Not much more was said. No one expressed even the faintest flick­er of dis­sent. Her­bert Mor­ri­son asked about evac­u­a­tion of the Gov­ern­ment, and hoped that it would not be hur­ried. The PM said Cer­tain­ly not, he was all against evac­u­a­tion unless things real­ly became utter­ly impos­si­ble in Lon­don, “but mere bomb­ing will not make us go.”

    (1) Oswald Ernald Mosley, 1896-1980. Edu­cat­ed at Sand­hurst. On active ser­vice, 1917-18. A Con­ser­v­a­tive MP, 1918-22, he sat as an Inde­pen­dent, 1922-24 and as a Labour mem­ber 1924 and 1926-31. Suc­ceed­ed his father as 6th Baronet, 1928. Labour Chan­cel­lor of the Duchy of Lan­cast­er, 1929-30. Found­ed the British Union of Fas­cists, 1932. Impris­oned, 1940-45. He pub­lished his auto­bi­og­ra­phy, My Life, in 1968. Mosley was mar­ried to Clemen­tine Churchill’s cousin Diana Mit­ford.

    (2) Dal­ton lat­er set down anoth­er ver­sion of Churchill’s words in the mar­gin of this diary entry: “If this long island sto­ry of ours is to end at last, let it end only when each one of us lies chok­ing in his own blood upon the ground.”

  6. Is there a full text of Churchill’s speech to the out­er cab­i­net on 28 May 1940?

  7. A read­er asks: “No men­tion of the scotch and soda for break­fast, two bot­tles of cham­pagne, and four cig­ars every day?”

    All those are wrong. He did not drink scotch and soda (see below). His cham­pagne was an Impe­r­i­al Pint, like a half bot­tle today, con­sumed over the course of a two-hour din­ner. More like eight cig­ars, but more of them were chewed on than smoked. My 2003 arti­cle con­tained more, which I didn’t include in my reply below, so here it is:

    Churchill would occa­sion­al­ly wash down break­fast with a glass of white wine. His “high­ball,” which his daugh­ter has demon­strat­ed, was a tum­bler with the bot­tom cov­ered in scotch and then filled with water and nursed for hours. He picked up this habit in India and Africa where he had to add whisky to make the water potable. “By dili­gent appli­ca­tion I learned to like it.” It was more like mouth­wash than a high­ball, and he would nurse it for long peri­ods. Sounds pret­ty dread­ful to me, but since he always had a glass near at hand, peo­ple assumed he drank con­stant­ly. He did not dis­abuse them of this notion. Where he did con­sume vast quan­ti­ties of alco­hol was at extend­ed lunch­es and dinners–and per­haps this was how he got away with such con­sump­tion. William Man­ches­ter cor­rect­ly said Churchill “always had some alco­hol in his blood­stream.” But nobody, fam­i­ly or staff, saw him the worse for drink, except once at Teheran, when he tot­tered unsteadi­ly after a lengthy series of vod­ka toasts with the Rus­sians.

  8. Paul, you have a good mem­o­ry. I report­ed on my attempt to mim­ic his day (which didn’t last a year, or a month, or even a fort­night, or I would have been divorced) in 2003:

    Churchill’s typ­i­cal day was: wake at 8 and often spend the morn­ing in bed, dic­tat­ing let­ters and read­ing the papers (he took them all, includ­ing the Dai­ly Work­er), toss­ing the sheets on either side of the bed as he got through them, much to the ire of his valet, Frank Sawyers. A reporter, Per­cy Reid, who hung around when WSC was in res­i­dence, knew when he wasn’t there because the West­er­ham news-mon­ger still had the Dai­ly Work­er. He ordered only one copy because Churchill was the only cus­tomer.

    By noon he’d had a bath and would go down to lunch, where he might hold forth for a cou­ple of hours—if the com­pa­ny was con­ge­nial. He would then stroll around Chartwell, vis­it­ing his gold­fish, black swans, and per­haps the farm ani­mals. After tea, he’d take a one-hour nap in paja­mas and eye­shade. He would wake refreshed, bathe again, dress for din­ner, which could last hours, fol­lowed by a film. Then he’d say, “Right, let’s get to work,” and dic­tate books, arti­cles or speech­es until as late as 3 a.m. Thus he got by on five or six hours’ sleep and made 1 1/2 days out of one.

