Questions? Comments? Ask away:

{ 15 comments… read them below or add one }

Richard Langworth May 17, 2017 at 09:46

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.”

David Ekstrand May 7, 2017 at 14:52

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.

Richard Langworth July 27, 2016 at 10:20

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.

Kieron Lake July 27, 2016 at 08:47

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.

Richard Langworth February 16, 2016 at 13:58

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!

Russell Long February 16, 2016 at 12:41

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?


Richard M. Langworth November 14, 2012 at 18:07

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.

Craig Trimble November 14, 2012 at 17:41

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.

David A. Larson, Sr. July 5, 2012 at 10:33

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

Monty Waters December 30, 2011 at 16:36

You might be interested in this (undated) magazine, Tailor and Cutter, featuring Churchill and Eden on the cover:

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

Gary Smith August 31, 2011 at 20:07

SEO| Internet Marketing| Website Designing


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.

Gary Smith
SEO – Link Building – Copyright – Web Designing – PHP

Richard M. Langworth June 19, 2011 at 11:11

Thanks for the kind words. Churchill was human and made mistakes, but tackling illegitimate criticism has been a fun hobby. Browse “Reviews” on this site, and take a look at Leading Churchill Myths, which I’ve written or compiled to cover the most popular canards. On recent nonsense-books, see also “The Fine Art of Selective Quoting.”

Lincoln June 18, 2011 at 20:21

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.

Richard M. Langworth December 14, 2010 at 12:19

Mike, this is a common misquotation dating back to the original newspaper coverage in 1954. See my post:

Mike Doran December 13, 2010 at 17:41

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

New York Times (1923-Current file); Jun 27, 1954; pg. 1

Leave a Comment

{ 1 trackback }