"[The Bolshevik] crocodiles with master minds entered upon their responsibilities upon November 8 [1917]. Many tears and guttural purrings were employed in inditing the decree of peace.… But the Petrograd wireless stirred the ether in vain. The crocodiles listened attentively for the response; but there was only silence."
"I see the [Parliament] 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."
“Would the Royal Family and Chrchill Evacuate?” is excerpted from an article for the Hillsdale College Churchill Project. For the original text with endnotes, please click here.
Q: Evacuate the Royals?
I am arguing with a person in another forum that there was a plan in the Second World War to evacuate Churchill and the Royal Family to Canada if the Nazis invaded. I believe it was called Operation Coates, but the reference I found doesn’t mention Churchill.
Churchill doesn’t seem like the sort of person to evacuate. At Sidney Street he was in the front line.…
Churchill claimed he never criticized a policy later that he had not publicly criticized when it was first raised. True, he was often on both sides of issues, and could pick his criticisms accordingly. But he in time he usually arrived at the right conclusions.
Regardless of whether you like the movie—and Jeremy Irons gives it an authentic, watchable flavor—we know much more about Munich in the light of scholarship since. We know that Soviet Russia was prepared to stand with Czechoslovakia in 1938, and had become a German ally in 1939. We know how—with the help of Czech armaments—Poland was eradicated in three weeks, the Low Countries in eighteen days, France in six weeks. If resisting Hitler was so ludicrous an idea in 1938, what was there about fighting him in 1939-40 that made it preferable? Given what we know, we are obliged to consider Churchill’s opinion—which was, characteristically, far from baseless.
"The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him judgement by his peers for an indefinite period, is in the highest degree odious….Nothing can be more abhorrent to democracy than to imprison a person or keep him in prison because he is unpopular. This is really the test of civilisation." —WSC
James J. Nance's efforts to supplement the Patrician with more luxury Packards paid off in 1953—a testimonial to his determination. Advertising assumed a decided up-market look, and the results were agreeable. Calendar ’53 saw 81,000 cars, up by a third and the best since 1950. Sofari sogoody, as Churchill once said. But what next?
"There are two ways in which a gigantic debt may be spread over new decades and future generations. There is the right and healthy way; and there is the wrong and morbid way. The wrong way is to fail to make the utmost provision for amortisation which prudence allows, to aggravate the burden of the debts by fresh borrowings, to live from hand to mouth and from year to year, and to exclaim with Louis XV: 'After me, the deluge!'” —WSC, 1927
Clementine Churchill dramatic word-picture of Russia’s devastation remind us of Winston’s words to her about war: “I feel more deeply every year—and can measure the feeling here in the midst of arms—what vile and wicked folly and barbarism it all is.”
“Great captains must take their chance with the rest. Caesar was assassinated by his dearest friend. Hannibal was cut off by poison. Frederick the Great lingered out years of loneliness in body and soul. Napoleon rotted at St. Helena. Compared with these, Marlborough had a good and fair end to his life.” —Winston S. Churchill, Marlborough: His Life and Times, 1936, Book Two.
A decade on, still a book to read
Readers sometimes ask for the best books to read on Churchill’s career after the Second World War.…