    I tried this and found that it works fine—provided you have four sec­re­taries, a but­ler, valet and a cook—or one per­son to serve in all of these func­tions. My wife was not amused and the exper­i­ment did not last two days.

  9. I remem­ber read­ing an arti­cle a num­ber of years ago where the author stat­ed that he had tried to live Churchill’s lifestyle for a year and it near­ly bank­rupt­ed him. Was that your com­ment, and if so, could you give us a few tid­bits of the expe­ri­ence?

  10. Thank you. I enjoyed Scott’s book now and my review is now post­ed here­in. Search winstonchurchill.hillsdale.edu for “bib­li­og­ra­phy” and you’ll find a list of books about Churchill with brief reviews back to 1905. Oth­er recent books are reviewed in depth in the Hills­dale “Books” sec­tion. Please sub­scribe to both sites as I often post only extracts of my Hills­dale arti­cles here. It is our objec­tive ulti­mate­ly to list every seri­ous Churchill title. The V-12 Cen­tu­ry is cer­tain­ly a great car.

  11. I have just been intro­duced to your web­site and am look­ing for­ward to many hours of brows­ing. I won­dered if you have had the good for­tune to read Churchill At The Gal­lop by Brough Scott as I can find no ref­er­ence on the web­site. It is a per­spec­tive on WSC through his asso­ci­a­tion with the horse by one of our fore­most horse rac­ing jour­nal­ists. Inci­den­tal­ly I am also a motor car enthu­si­ast cur­rent­ly dri­ving a Toy­ota Cen­tu­ry. Designed to cel­e­brate Mr Toyota’s 100th birth­day in 1967 it has a hand­built V12 engine and was in pro­duc­tion with only minor cos­met­ic changes from 1967 until 2017. A new body shape was intro­duced last year.

  12. Your ques­tions are good ones and I will post a fuller reply on my web­site, but I will try for the nonce to pro­vide a brief answer. I am glad you have my book because it answers your first ques­tion on the same page:

    He did write some­thing sim­i­lar in 1897, when he was twen­ty-three: a note past­ed into his copy of the 1874 Annu­al Reg­is­ter, where he was review­ing polit­i­cal issues to decide which side he would take…. [His] oppo­si­tion was “on the grounds that it is con­trary to nat­ur­al law and the prac­tice of civ­i­lized states[;] that no neces­si­ty is shown[;] that only the most unde­sir­able class of women are eager for the right[;] that those women who dis­charge their duty to the state viz mar­ry­ing and giv­ing birth to chil­dren are ade­quate­ly rep­re­sent­ed by their hus­bands[;] that those who are unmar­ried can only claim a vote on the ground of prop­er­ty, which claim on demo­c­ra­t­ic prin­ci­ples is inad­mis­si­ble…” (WSC, “Com­ments on [1874] Annu­al Reg­is­ter, 1897,” in The Churchill Doc­u­ments, vol. 2, Young Sol­dier 1896-1901, Hills­dale, Mich.: Hills­dale Col­lege Press, 2006, 765.)

    I go on to say that Churchill’s views on suf­frage in 1897 were not only those of most British peo­ple, but most British women, includ­ing his moth­er. When the suf­frage move­ment gath­ered steam, and encour­aged by his wife Clemen­tine, he changed his view. There is a vast sub­text to this, which I will expand upon lat­er. But as an MP, he nev­er wavered from his view that sex dis­crim­i­na­tion was wrong.

    Con­cern­ing Churchill’s let­ter to Asquith on 21 Novem­ber 1911: An extract from this let­ter is in both the Offi­cial Biog­ra­phy (Vol. 2, 405) and The Churchill Doc­u­ments Vol. V (Orig­i­nal­ly Com­pan­ion Vol­ume II part 3), page 1475. But the words you quote from that source are not there. I am com­par­ing the extract line by line in search of our “smok­ing gun.” Fic­ti­tious quotes twist­ed or made up to suit people’s pre­con­ceived prej­u­dices are, of course, not unique to Churchill.

