Contact

Contact

Ques­tions? Com­ments? Ask away:

31 thoughts on “Contact

  1. 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.)

  2. 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?

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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? 

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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.

  12. 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.”

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. 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.

  16. 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!

  17. 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

  18. 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.

  19. 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.

  20. 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

  21. 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!

  22. 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

  23. 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.

  24. 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 *