    To your sec­ond ques­tion: The Churchill Archives—one mil­lion doc­u­ments, vir­tu­al­ly every one he produced—fail to pro­vide any instruc­tions about han­dling suf­frag­ists dat­ed 16 or 18 Novem­ber 1910. They do how­ev­er con­tain his 22 Novem­ber let­ter to Sir Edward Hen­ry, Com­mis­sion­er of the Met­ro­pol­i­tan Police. Direct­ly address­ing “Black Fri­day,” it refers to no ear­li­er instruc­tions. It clear­ly sets out Churchill’s views on police han­dling of demon­stra­tors:

    Dear Sir E. Hen­ry, I am hear­ing from every quar­ter that my strong­ly expressed wish­es con­veyed to you on Wednes­day evening and repeat­ed on Fri­day morn­ing that the suf­fragettes were not to be allowed to exhaust them­selves but were to be arrest­ed forth­with upon any defi­ance of the law, were not observed by the police on Fri­day last, with the result that very regret­table scenes occurred. It was my desire to avoid this even at some risk; to arrest large num­bers and then sub­se­quent­ly to pros­e­cute only where seri­ous grounds were shown and I am sor­ry that, no doubt through a mis­un­der­stand­ing, anoth­er course has been adopt­ed. In future I must ask for a strict adher­ence to the pol­i­cy out­lined here­in. Yours very sin­cere­ly, WSC

    These false alle­ga­tions have been around for over a cen­tu­ry, and are with us yet. In “Post-Truth” His­to­ry on the Hills­dale Churchill web­site, his­to­ri­an Andrew Roberts writes:

    At the Jaipur Lit­er­ary Fes­ti­val, I was on a pan­el dis­cus­sion enti­tled “Churchill: Hero or Vil­lain?,” where a biog­ra­ph­er told a large crowd that Churchill…had “giv­en instruc­tions for police that they can bat­ter the women and assault the women and sex­u­al­ly assault them as well.” He alleged­ly told police­men to “put their hands up their thighs, they can grope them and press their breasts.” “Can I just point out that that is com­plete­ly untrue?” I inter­vened. “He at no stage ever okayed the sex­u­al assault of any woman ever. It would be mon­strous were it to be true, but there’s no evi­dence for it.” To which she replied: “It’s your word against mine.” Wel­come to post-truth his­to­ry…. Any­one who knows any­thing about Churchill knows how gal­lant he was towards women, even towards suf­frag­ists who dis­rupt­ed his polit­i­cal meet­ings. It is unthink­able that he would have let it be known that such dis­gust­ing behav­iour would be tol­er­at­ed offi­cial­ly or unof­fi­cial­ly. It is for­tu­nate for the his­to­ri­an who made this alle­ga­tion from the stage of the Jaipur Lit­er­ary Fes­ti­val that the dead can­not sue for libel, as if they could she would be bank­rupt­ed.

  13. I am a His­to­ry stu­dent at the Uni­ver­si­ty of West­min­ster in Lon­don and for my dis­ser­ta­tion, I am writ­ing about the rela­tion­ship between Home Sec­re­tary Churchill, the Met­ro­pol­i­tan Police, and their treat­ment of Suf­fragettes dur­ing the Lon­don demon­stra­tions of 18-23 Novem­ber 1910—particularly on Black Fri­day on the 18th. There are two areas where I hope you may be able to assist me.

    The first ques­tion relates to an alleged quote by Churchill relat­ing to his con­ser­v­a­tive views on women gen­er­al­ly and women’s suf­frage in par­ti­clu­ar: “The women’s suf­frage move­ment is only the small edge of the wedge, if we allow women to vote it will mean the loss of social struc­ture and the rise of every lib­er­al cause under the sun. Women are well rep­re­sent­ed by their fathers, broth­ers and hus­bands.”

    In your book Win­ston Churchill, Myth and Real­i­ty you main­tain on page 25 that Churchill nev­er said these words in or out of the House of Com­mons, yet anoth­er source I have found sug­gests that Churchill did say these words in a let­ter to Asquith on 21 Decem­ber 1911. It is intrigu­ing as why such words should be invent­ed if nev­er said, so would you be able to shed light on why you dis­missed the quot­ed state­ment.

    For my sec­ond ques­tion, I am search­ing for the instruc­tions appar­ent­ly issued by Churchill to the Com­mis­sion­er of the Met­ro­pol­i­tan Police as per Churchill’s let­ter dat­ed 22 Novem­ber 1910 which refers to instruc­tions issued by Churchill on the 16th and 18th as to how the suf­fragette demon­stra­tors were to be han­dled. In your research­es on Churchill, have you come across these instruc­tions?

  14. I grew up in South Bend next door to the Alt­mans. I have mem­o­ries of being a young kid and see­ing sev­er­al Avan­tis in their dri­ve­way. I thought one day I would own one, but it nev­er hap­pened. Is there a way for me to buy your Stude­bak­er book for less than a hun­dred dol­lars? Is there an Avan­ti sto­ry to tell from 1970 on that hasn’t been told?

    I grad­u­at­ed from Hills­dale many years ago. I’m glad to see them take advan­tage of your wis­dom and tal­ent.

  15. All three movies are being over-dra­mat­ic. He nev­er parad­ed around naked in front of sec­re­taries or any­one else (includ­ing Roo­sevelt, whose encounter with Churchill, fresh from his bath, was inad­ver­tent). He did dic­tate occa­sion­al­ly from his bath, shield­ed by the door. One one or two occa­sions he might have appeared indeco­rous, out of pre­oc­cu­pa­tion with what­ev­er he was doing. In no way did any of this con­sti­tute “harass­ment.” He sim­ply wasn’t made that way.

  16. I came upon your blog search­ing on “Win­ston Churchill naked.” Accord­ing to at least 3 movies, he would dic­tate to his female sec­re­taries sit­ting just out­side while he was in the bath. One of the movies has him walk­ing past her naked. I’m writ­ing a book on sex­u­al harass­ment and talk­ing about “tra­di­tions” of harass­ment. Is it true that he did this? Thank you.

  17. Was that the book proofed by Paul Courte­nay? Yes. Please send to me c/o Hills­dale Col­lege Churchill Project, 33 East Col­lege Street
    Hills­dale MI 49242 USA. Thanks.

  18. Dear Richard,

    I hope you are well.

    I won­der if you would be inter­est­ed to receive a copy of ‘Churchill’s Con­fi­dant’, an upcom­ing book that describes the remark­able sto­ry of Win­ston Churchill’s rela­tion­ship with Jan Smuts. It is a book that I hope you would enjoy as it cov­ers an area of Churchill’s life that, to my mind, has been inad­e­quate­ly doc­u­ment­ed over the years.

    Please do let me know if you’d like me to send a copy.

    With very best wish­es,

    Tom

  19. Hel­lo Richard
    You have some very nice pic­tures of Mr. Churchill’s pock­et watch in the arti­cle about it. I am in the process of writ­ing a book about men’s jew­el­ry and would like to use them. Are they yours or can you help me with a source?
    BR. Oliv­er

  20. Thanks so much for the kind words, always hard to come by. Delight­ed to advise that the French­man was “about” right. From Sir Robert Rhodes James, ed., Win­ston S. Churchill: His Com­plete Speech­es 1897-1963 (New York: Bowk­er, 1974, 8 vols.) I 316-17. A heck­ler had sug­gest­ed that Churchill, hav­ing just changed his par­ty, might change it again….

    ADMINISTRATIVE HOME RULE FOR IRELAND
    16 June 1904, Pub­lic Hall, Cheetham Hill, Man­ches­ter

    “We are gath­ered here and I stand here with Lib­er­al sup­port as the Free Trade can­di­date for North-west Man­ches­ter because a dis­tin­guished politi­cian has changed his mind. Many peo­ple change their minds in pol­i­tics. Some peo­ple change their minds to avoid chang­ing their par­ty. (Laugh­ter) Some peo­ple change their par­ty to avoid chang­ing their mind. (Renewed laugh­ter)”

    The “dis­tin­guished politi­cian” was Joseph Cham­ber­lain, who had desert­ed Free Trade for “Empire Free Trade” (pro­tec­tive tar­iffs on goods from out­side the British Empire).

    The date is con­fus­ing, since Churchill did not actu­al­ly stand for North-west Man­ches­ter until 1906. It was in his sights, how­ev­er, because he knew he would not be renom­i­nat­ed as Con­ser­v­a­tive Mem­ber for Old­ham. Two weeks ear­li­er (31 May) he had crossed the floor of the House of Com­mons, desert­ing the Con­ser­v­a­tives for the Lib­er­als. (Inci­den­tal­ly, when the elec­tion did come, he won NW Man­ches­ter hand­i­ly, 5639 to 4398; but they threw him out in April 1908. The fol­low­ing month he got back in for Dundee, which he rep­re­sent­ed as a Lib­er­al until 1922.)

  21. I would like to con­grat­u­late you for your ded­i­cat­ed efforts to sep­a­rate truth from false­hood regard­ing the life of a his­tor­i­cal fig­ure of such impor­tance. I stum­bled on your work while mak­ing online research regard­ing Churchill’s posi­tion on the Euro­pean con­struc­tion, although I haven’t read yet your Win­ston Churchill, Myth and Real­i­ty. I’m look­ing for­ward to do so.

    In a recent polit­i­cal argu­ment between two politi­cians in France, Churchill was quot­ed as say­ing: “Some men change their par­ty for the sake of their prin­ci­ples ; oth­ers their prin­ci­ples for the sake of their par­ty”, did he ever utter these words and if so in what con­text and when?

  22. I have a ques­tion that I hope you can answer. I’m writ­ing a book on the 1939 strike at Chrysler. In your co-authored book on the com­pa­ny, you dis­cuss the mod­els by year. Is that the chrono­log­i­cal year or the mod­el year, as they used the term it then? For exam­ple, when you dis­cuss the engi­neer­ing changes for 1940 (99), does that refer to pro­duc­tion that began in August, 1939 or in August, 1940?

  23. Thanks for the kind words. I’ll make your ques­tion into a post and run the illus­tra­tion: watch the web­site. The draw­ing is by Frank Spring’s styling staff at Hud­son, but only an alter­na­tive pro­pos­al for the basic “Step-Down” Hud­son. My guess of the artist is Art Kibiger, but there’s more to the sto­ry. Alas the only pro­to­type draw­ings I could find are in the book. Hud­son had the habit of destroy­ing pro­to­type images, and these came from the design­ers I inter­viewed.

  24. Recent­ly I picked up your book Hud­son 1946-1957: The Clas­sic Post­war Years and found it an excel­lent read. On page 38 is a ter­rif­ic sketch of a car that should have been built, rather than the designs that man­age­ment chose. My ques­tion is who drew that sketch? It seems a bit unclear, and are there more draw­ings like that in exis­tence. It would make a ter­rif­ic guide for a project car.

  25. I am an artist of fine art lith­o­graphs and etch­ings, and am the unnamed, unrec­og­nized artist who worked direct­ly with Sarah Churchill and Cur­tis Hoop­er on the entire “Churchill series.” Sarah and I select­ed every quote that was blind embossed on every ORIGINAL print. I cre­at­ed the print­ed copy of every quote that was then made into a plate and used to blind-emboss adja­cent to Cur­tis Hooper’s image of Sir Win­ston and above the blind emboss­ing cre­at­ed by Sarah. Cur­tis was allowed to sign on the lith­o­graph plate, which was then print­ed on each print with his orig­i­nal draw­ing. Sarah hand signed her sig­na­ture in pen­cil on every ORIGINAL. My sig­na­ture was under­stand­ably not allowed, but I appre­ci­at­ed the priv­i­lege of being a part of what was a large project.

  26. One can only review these with spe­cial per­mis­sion of the Prime Min­is­ter of the day. Sug­gest you make a request of your Mem­ber of Par­lia­ment.

  27. In a 4 May 2015 post, A.R. of Lon­don states “I reviewed the 1940-45 vis­i­tors books at Che­quers”. My moth­er was at Che­quers in March 1943 and I want to get a copy of the page that she signed on March 15 (maybe 14), between Antho­ny Eden and the King of Greece, but I don’t know whom to ask. How can I review these vis­i­tors books?

  28. You com­ment­ed to The Syd­ney Morn­ing Herald/The Age that Churchill nev­er said the words they ascribed to him: http://www.theage.com.au/comment/parliamentarians-fail-basic-english-proficiency-test-20170623-gwxfpd.html

    “Win­ston Churchill is report­ed to have described Aus­tralian Eng­lish as ‘the most bru­tal mal­treat­ment which has ever been inflict­ed upon the moth­er tongue of the great Eng­lish-speak­ing nations.'”

    You are of course com­plete­ly cor­rect. It’s by New York-born philol­o­gist *William* Churchill (1859-1920), in his 1911 book Beach-la-Mar, the Jar­gon or Trade Speech of the West­ern Pacif­ic, p. 14. The book can be found online at babel.hathitrust.org.

    One could say some­thing sar­cas­tic like, “Jour­nal­ists fail basic fact-check­ing test”, but in grudg­ing fair­ness to the author it’s mis­at­trib­uted all over the inter­net.

  29. If you refer to the mon­tage of illus­tra­tions it was designed by arrist Char­lotte Thibault (Google her), and incor­po­rates a paint­ing by Char­lotte of Churchill and Eisen­how­er vis­it­ing the Get­tys­burg bat­tle­field.

  30. Hel­lo, I am an fol­low­er of most things Churchillian, in par­tic­u­lar fresh images, since I am a quite pro­lif­ic ‘Churchill’ artist. The car­i­ca­ture which illus­trates your ‘blog’ I find very inter­est­ing and would like to know who the artist was.Thanks for the very enjoy­able con­tent.

  31. I have writ­ten noth­ing for The Fed­er­al­ist so I am not sure what piece of mine you refer to. I did read the 1994 arti­cle, “How Churchill, Rhodes and Smuts caused black South Africans to lose their rights.” I find it gen­er­al­ly accu­rate, but not dis­pos­i­tive.

    It is true that Britain dropped its oppo­si­tion to mak­ing South Africa “white man’s coun­try” by pass­ing the Union of South Africa Act 1910. Churchill sup­port­ed that Act because he saw it as the one way to ease lin­ger­ing ten­sions with the Boers. Churchill jus­ti­fied his sup­port of the Act by say­ing explic­it­ly that it was the best pos­si­ble, and he did not like it.

    Churchill was a polit­i­cal man. He need­ed, and thought he need­ed, the votes of a major­i­ty. If he lived in an age of prej­u­dice (and every age is that) then of course he would be care­ful how he offend­ed those prej­u­dices. See “Churchill and Racism
    It is quite true that Smuts believed in the “white man’s coun­try” and in seg­re­ga­tion in his ear­li­er years. But the arti­cle doesn’t men­tion that when the pro-Apartheid Nation­al Par­ty won the 1948 elec­tion, they defeat­ed Smuts, who had run in sup­port of the Fagin Com­mis­sion, which rec­om­mend­ed relax­ing seg­re­ga­tion.

    Both Churchill and Smuts ear­ly expressed very lib­er­al atti­tudes toward races their respec­tive soci­eties gen­er­al­ly con­sid­ered infe­ri­or. In 1900, young Win­ston argued with his Boer cap­tors that blacks were enti­tled to the same rights as any oth­ers in the British Empire. In 1939, Smuts wrote an essay for a com­mem­o­ra­tive book on Gandhi’s 70th birth­day. Although Churchill and Smuts were Gand­hi adver­saries at times, they had a mutu­al respect and even admi­ra­tion for each oth­er. See “Wel­come, Mr. Gand­hi.”

  32. I have read your arti­cle about bust­ing four myths about Win­ston Churchill from The Fed­er­al­ist. There is this one arti­cle I have that I like you to read and I’d like to hear your feed­back. Click here.

  33. Kieron, sor­ry, I have no knowl­edge. Try the book Mas­ter Motor Builders by Robert Neal, which is the last word on the sub­ject includ­ing Packard’s involve­ment with the Rolls-Royce Mer­lin in WW2.

  34. Hi Richard. Jonathan Stein thought of you when i posed this ques­tion to him. I’m an expat Brit at Hager­ty in the US and read an intrigu­ing side­bar in an old RR arti­cle recent­ly from about 10 or 20 years ago……it implied a con­nec­tion with the end of the Packard days and the devel­op­ment of the 6.75 RR engine around the same time. Do you know if that is just rumour or did in fact some tech­nol­o­gy or tool­ing or brain­pow­er make its way from Packard to Crewe in the late 50s? Many thanks, Kieron.

  35. Hey Russ-I sold my new ’69 in ’71. It was a con­stant pain with the fed­er­al air pump and I had no room or mon­ey to keep it as a sou­venir. It has since been paint­ed and hot-rod­ded. But it’s still going!

  36. Richard –

    I sold my last Cor­vair recent­ly, ’twas a bit­ter­sweet moment.

    Still have a bunch of NOS and used parts, thank good­ness for eBay.

    What’s your cur­rent Cor­vair sta­tus?

    Russ

  37. My com­ments to Mr. Reid were pri­vate. I know he con­sid­ered them all, but he was the author. WSC was cer­tain­ly an “opti­mistic agnos­tic” him­self, but he respect­ed all reli­gions (includ­ing Islam, despite fre­quent­ly being quot­ed out of con­text on it). He knew the King James Bible bet­ter than some the­olo­gians. His many ref­er­ences to “Chris­t­ian civ­i­liza­tion” make his view of it self-evi­dent. Of course every­one has their own opin­ions of Churchill’s views. There are a lot to con­sid­er.

  38. THE LAST LION — PREAMBLE
    As a past mem­ber of the Churchill Soci­ety (Reves Chap­ter) and avid read­er of near­ly all of his books I have long await­ed com­ple­tion of this trol­o­gy. Hav­ing jsut com­plet­ed the Pre­am­ble I won­der what you thought regard­ing the author’s rather strong sup­po­si­tions and con­clu­sions they drew regard­ing WSC’s views on Chris­tian­i­ty (not church­go­ing or cler­gy, the proof is in the pud­ding there).
    I felt there were two era’s in these quotes (sup­port­ed by foot­notes dat­ing con­tent) — youth vs. the wis­dom of age — and they were not dis­cussed. There seemed to be many pre­con­ceived sup­po­si­tions that felt more like the author’s views were super­im­posed over WSC’s. There were defi­nate con­flicts — but quotes on Heav­en alwsy seemed to be cites as cyn­i­cism. Seems to me WSC could be more like Thomas Jef­fer­son and his con­flict­ing views. I sim­ply did not see the con­clu­sion that he was an Agnos­tic sup­port­ed.

  39. We have cor­re­spond­ed in the past – I believe you are from the Har­ris­burg, PA area. I live Mechan­ics­burg. I am glad to hear that Vol III of the “Last Lion” series is com­ing soon. I am excit­ed to read it.

    Thank you.

    David A. Lar­son, Sr.
    CDR, USN, Retiered

  40. You might be inter­est­ed in this (undat­ed) mag­a­zine, Tai­lor and Cut­ter, fea­tur­ing Churchill and Eden on the cov­er:
    http://www.permanentstyle.co.uk/

    The blog­ger com­ments (favor­ably) on Churchill’s cloth­ing and specif­i­cal­ly his bow tie!

  41. SEO| Inter­net Mar­ket­ing| Web­site Design­ing

    Hi

    What would a huge increase in rel­e­vant traf­fic mean for your busi­ness? If I could great­ly increase the amount of cus­tomers who are inter­est­ed in your prod­ucts and ser­vices, wouldn’t you be inter­est­ed.

    In order for us to respond to your request for infor­ma­tion, please include your company’s web­site address (manda­to­ry) and /or phone num­ber.

    Sin­cere­ly,
    Gary Smith
    garyinternetmarketing@gmail.com
    COMPLETE INTERNET MARKETING SOLUTION
    SEO – Link Build­ing – Copy­right – Web Design­ing – PHP

  42. I con­grat­u­late you on your web­site. Had I more time I’d launch a site whose aim would be to take on cur­rent den­i­gra­tors of Churchill. You are obvi­ous­ly a busy man, but yet man­age to keep your site updat­ed and full of inter­est – which reveals you to be of a class of effi­cien­cy and effec­tive­ness far exceed­ing mine.

    I won­der if you’ve had any thoughts on devot­ing any part of your site to to the group of promi­nent peo­ple who seem to have tak­en a vio­lent dis­like to Churchill – David Irv­ing and Christo­pher Hitchens among them. Of the two I’ve named, the for­mer suf­fers, I think, from a meta-patri­ot­ic impulse towards Ger­many; the lat­ter, though pos­sess­ing, unde­ni­ably, a sound intel­lect, suf­fers I think from a pro­nounced infe­ri­or­i­ty com­plex vis-a-vis Churchill. Both of them have – where Churchill is con­cerned – a pseu­doschol­ar­ship that is sticks out like a sore thumb.

  43. In the fol­low­ing arti­cle, WC is quot­ed as say­ing “to jaw-jaw is always bet­ter than to war-war.”

    CHURCHILL URGES PATIENCE IN COPING WITH RED DANGERS
    By W. H. LAWRENCES
    New York Times (1923-Cur­rent file); Jun 27, 1954; pg. 1

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *