Talk:Winston Churchill/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Churchill's attitude to European integration

Churchill lent his considerable prestige to the cause of European unity. In a celebrated speech in Zurich in 1946, straight after the war and some 17 years before the Elysée treaty, he called for a United States of Europe under Franco-German leadership. But he also said that this European unity would be without Britain: "We are with Europe, but not of it. We are linked, but not combined. We are interested and associated, but not absorbed." He soon changed his view on that. As the first steps to European unity were taken, and as the new realities of Britain's shrunken role in the world sank in, he changed his position and advocated the creation of a united Europe that would include Britain. At the Hague Congress of the European Movement in 1948, he called for the then 16 democratic European countries, "including Great Britain, linked with her Empire and Commonwealth", to start building Europe, aiming at nothing less than the union of Europe as a whole. In Strasbourg, in 1949, and again in 1950, he called for major steps in European integration, including "the immediate creation of a unified European army, subject to proper European democratic control and acting in full cooperation with the USA and Canada" - the UK of course part of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.194.202.5 (talk) 09:49, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Churchill as opposition leader in the late 1940s made vague 'pro-European' noises to embarrass the Labour government for being 'anti-European', even talking up the idea of a European army, as you say; but after Churchill got back into power in 1951 he reverted to his old line, and his government famously and emphatically rejected British membership of a European federation.

John W. Young notes that in November 1951 'the cabinet office circulated a paper by Churchill on "United Europe", in which he recalled the 1946 Zurich speech but then stated, bluntly, "I have never thought that Britain ... should become an integral part of a European Federation". Condemning the view that Britain was merely "part of Europe", he declared that in fact she had three areas of interest: foremost, the Commonwealth; next the "English-speaking world" (presumably Churchillian for America); and, only then, a "United Europe" (with no detail of what this precisely meant)."'

See John W. Young, 'Churchill's "No" to Europe: The "Rejection" of European Union by Churchill's Post-War Government, 1951-1952, The Historical Journal, Vol. 28, No. 4 (Dec., 1985), pp. 929-930.

NPOV

This article could use some tags; article, section and inline. It reads like a eulogy. 86.44.24.126 (talk) 11:21, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Churchill's anti-Semitism

Lachrie chose to delete information about Churchill that should be part of his biographical entry. The documenting of Churchill’s anti-Semitism is not “sensationalist revisionist propaganda” as you say. It is not a “polemic” championing what you call “pacifism,” neither does it lay “blame” for the Holocaust on Churchill and Roosevelt. None of these conclusions would be intellectually sound, and nowhere could be substantiated by the entry that was written before it was deleted. What I provided is factual information that has previously been obscured or hidden by historians for reasons of political necessity or agendas more egregious.

Like all mortals, Churchill was a human being with his own set of faults and deficiencies, and certainly not exempt from internalizing the influences and prejudices of his time. Like many of his social set and aristocratic lineage, he was anti-Semitic. It would be naïve to maintain that personally held prejudices don’t color an individual’s character or life choices. When prejudice takes the form of bigotry in the make-up of a public figure, in this case a world leader no less, it is no longer confined to the private sphere—historical fact has made it public property.

I invite the Wiki community to weigh in on this. Below is the entry as originally written:

Anti-Semitism

Nicolson Baker, in his book, "Human Smoke: The Beginings of WWII, The End of Civilization," reveals that with Germany's defeat in WWI, Churchill identified a new enemy. It was the Jewish people, who menaced the world. On February 4, 1920, a newspaper article was published, written by Churchill that warned of what he perceived to be the current threat to humanity: "This movement among Jews is not new." Churchill wrote, but a "world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality." This conspiracy had been, he maintained, "the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century." He drew a line of Jewish complicity back to the French Revolution, and named more recent malefactors such as Karl Marx, Leon Trotsky, Béla Kun, Rosa Luxemburg, and Emma Goldman. He counseled all loyal Jews to "vindicate the honour of the Jewish name "by rejecting international bolshevism." Betempte (talk) 01:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

It's a recurring problem with Wikipedia that a member of the public will read a dubious single source and then have a burning desire to impose it on an article. It just wastes everybody's time. The only cure for it is wider reading.

The specific problem here is that Baker is a pacifist revisionist and his book is too controversial to be considered a reliable source for the article. At the very least, Baker's claims are unbalanced and his basic methodology is to quote his victims out of context in a sensationalist and misleading way. Baker is a novelist rather than a professional, peer-reviewed historian; he's been slammed in the Jewish Chronicle by the historian Martin Gilbert (himself a noted critic of Allied policy towards the Jews), and Baker's book was widely panned as character assassination of Churchill and FDR by reviewers in the press.

Baker's main justification for labelling Churchill as an anti-Semite seems to be that Churchill also noticed that a lot of Bolsheviks and international socialists were Jewish. There was some anti-Jewish prejudice in England at the time, but it didn't compare with anti-Semitism in Europe, and Churchill was a friend of Rothschild and a supporter of the Manchester Jewish Territorialists and later the Zionists, so Baker's claim isn't fair or plausible.

Churchill was regarded as a friend of the Jews of Europe by leading Jewish contemporaries such as Rothschild. Church considered reprisal bombings for the Nazi massacres of the Jews but was dissuaded by the Chiefs of Staff that reprisal bombing might only escalate Nazi acts of brutality. Zionist leaders had such a high regard for and trust of Churchill that they were surprised and disappointed when after the war he opposed the partition plan for Palestine.

See Michael J. Cohen, 'Churchill and the Jews: The Holocaust', Modern Judaism, Vol. 6, No. 1 (Feb., 1986), pp. 34, 45.

Historian Paul Addison says of Churchill: 'His inoculation against anti-semitism was almost complete, and from the days of his early contacts with the Jewish community in Manchester, he turned sympathy for Zionism into one of the motifs of his career.'

See Paul Addison: 'The Political Beliefs of Winston Churchill', Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, Fifth Series, Vol. 30 (1980), p. 39.

In sum, Baker's accusation that Churchill was anti-Semitic is silly and misleading, and his book isn't regarded by historians as a reliable source, so it shouldn't be used for the article. Lachrie (talk) 04:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

When you (Betempte) state that you are providing 'factual information that has previously been obscured or hidden by historians for reasons of political necessity or agendas more egregious.' alarm bells start to ring. Obscured or hidden may be one reason it hasn't appeared in historian's works, that it is bunk is another. Lachrie is quite right, Baker is no historian (not in itself a reason to condemn his work) and his book has been roundly criticised, often related to the very viewpoint you are trying to advance here, Churchill's supposed anti-semitism. And this is a reason to condemn his work as a suitable source for this article. Some important counterpoints in reviews can be seen in a small selection here [1], [2], [3], [4]. There is indeed a polemical theme running through Baker's work that has been consistently picked up on. The best that can really be said by one of his more moderate reviewers is the equivocal statement that 'what Baker has created with Human Smoke is not history, but rather agit-prop.' Lachrie is quite right to remove such a section, on the grounds of WP:UNDUE, if not a number of other policies as well. Benea (talk) 07:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Lachrie and Benea. Of course some of the above discussion could be included in the article. However, before we do this, we need to consider very carefully if this topic is worth including at all. As I said before, Churchill is a vast historical figure, and if we wanted to include all the relevant information, the article would be tens of thousands of pages long. Thus we must very carefully select the most important topics. I see no compelling reason to include this particular topic. Why? Precisely because it is not really discussed sunstantially by the mainstream sources. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 15:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Was he or was he not

It is a facile misinterpretation to conclude that “labeling Churchill as an anti-Semite…” because “Churchill also noticed that a lot of Bolsheviks and international socialists were Jewish.” Well, subscribing to this is an odious justification. It is propaganda that reads no different than the anti-Semitic, right wing cant that was widespread at the time, i.e. a libel that all Jews were if not Bolsheviks, than they were Communists or at least socialists. Were Lenin and Stalin Jewish? We know they weren’t, and that Russia and it’s totalitarian successor, the Soviet Union had no love for Jews.

Paul Addison’s contention that Churchill’s “inoculation against anti-semitism was almost complete and from the days of early contacts with the Jewish community in Manchester, he turned sympathy for Zionism into one of the motifs of his career.” This is a reference with no elaboration. What form did his “inoculation” take? Can Churchill’s Zionism be interpreted as political strategy, (after all, he was a canny master politician)— illustrating that old saying: “politics makes strange bedfellows…”

I can’t vouch for Nicolson Baker’s rigor (or lack of) historical scholarship. However, he is not the only author to have elucidated Churchill’s antipathy for Jews. The newspaper article I quoted has been discussed in other sources, notably Anthony Julius’ comprehensive, meticulously researched book, “Trials of The Diaspora, A History of Anti-Semitism in England.” Julius provides a back-story for the genesis of Churchill’s mindset post WWI. Most of the twentieth century was plagued by the fear of global Communist domination. The moneyed elites, and those of Churchill’s aristocratic lineage particularly felt the threat. At this point in time, Churchill was an admirer of the writings of Nesta H. Webster, an author who wrote extensively on her pet obsession, exposing the existence and operation of world conspiracies and conspirators. Her book, “Secret Societies and Subversive Movements, (1924) is a compendium of her main arguments. She had a wide readership and Churchill praised her in his article, (excerpted in Baker’s book), originally published in the Illustrated Sunday Herald, in February 1920. Churchill wrote that “Mrs. Webster has so ably shown...The schemes of International Jews…this world-wide conspiracy…” etc. etc.

Not to “include this particular topic…”Precisely because it is not really discussed substantially by the mainstream sources” —well, this immediately raises the warning flag of a dubious endorsement. One should always thoughtfully question the popular media, as they are corporate entities that define what information is “relevant,” “what constitutes an “important topic,” and therefore, fit for public dissemination. Betempte (talk) 20:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Gallipoli

Lede:

• During the war, he continued as First Lord of the Admiralty until the disastrous Gallipoli Campaign, which he had sponsored, caused his departure from government.

Western Front:

• Churchill was First Lord of the Admiralty at the start of the First World War, but was obliged to leave the war cabinet after the disastrous Battle of Gallipoli.

First World War and the Post War Coalition

• In 1915, he was one of the political and military engineers of the disastrous Gallipoli landings on the Dardanelles during the First World War. He took much of the blame for the fiasco, and when Prime Minister Asquith formed an all-party coalition government, the Conservatives demanded his demotion as the price for entry.

I'm no historian, but having read http://www.amazon.com/World-Crisis-1911-1918-Winston-Churchill/dp/0743283430 Churchill's The World Crisis (the same abridgment of the original multi-volume work, but in an earlier edition), I can't help feeling that these three statements in the article steer awfully close to WP:POV, perhaps if only by omission, or desire for succinctness. Churchill devotes an enormous amount of space discussing the Dardanelles and the Gallipoli fiasco throughout the entire book; it may be impossible to summarize his discussion for this article. I think essentially his point is that the Dardanelles plan was strategically sound for a number of reasons, but that because of the disagreements and vacillation both within the war cabinet and within the Admiralty itself, and the subsequent lack of coordination between the navy and army, its execution was fatally flawed.
I don't feel qualified to undertake an edit to the article myself, but I do think it would be useful for one or more of these statements to be rephrased more neutrally. Milkunderwood (talk) 04:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I've attached a {{POV-statement}} tag to the first of these. The three statements are indisputably factually correct, but do not convey a balanced view. I have no problem with the tag being removed if some further discussion is provided. Thanks. Milkunderwood (talk) 10:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Alcohol

Winston Churchill started WW2 as an alcoholic and Roosevelt used to refer to Churchill as "that drunken bum".

At a time of an expected German invasion of the UK, Churchill was sending the army and new American equipment to North Africa. After the debacle of Dunkirk, Churchill needed a military victory and the only place to achieve this was at El Alamein against a fuel and munitions starved Rommel. I still feel sorry for the families of the 16,O00 unecessary casualties

My generation still well remembers Churchill in office and the usual question after any of his speeches remained, "was that alcohol fuelled or not". There is still considerable doubt whether Churchill really made the radio WW2 broadcasts or was this was the voice of the "Larry the Lamb" radio actor.

Alcoholism ran in the Churchill family as his daughter, to the delight of the UK press, became well known for her drunken exploits.AT Kunene (talk) 09:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Without sources this discussion is original research and thus irrelevant to Wikipedia. - BorisG (talk) 17:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

It isn't even original research. It's anecdotal flimflam. Brian,86.138.125.165 (talk) 14:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

And we [some of us in America] apologize for FDR. Churchill probably had a pet name for him too. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:35, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Why would you apologise for America's greatest president? he may have been a drunk and womaniser, but his colossial politics achievements would outweigh any of his personal flaws.

Was Churchill not a heavy drinker? It's not mentioned in the article, but there are constant references to his drinking habits in every account of him that I've heard. Though there are few reliable sources who say "alcoholic", I'm sure there are plenty for him being a heavy drinker. Why it not covered in this article? Gregcaletta (talk) 04:02, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Churchill was a self confessed alcoholic, but some idolise him to the point where they are unwilling to even acknowledge he had any human flaws

Edit request on 23 March 2012

Note: There is only a cursory reference (at the end of the section "leader of the opposition") to Churchill's role in European integration, which currently says: "Churchill also argued strongly for British independence from the European Coal and Steel Community, which he saw as a Franco-German project. He saw Britain's place as separate from the continent, much more in-line with the countries of the Commonwealth and the Empire, and with the United States, the so-called Anglosphere." In fact, Churchill's role had been vital in providing the impulse towards European integration (still rememberedd on the continent where one of the main European Parliament buildings in Strasbourg is named after him) and anyway he changed his mind about British participation in it, coming to support it. I would therefore suggest the following text:

"Churchill's support for Euroean integration in this period was important in lending impetus to the process. His speech in Zurich in 1946, straight after the war, and some 17 years before the Elysée treaty, called for a "United States of Europe" under Franco-German leadership. He said "I am now going to say something which will astonish you. The first step in the re-creation of the European family must be a partnership between France and Germany." But he also said that this European unity would be without Britain: "We are with Europe, but not of it. We are linked, but not combined. We are interested and associated, but not absorbed." Later, as the first steps to European unity were taken, and as the new realities of Britain's shrunken role in the world sank in, Churchill changed his position and advocated the creation of a united Europe that would include Britain. He lent his considerable personal prestige to the Hague Congress of the European Movement in 1948, where he called for the 16 democratic European countries, "including Great Britain, linked with her Empire and Commonwealth", to start building Europe, aiming at nothing less than the union of Europe as a whole. In Strasbourg, in 1949, he said to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe: "we are engaged in the process of creating a European unit in the world." He supported that Assembly drafting constitutional proposals, even quoting Napoleon in saying that "a constitution must be short and obscure". In 1950, he used the same platform to call for "the immediate creation of a unified European army, subject to proper European democratic control and acting in full cooperation with the USA and Canada" - the UK of course part of it."

91.194.202.5 (talk) 17:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Where are all your sources? I shouldn't think anyone is likely to make any changes without your providing links to each assertion, and for each quotation. Milkunderwood (talk) 17:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

the current text is fine--it says Churchill insisted Britain would NOT be a part of any European Union. He indeed wanted France and Germany to be closer, and he supported NATO. As PM after 1951 he did not push for British involvement.Rjensen (talk) 18:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Personally I'm disappointed in how sparse this entire article is. I'm not pushing for anything in particular, such as the text suggested by this IP, but Churchill was one of the most important figures of the 20th Century, and the article could use a great deal more detail. Milkunderwood (talk) 19:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Canadian Privy Council?

In the info box, it lists Winston Churchill as being a member of the Privy Council of Canada. Should this actually be the Privy Council of the United Kingdom, like at the start of the article? Conay (talk) 00:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

• No, this is correct. Churchill was made a member of the Canadian Privy Council in December 1941: see press coverage of the time here. At the time Canada was not completely independent from Great Britain (indeed, an ad on the same page refers to Churchil as being "Our Empire's great leader") the article furthermore states that special visitors were occasionally granted QPC membership. 70.72.223.215 (talk) 20:29, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Info Box nationality

does Honorary citizen of the United States deserve noting on the info box? Dave Rave (talk) 14:54, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

No the infobox is a summary of the more important stuff and being an honorary citizen is not that important. It is already mentioned in the main body of the article. MilborneOne (talk) 17:32, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Churchill Was Fine with Fascism?

Under the sub caption "The Casablanca Declaration" we find the following at the conclusion of the first paragraph: "In truth, Churchill was not committed to seeing the war through to Germany’s complete capitulation. Both the United States and England hoped to come to some accommodation with Germany, which would allow the German army to help fight off the Soviet takeover of Eastern Europe. It was perceived that Communist domination was an inevitable strategy of Soviet Russia. To Churchill and the other Allied leaders, the real obstacle to preventing a mutual accommodation with Germany was Adolf Hitler. Allen Dulles, the chief of OSS intelligence in Bern, Switzerland, maintained that the “Casablanca Declaration” was “merely a piece of paper to be scrapped without further ado if Germany would sue for peace. Hitler had to go.”[169]"

The citation "169" is to Sleeping with the Enemy by Hal Vaughan, a 2011 addition to the cottage industry of Coco Chanel Nazi collaboration books. The single page citation, 178 of the book, can be read on the Amazon "Look Inside" feature. It is a secondary source citation for the Alan Dulles quote. There is also a rather general discussion of alleged backchannel communication between unnamed allied officials and SS officers regarding cessation of hostilities. However, there is no mention that this would not require the unconditional surrender of Germany. Moreover, as a matter of history it is more important what actually happens after a peace agreement is signed, rather than a textual analysis of the agreement itself. See, for example, the Armistice concluding World War I and its aftermath as actually nothing but a prelude to World War II.

In any event, I do not think that there is any verification for this article's rewriting of history that Churchill was willing to accommodate fascist Germany and allow the war to conclude with an extant Nazi Germany, Coco Chanel notwithstanding. Da5id403 (talk) 18:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I absolutely agree - the statement in the article is nonsense. Milkunderwood (talk) 19:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Unconditional Surrender did evolve during the war - it wasn't the start position of the Allies during the pre-US intervention period - basically it was thrashed out when WSC went to Washington on his first visit after Pearl Harbor. There were some deliberations of course during the early part of the war and the famous Halifax urgings to negotiate, the strengthening of WSC's hand during the Blitzkrieg, Halifax's departure and all of that. I don't like the way that whole first para of the Casablanca section is written up though, it's basically a narrow POV piece as it stands and not well researched or broad. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The worst thing here is the in truth bit, as if someone can get in Churchill's head. At best, it is someone's view and should be presented as such. - BorisG (talk) 15:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

RE: "The Casablanca Declaration" The back-story to the rallying cry “unconditional surrender,” is a valid and vital issue whose revelations enrich the base of subject knowledge, but are unpalatable to those who feel more comfortable digesting accepted historical myths whole. In England, while sympathy with fascist ideology may not have been outwardly visible, this totalitarian form of government was certainly not vilified by many in the elite, ruling upper classes— social strata of which Churchill was a member. Of the two “isms” at the time, Communism and Fascism, many of power and privilege felt the most threatening menace to their way of life was not Nazi Germany but Soviet Russia. This is not fiction and has certainly been discussed in scholarly works, such as Anthony Julius’ “Trials of the Diaspora: A History of Anti-Semitism in England,” published by Oxford University Press. The deletion of referenced material concerning the “Casablanca Declaration,” amounts to subjective, selective censoring of information, an egregious practice too often found in the biographical entries of figures whose iconic status may be blemished. Disparagement of unpleasant truths in no way enhances intellectual enlightenment. Betempte (talk) 21:56, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Deceptive statue

The statue of Churchill in Parliament Square in London is on a bigger scale than the rest, making Churchill look taller and better built than he was. He seems to have been shorter than the average British man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.12.105 (talk) 11:46, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Churchill seems to have been shorter than his wife. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.12.105 (talk) 11:54, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

The site celebheights.com says Churchill was 5 foot 6 inches tall. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.134.88 (talk) 13:30, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

No reason why statues have to be the same size, Nelson Mandela's nearby is nine foot high when he was really 6 ft. MilborneOne (talk) 14:21, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

. . . paring the Armed Forces too heavily REF

REF given (#98) is James p 22 212 Robert Rhode James. Churchill: A Study in Failure. Pelican, 1973 needs looking up and amending the page number(s) for this reference. - User:Brenont (talk) 04:47, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Bad logic

Churchill wrote a book about the English-speaking peoples. He did not write a book about the Teutons or the whites. He was no logician. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.12.105 (talk) 11:43, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

English did not exist in 55 B.C. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.12.105 (talk) 11:57, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Churchill had better logic than most. English began with the Tower of Babel, but "English came to Britain in the form of Old English around the fifth century AD. The traditional account is that there was a great invasion of Angles and Saxons, but more likely there was a more gradual immigration of those and many other groups besides." [5] — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:22, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Infobox - First Lord of the Admiralty

I can't find any information about First Lord of the Admiralty in the infobox, have I missed something? Soerfm (talk) 11:42, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Alcoholic

There is one mention of alcohol in this article, the POV needs to be corrected. for a British subject is there a more reputable source than the BBC? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18249391 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4659128.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4587340.stm

Another source http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/2010/sep/02/prime-ministers-and-alcohol — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.36.44.4 (talk) 00:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

..

WC, Siege is on. CJEA misunderstood - playing to gallery,is deeply faithful. Need support. Rgds ASG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.203.124.149 (talk) 04:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Mrs. Everest

I read the first part of William Manchester's book about Churchill. Manchester talks about how important Mrs. Everest was to Churchill, really serving as his de facto mother. Because of this she had a large influence on Churchill's life (much of the child still being in the man) and it would be interesting to have more info. about her if possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.252.183.253 (talk) 17:55, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

to be or not to be... Jenny

Jenny Jerome, it says on this page. Later it mentions Jennie, which indeed is confirmed on Jennie's very own page. I don't think I can change it. Anyone? Kimimila58 (talk) 11:26, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done, although not sure that it didn't ought to be "Jeanette"? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:37, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

_{Surely a rose by any other name... was the more apt quote? Benea (talk) 19:56, 29 June 2012 (UTC)}

_{arhh, my favourite, Randeo and Juniette. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)}

Churchill's depression as his "black dog"

There are four references in this article to Churchill's thinking of his depression in terms of his "black dog." It should be noted that in British/Celtic folklore the "Black Dog" is a common, fearful apparition symbolizing decline and/or death and the article should link at these points to the article Black_dog_(ghost). There is a scholarly article relating depression and the Black Dog legend - "‘Black dog’ as a metaphor for depression: a brief history" by Paul Foley: http://www.blackdoginstitute.org.au/docs/Foley.pdf, and indeed the Black Dog Institute is named based on this linkage.64.131.137.189 (talk) 01:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Churchill's effect on Kurdistan, Ireland and the Welsh town of Llanelli

Why do the only mention of the population of Llanelli, the Kurds and the Irish not include his mass human atrocities? The Kurdish part is very short and doesn't sound like he tried to do hardly anything when he tried to commit genocide. The Irish part doesn't give him any share of the blame for the atrocities he caused in Ireland for his very senior part in the 'Black and Tans' attack on the IRA and civilian Irish population.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.0.62.79 (talk • contribs) 02:26, 31 August 2011

>>>This is true - also it states that he advocated (non-lethal) tear gas, neither of the sources cited for that line state that, instead quoting him as advocating "poisonous gas". Moreover, the Guardian article implies that the gas intended was (lethal and now banned under international law) mustard gas.

In addition, the actual page on the Tonypany massacre suggests that there is a debate over Churchill involvement, this page argues that he i unfaairly blamed for the massacre -- a bit more balance would be good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.90.103.236 (talk) 18:04, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Dardanelles

In 1915, he was one of the political and military engineers of the disastrous Gallipoli landings on the Dardanelles during the First World War.

It sems a rather puzzling omission not to include at least a brief summary of Churchill's festering argument with First Sea Lord Jacky Fisher over the Dardanelles campaign, which ultimately led to both their resignations and the formation of the coalition government. To say that Churchill "took much of the blame for the fiasco" also seems slightly disingenuous, since Churchill as the most enthusiastic backer in the cabinet of this scheme to force the Dardanelles with naval power alone indeed deserved most the the political blame for its failure.

Sca (talk) 13:23, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

With reference to this topic, I am copying back to the current discussion page the relevant part of an earlier post, now archived:

• [In his history of World War I] Churchill devotes an enormous amount of space discussing the Dardanelles and the Gallipoli fiasco throughout the entire book; it may be impossible to summarize his discussion for this article. I think essentially his point is that the Dardanelles plan was strategically sound for a number of reasons, but that because of the disagreements and vacillation both within the war cabinet and within the Admiralty itself, and the subsequent lack of coordination between the navy and army, its execution was fatally flawed.

It is not my understanding that the plan ever depended on a naval forcing of the Dardanelles alone, unsupported by the army. His argument was not only with Lord Fisher, but also with the Admirals leading the Mediterranean fleet, and their collective reluctance to risk ships at a time when the enemy was unprepared, until it was too late. Similarly, Kitchener did not sign on to the Gallipoli landing until long after the peninsula was well defended. The strategic importance of forcing the Dardanelles involved not only Russia and specifically Sevastopol, but the entire Black Sea and its neighboring states. Churchill argued that the possible loss of part of the fleet would be well worth having naval control of the Dardanelles at the outbreak of war. In his history Churchill is careful to always dutifully fall on his own sword, graciously accepting the blame that fell to him (he had also argued in favor of and strongly supported the creation of the coalition government, from which he was excluded), while at the same time making it clear that despite his best efforts he was unable to overcome the inertia and timidity of the Admiralty and the War Cabinet. All this is fully documented by his inclusion of his daily governmental memoranda in his text.

In WWII, when he was both PM and Defence minister, he kept urging his forces to accept risk, and to maintain contact with the enemy, to keep them off-balance. Essentially, in a gross oversimplification of both wars, his commanders kept telling him they were not yet at optimum strength, and his counterargument frequently was that the enemy was even less prepared - such as in North Africa, against Rommel. Milkunderwood (talk) 04:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm no expert, and history, like wine-making, generally is best left to the experts, but this seems contrary to the lengthy narrative in Massie's Castles of Steel, which I happen to be re-reading in my continuing capacity as an armchair historian.

According to Massie, the impetus for the Dardanelles campaign came from the Russian commander-in-chief, Grand Duke Nicholas, who in January 1915 appealed for a diversion to ease Turkish pressure on Russian forces in the Caucasus. Kitchener, however, said no land forces were available due to the intensity of the Western Front slaughter. Eventually, Churchill as First Lord convinced himself that naval power alone could force the Dardanelles, conquer Constantinople and topple the Turkish government, which had been maneuvered into war on the German side by the SMS Goeben exploit in the Black Sea.

Churchill presented his plan to the War Council on January 13, 1915, and "the idea caught on at once," Massie writes (p. 437 of paperback edition). Churchill's argument, Lloyd George said later, was delivered "with all the inexorable force and pertinacity, together with the mastery of detail he always commands when he is really interested in the subject. ... There was no opposition."

Fisher, however, was not convinced, and on January 25 "precipitated a crisis" when he tendered his resignation as First Sea Lord, saying, "I have no desire to continue a useless resistance in the War Council to plans [the Dardanelles plan] I cannot concur in." Fisher's resignation was deflected by Asquith on January 28, despite Fisher's written statement to the PM that he was "not in accord with the First Lord" (Churchill) regarding the Navy-alone Dardanelles scheme (p. 441).

Ultimately, after the failure of the Navy to "force" the Dardanelles, and the failure of the Army to conquer Gallipoli, Fisher and Churchill engaged in bitter recriminations that led to their almost simultaneous ouster. Fisher, in a letter to Churchill in mid-May, said he had "remained by you in the Dardanelles business to this last moment against the strongest conviction of my life." Fisher's resignation was accepted on May 22 and Churchill was removed from the Admiralty on May 25. At that point it appeared that Churchill's political career was doomed, but such was a premature conclusion.

• Massie, Robert Kinloch (2003). Castles of Steel: Britain Germany, and the Winning of the Great War at Sea. New York: Ballantine Books. ISBN 0-345-40878-0.

Sca (talk) 23:39, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Churchill is obviously not an impartial or disinterested commentator. But he does include the texts of his memoranda to Fisher, the two Mediterranean fleet commanders, Carden and De Robeck, the War Cabinet and its individual members, etc, and their notes and memoranda to him. I too am an armchair historian, at best, and it's been a while since I read The World Crisis. I am wrong about the navy not being proposed to act entirely alone; the initial plan, as fleshed out by Carden at Churchill's request, did not call for any supporting land forces. Subsequently the specifics of the plan underwent changes almost from day to day.

Also, this book is the 1931 one-volume abridgment, heavily revised, of what was originally four volumes written during the 1920s, which I have not seen. (The preface to this edition says "I have pruned ... some personal justifications which do not seem to me so important now as they did ten years ago." In other words he is pulling his punches here.)

Without quite saying so, he essentially blames the fleet admirals more than he does Fisher, for first agreeing and then refusing to risk any of their relatively obsolete ships; and he declined to override the judgment of his onsite commanders. (The First Sea Lord, not the First Lord, had authority to actually issue orders to the fleet.) Churchill was sure the Turks were lightly defended and had very little ammunition, and he turned out to have been correct on both counts. The basic problem with both Fisher and Kitchener was that neither was enthusiastic about Churchill's scheme, but vacillated, alternately blowing hot and cold; and both delayed taking action until its objectives could no longer be met without much greater difficulty. Then in the event, when it finally took place, there was very poor coordination between the army and navy.

I have not read Massie. Apparently Fisher was much more enthusiastic about a Baltic attack, and deprecated the Black Sea strategy, but felt pushed by Churchill. As I read the situation, Fisher would have done much better to have followed through on his first attempt to resign in January, or earlier, as soon as he found himself at odds with the First Lord, rather than reluctantly staying at his post. His resignation was rejected for political reasons, because he was so widely respected. Milkunderwood (talk) 13:03, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I concur in what you've said. Massie contends that the initial Dardanelles attack might have succeeded had it been continued beyond the first day, but Admiral John de Robeck was so "appalled" (p. 462) by losses -- two battle cruisers and one pre-dreadnaught battleship, along with the old French battleship Bouvet -- that he decided not to renew the battle the next day. However, the question of what forces would have occupied Constantinople had the straits been "forced" remains; apparently, this issue never had been thought through.

BTW, Castles of Steel is quite a good read, as is Massie's earlier Dreadnaught — if one is into that sort of thing.

Sca (talk) 14:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

All this brings us back to your original point, that "[t]o say that Churchill 'took much of the blame for the fiasco' also seems slightly disingenuous, since Churchill as the most enthusiastic backer in the cabinet of this scheme to force the Dardanelles with naval power alone indeed deserved most the the political blame for its failure." If Churchill's original plan was not intrinsically unsound, but was undone through vacillation and hesitation on the part of others - Fisher, Kitchener, de Robeck (not only in breaking off, but also his indecision and delay before beginning the attack) - Churchill was obviously a political liability in light of the fiasco, but I'm not sure how one gets from there to "deserved most of the ... blame for its failure". He never thought that no land forces would be needed to hold the peninsula. What actually occurred bore little resemblance to what - or when - he had initially urged. Milkunderwood (talk) 22:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

There's no reference to Constantinople (or Istanbul) in the index. Without going back and hunting through the book, my impression is that Churchill believed occupation of the straits and the peninsula would be sufficient to humiliate Turkey and force them out of the war. Milkunderwood (talk) 23:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, maybe so. A century later, the Fog of War lingers on. Sca (talk) 23:38, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

In a way, this also comes back to the silly discussion above, Churchill Was Fine with Fascism? Churchill had no interest in "conquering" Turkey - he was simply trying to peel off Germany's various allies, and get them out of the war. This was his same primary objective in WWII. It's true that he was always worried about the potential spread of Communism throughout Europe (and Britain), but otherwise he felt that the forms of government of other countries was their own business, so long as they did not harm Britain and her interests, or make war. He certainly did not approve of the Fascist governments of Spain, Italy, Germany, etc; but as long as they left Britain and British colonies, and her allies - primarily France - alone, he had no messianic urge to involve Britain in their affairs. Essentially he was a believer in what we would call realpolitik. I know Massie is a respected historian; I ought to read this and see how he treats Churchill's correspondence. Milkunderwood (talk) 01:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Let me clarify that I have immense admiration for Winston Churchill and his role vis a vis Hitler and all the Nazis stood for. Churchill, to my mind, was the leader of of the West against Hitler and his psychotic barbarism. Not only that, he seems to have been far more realistic than Roosevelt et al. re the aims of Stalin and the Soviet regime — although he came to this realization somewhat belatedly, particularly in the matter of Poland's postwar borders.

However, it's less clear to me what Churchill's (and indeed, Britain's) motivations or aims were in the First World War. It seems to me that he simply wanted Britain to win and Germany to lose, and didn't care much how that came about, or about how the war ended. Perhaps you have some information about Churchill's personal attitude toward the Versailles 'Treaty', which in my view was a starkly cynical attempt to permanently subjugate the Germans.

Thank goodness all that is in the past.

PS: On a lighter note, Arthur Balfour is alleged to have said, "Winston has written a book about himself and called it The World Crisis."

Sca (talk) 14:30, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

That Balfour quote is good - thanks. My library has this Massie, and his Dreadnought, plus Martin Gilbert's First World War and Churchill: A Life; and John Keegan's First World War. I've also been meaning to read The Guns of August for years now, never got around to it. But I'm a very slow reader, with little free time. World Crisis does have Churchill's discussion of the Polish borders, at some length - I'll try to post something from this on the talkpage here in the next few days. Nothing in that book about Versailles that I recall; but my general understanding has been that it was mostly French fears & Russian cynicism, to reduce Germany to a pre-industrial status. (Well, now I think I'm getting the two wars mixed up in my head - Stalin, de Gaulle, Marshall, etc, as opposed to Clemenceau etc. I am not a historian.) I'll see what I can find about Churchill's attitude about Versailles. It had never occurred to me that you might be denigrating the man or that I was defending him. I was just going from what he himself wrote contemporaneously day-to-day, in his memoranda; that's different from his after-the-fact musings and explanations. And you were just quoting Massie. I'll try looking at that one first. Milkunderwood (talk) 01:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I really am getting mixed up. I read his 6-volume WWII much more recently than The World Crisis, and of course the Polish question had to do with Stalin. Not to mention that given the 19th C and earlier history of Poland, they were lucky to have ended up with any country at all. I've stricken the stupid sentence above; will try to find something if I look in the correct book, which would help. Milkunderwood (talk) 05:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Churchill's WWII series indeed has a lot about Poland as discussed at Yalta and Potsdam. I can also recommend Meeting at Potsdam by Charles L. Mee Jr. (Evans & Co., 1975). And, if you are particularly interested in the issue of Poland's borders, I could email you a lengthy paper I wrote about that subject, B.I. (Before the Internet).

Re "lucky to end up with any country at all" — I once read exactly the same words applied to post-WWII Germany. This comment came, not surprisngly, from a Polish person, here on Wiki. Thank goodness all that is in the past, too.

Sca (talk) 14:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

To just pick up on a couple of your points Sca, re: WSC's Histories, they are well known to be self-serving at many points, sometimes counterfactual and often leaving a lot out. WSC is not trustworthy as a source on his bunfights with Fisher in WWI - he hated him and the feeling was mutual. On your other point, is it clear why Britain fought WWI, or what was WWI all about, you aren't the first person to wonder! There are a host of theories, ranging from dementia on the part of the Kaiser to fueding between the aristocratic families of the Great Powers to capitalist self-interest on the part of the arms manufacturers to bizarre misreadings of the chances of winning, etc, etc. Probably many of the young men who died in that war wondered exactly why they were fighting. However, the sources tend to agree that British popular opinion (however much this was the result of propaganda) remained firmly of the view that the UK was opposing German aggression and unprincipled expansionism, much as in WW2. It's interesting to note that many people saw WW2 as a continuation of WW1 with the same theme. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

(This is just a bump, to keep this conversation out of the claws of archiving bots. I've had almost no time for further reading since May, but this important issue doesn't seem settled.) Milkunderwood (talk) 07:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

The article appears to be somewhat damaged by the last edit ('signature' field was moved to the article head) - should someone fix the infobox? Thanks. -87.249.145.69 (talk) 18:30, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted the edit. I am not sure which part of the edit broke the infobox so it may be best for the change to be tested in a sandbox before being restored. Road Wizard (talk) 18:55, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you again. -87.249.145.69 (talk) 17:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

When civilization is in danger?

Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: Civilization is always in danger, said once Sir Winston Churchill, when those who have not learned to listen to get the right command. I would add that in the entire history of humanity, and that is the correct information, there were only 15 minutes without a single war on Earth. 78.2.62.75 (talk) 05:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a suggestion for specific change(s) to the article? Please note that this page is not a forum for general discussion of the subject. Thank you.--JayJasper (talk) 20:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Commemorate, not memorialise

Memorialise (even spelled with an 's' and not 'z') is not really British English. Please could someone change that word in the section on the foundation of Churchill College to commemorate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.78.164.8 (talk) 08:51, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Twain and...?

Don't know if it's worth any mention in either article, but a collection of speeches, etc. (posthumously published?) entitled Anti-Imperialist Essays by Mark Twain contains a brief one (perhaps transcribed from the event linked-to below) welcoming Churchill to the United States in 1900. (See also When Churchill met Twain ...) Schissel | Sound the Note! 20:51, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

property franchise

shouldn't there be a link for this and a article created on it.?--Patbahn (talk) 00:08, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

"I will not pretend that, if I had to choose between communism and Nazism, I would choose communism"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill#German_rearmament_and_conflicts_in_Europe

There is a partial quote in this section which is misleading. The source is a book I do not have immediate access to but the full text of this speech can be found in full on Hansard. I'd be interested to know if the book has the full quote or whether it uses the part quote.

---

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1937/apr/14/situation-at-bilbao#S5CV0322P0_19370414_HOC_371

Mr. Churchill: ... I refuse to become the partisan of either side. I will not pretend that, if I had to choose between Communism and Nazi-ism, I would choose Communism. I hope not to be called upon to survive in the world under a Government of either of those dispensations.

Mr. Maxton You would not.

Mr. Churchill: It is not a question of opposing Nazi-ism or Communism; it is a question of opposing tyranny in whatever form it presents itself; and, having a strong feeling in regard to the preservation of individual rights as against Governments, and as I do not find in either of these two Spanish factions which are at war any satisfactory guarantee that the ideas which I personally care about, ...<snip>..., would be preserved

---

I suggest the quote has the subsequent, and possibly preceding, sentence added or it should be completely removed. The selective quote transforms his opposition to tyranny and both factions of the Spanish Civil War into one which seems to show weak support for nazism.

It's not even about the nazi regime in Germany. It's a wry reflection on his long held, well known hatred of bolshevism and his opposition to both factions in the Spanish Civil War is transformed into weak support for a regime in a completely different country.

You can see he uses nazi as a synonym for fascist when he later says: "All you want now is that there shall not be a Nazi or a Fascist Spain."

Another interesting point is that he is the only person in that debate who used the word 'nazi'. Some later quotes by Churchill in that debate are relevant and revealing:

---

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1937/apr/14/situation-at-bilbao#S5CV0322P0_19370414_HOC_373

" One hon. Member said that the Government were prepared to support Fascism against democracy. I think he forgot that the struggle in Europe is not between Fascism and democracy but between Fascism and Communism, and we have no sympathy with either." ...snip... "I would make an appeal to all hon. Members, and that is to keep Spain in its right proportion in relation to the whole picture of foreign affairs. It is a disturbing, at times a dangerous, and always an important problem, but I would urge hon. Members to consider that it is only part of a very much bigger problem, and it sinks into a relatively minor place when it is related to the major problem of Germany and Central Europe. Spain should not be allowed to distract us too much and turn our attention away from these more difficult and more dangerous problems. There is the restless spirit of Nazism in Europe. The danger of a sudden attack on Czechoslovakia will be increased if we show signs of becoming involved in Spain, and it will diminish if we follow the wise and sane policy of non-intervention." ...<snip> "if we succeed in keeping the countries of Europe from intervening too deeply in the Spanish problem, then we shall disappoint the hopes of those who think that if we become involved we shall be too weak to play an effective part in other parts of the world"

---

It's 1937, he thinks the nazism is the real threat to Central Europe, he almost seems to be preparing to 'play an effective part' in an upcoming war somewhere yet his words from minutes earlier are being used to suggest he weakly supports them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.30.126.123 (talk) 17:55, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 November 2012

Please change the title of chart "Ancestors" to "Descendants" because ancestors refers to one's forebears so is incorrect here. Vburmester (talk) 01:56, 18 November 2012 (UTC)Victoria Burmester.

Not done: The chart is about Winston Churchill's ancestors, not his descendents. For example: Lady Randolph Churchill is his mother. RudolfRed (talk) 04:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request: Opposition Period - Europe

Whilst I know that this is a contentious subject for some people, this article misrepresents and omits Winston Churchill's involvement and support for pan-European integration. Examples include his seminal speech in Zurich in 1946, his joint leadership in the founding of the European Movement and his continued support for that organisation's aims, which included British participation in the development of pan-European integration.

Furthermore, the idea that Winston Churchill was not in favour of the UK being part of a united Europe is only correct to an extent. It is well documented that his position was that the UK could not make such a decision at the expense of its overseas colonies and dominions. His own words clarify his position, as illustrated in this quote from address at Kingsway Hall in London on 28 November 1949, stating "The British Government have rightly stated that they cannot commit this country to entering any European Union without the agreement of the other members of the British Commonwealth. We all agree with that statement. But no time must be lost in discussing the question with the Dominions and seeking to convince them that their interests as well as ours lie in a United Europe."

Given that the existing text of this article is inaccurate and does not reflect other articles on related subjects (for example the article on the European Movement), it should be edited accordingly.

Sean Schneider (talk) 13:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Truth will win out. The extent of 'joining' will also be important. TALK will be important. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:07, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 December 2012

The current text contains an obvious typo, in the last paragraph:

Current text:

On 29 November 1995, on a visit to the United Kingdom, President Bill Clinton of the United States announced to both Houses of Parliament that an Arleigh Burke class destroyer would be named the USS Winston S. Churchill (DDG-81). This was a ground-breaking honor as the ship was the first to be named after a non-citizen of the United States since 1995.

Proposed correction:

On 29 November 1995, on a visit to the United Kingdom, President Bill Clinton of the United States announced to both Houses of Parliament that an Arleigh Burke class destroyer would be named the USS Winston S. Churchill (DDG-81). This was a ground-breaking honor as the ship was the first to be named after a non-citizen of the United States since 1975.

The date 1995 is obviously impossible; correction based on the article/link cited above. Not independently researched.

208.106.103.170 (talk) 10:31, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Done - with this edit. Thank you for pointing that out Begoon ^talk 11:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Had he not been an Honorary citizen of the United States since the 1960s! rather than a non-citizen. MilborneOne (talk) 11:16, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

That may well be a fair point. I was just fixing the typo per the edit request, but I did remove some text about it being a "ground breaking honour" and noted in my edit summary that I wasn't sure how appropriate it was in that section - first one for 20 years, well... ok...? How many warships did they name overall in 20 years? I don't know. - I'll leave it to regular editors of this article to decide, I think. Note that there is similar text in the article on the ship if y'all decide to alter/remove it... You can count me as in favour of removal from here if that helps. Begoon ^talk 11:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Mistake in Churchill bio.

Your article on Winston Churchill says he was the first British prime minister to win the Nobel prize for literature - true.

It further states he was the first person to be made an honorary American citizen - NOT TRUE!

He was second; the first, and only other to my knowledge, was Lafayette, for help in American Revolution.

Please fix this mistake.

Thanks, avid reader

173.13.95.33 (talk) 20:48, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The Lafayette article says he was made an honourary citizen of the US in 2002. Best. --E4024 (talk) 20:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Churchill praising Hitler?

Currently the article quotes Churchill as writing of Hitler (in The Times)

Were England to suffer a national disaster I should pray to God to send a man of the strength of mind and will of Adolf Hitler.

and it's not terribly well-sourced. I watched the film Judgment at Nuremberg last night and this is a quotation from that film. Searching for these words turns up no hits from my library services and fewer than I'd expect from Google. Could it be that the mentions of this in RL are "leakage" from the film? Does anybody know more? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd say that this quote appears to be bogus and should go. Unless someone objects in the next few days, I will take it out. - BorisG (talk) 10:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Churchill Killed 5 million Bengali Peasants and was the First Mass Murderer to be Given a Nobel Prize.

Of course the Nobel Committee outdid itself when it gave a Nobel Peace Prize to Henry Kissinger. A serial killer, like Theodore Bundy, is one who kills a lot of people, but kills them one at a time. A mass murderer, like Charles Whitman, is one who kills a lot of people in a single homicidal episode. Henry Kissinger was awarded the peace prize for having been what might be called serial mass murderer.

Please focus on Churchill, please. No movies have ever been made about mass murdered Bengali peasants, so what is the point? --41.150.50.239 (talk) 16:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I also think you need to look up the term Murder before making accusations... LameCat (talk) 19:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

not murder, but a man made famine.68.151.54.38 (talk) 04:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Mistake in Image Caption

Picture with Churchill showing the "V-sign": it seems the date given is wrong, should be June 43, not May 40. Greetings, 83.77.68.180 (talk) 23:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I added the text about 'just ten days after -etc' - it just seemed a good place in the article and good image to add those words to the photo - it wasnt meant to imply the photo was taken at that exact moment - if its confusing , maybe the words should be deleted , but to me its just an iconic PM image and then a brief statement about the situation facing him soon after he became PM .Sayerslle (talk) 17:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

You are right, the caption doesn't really say that the picture was taken on May 20 1940. Not a big deal. Still, it's a bit confusing and it would maybe be better to have a different picture at this place in the article. (For one thing I think this V-sign came only later and anyway Churchill at that time stood more for grim determination than for victory, no?) Again, it's not that important, but I found it a bit confusing. Greetings, 62.203.212.193 (talk) 19:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Lead image

I recently changed the lead image in the infobox and was asked by User:Milkunderwood to revert because the previous one is "evocative of his character" and the newer one is uglier. Instead, I would like to take a poll and find a better image. Here are the candidates (please add to the list if there is one you prefer more):

• 
  1. Sir Winston S Churchill.jpg
• 
  2. Winston Churchill cph.3b12010.jpg
• 
  3. Winston Churchill cph.3a49758.jpg
• 
  4. Winston Churchill cph.3b13157.jpg
• 
  5. Churchill HU 90973.jpg
• 
  6. Churchill portrait NYP 45063 edit1.jpg

Unfortunately, it appears there are only a few of him from the war years that would be suitable. My objection to #1 is that the photo is taken from a low angle and the camera is looking up him. #2, #3, and #4 are all from the same sitting by the same photographer. If #2 and #3 are no good, then my preference would be for #6. I would appreciate input from others. Thanks. —howcheng {chat} 17:17, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your helpful response. My own feeling would be #1, #5, or possibly #6, in that sequence, and not #2, #3 or #4 at all. (His best photo is the famous 1941 Yousuf Karsh [6], which may be non-free, but is under discussion.) In any event, #3 would be far preferable to #2, which is the worst of the lot. Milkunderwood (talk) 20:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I have to say I do not share your concern about whether he is looking at the camera. By "evocative of his character", I think Photo #1 displays his grit and determination to save Britain from Nazism, and to defeat Hitler. Milkunderwood (talk) 20:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, here an external, unqualified opinion: me too, I think I prefer the previous picture (#1, that is). The new one looks more like an artistic (and rather too personal) portrait. Greetings, 83.79.183.142 (talk) 20:36, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm in favour of the lead image used currently, i.e. 2. It's an official portrait, he's looking at the camera, and it seems entirely evocative of grit, determination and other Churchillian characteristics. 1 or 5 would be among the worst to use. 2 is the type of image that I recall having seen in biographies and similar books when an official image of Churchill is wanted. Benea (talk) 05:36, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

It seems #2 or #3 are the most straightforward, official, neutral, and appropriate for an article lead. Certainly #1 is the best shot, but it is slightly too fawning for the lead. My measure of "fawning" is this: I wouldn't think it appropriate for the lead photo of, say, Tony Blair or Lyndon Johnson or insert-other-arguably-less-popular-statesman-here to look like that. SamuelRiv (talk) 20:16, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 March 2013

DELETE THIS in para 4: ... when Britain stood alone in its active opposition to Adolf Hitler.

REPLACE IT WITH: ... when Britain stood alone among European countries in its active opposition to Adolf Hitler. OR WITH: ... when Britain, though backed by Commonwealth countries and colonies, stood alone in Europe in its active opposition to Adolf Hitler.

WHY? BECAUSE, though the notion that "Britain stood alone" is endlessly repeated, it is false: all the Dominions (and, notably, India) declared war almost when Britain did; and (notably Canada) were doing what they could to aid it. NO SOURCES NEEDED FOR THAT, I'D THINK 86.138.133.188 (talk) 09:53, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done - Camyoung54 talk 15:10, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Section 4.1 "Winston is back"

Is there concrete evidence--eg from Admiralty records, not WSC's notoriously questionable say-so, let alone Googled repetitions--that the Board of Admiralty did in fact send out the signal "Winston is back" ?? 86.138.133.188 (talk) 10:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Void

The stormy relationship with the general de Gaulle are missing and should be added. Skiff (talk) 18:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Winston Churchill as a painter

Could you be so kind to refer to his works with a link to the BBC page 'Your Paintings' for example http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/yourpaintings/artists/winston-spencer-churchill/paintings/slideshow#/1 :: I do not know if this site is authorised to show in Wikipedia, but it gives a profound overview of his paintings. --JjOhNn KkONiNgSs (talk) 12:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Eugenics

The article deserves some section on Churchill and his view on Eugenics — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.16.113.3 (talk) 15:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Why? Did it inform his career or affect his life in some major way? Is it an important part of his historical legacy? Ray^Talk 22:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Opinions of eugenics colored the moralistic motivations for fighting WW2, and the actions of pro-German movements in Allied countries. So yes, it is a relevant issue and warrants mentioning as a political opinion if sourced. Of course, the article shouldn't speculate as to whether it affected his actions. The raw opinion needs mentioning though. SamuelRiv (talk) 17:47, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Overcategorization

This article seems to operating in blithe defiance of Wikipedia:Overcategorization, a content guideline. I propose that we chop a lot of the categories, banishing them to the appropriate sub-articles (such as, say, the military decorations to Honours of Winston Churchill. Thoughts? Ray^Talk 01:34, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

First World War and the Post War Coalition

There are a couple of problems with this section: the Antwerp expedition and the development of the tank.

Antwerp: R.R. James's theory about saving the Channel ports is widely disputed. Antwerp was a sideshow while the main German advance was towards Paris, in accordance with the Schlieffen Plan. At that stage Germany had no interest in the ports. Churchill also claims that the expedition was not his decision but Kitchener's, and some authors hold that Churchill embroidered this episode to absolve himself from blame for the losses in men and equipment.

Indeed, and even if it did save Calais and Dunkirk it was very much an unintended consequence. After the Marne/Aisne in early September the Allies thought the war was won - at First Ypres (October - some of Rawlinson's force from Antwerp fought there) the Allies were trying to turn the German west flank, and the size of the German attack astonished them completely.MissingMia (talk) 14:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The tank: This account appears in another Churchill article, and contains several small inaccuracies. Churchill funded the Landships Committee out of the Navy Budget, not "research funds." He didn't "head" the Committee, but formed it; its Chairman was Eustace d'Eyncourt, and it reported to Churchill, but he was not a member. The Committee was formed before any demonstrations to Lloyd George or anyone else. The Committee developed the (arguably) first tank, not the first tank corps. The tank was not seen as as misappropriation of funds. Its development was kept secret for some time, in case it be thought a waste of money, but it was given official support at the highest level from February 1916. The cited website is highly inaccurate, and, in my view, not a suitable source. Hengistmate (talk) 15:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Speech Impediment.

I think I'm right in saying that Churchill's lisp was of the "lateral" (aka "bilateral") type, rather than the "interdental". Anyone confirm? Hengistmate (talk) 08:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 April 2013

After his stroke, Churchill suffered from a speech impairment called Aphasia. (I think it is important to state the disorder is called Aphasia because there is not enough awareness about this speech and language communication disorder.) http://books.google.com/books?id=hnpyXF7X-h4C&pg=PA52&lpg=PA52&dq=winston+churchill+had+aphasia+sarno+1991&source=bl&ots=5MQ-_ZoCrA&sig=aNduLurb4pic8RcDVWw_qDYdiEA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=EFh4UYfPCKPOiwLQoICQCw&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=winston%20churchill%20had%20aphasia%20sarno%201991&f=false 169.229.13.72 (talk) 22:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The source you cite does not support this change. The passage I see says "newspapers reported that Winston Churchill had suffered a cerebrovascular accident" and mentions nothing directly stating that Churchill suffered from aphasia. --ElHef (Meep?) 02:40, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Westernized, Imperialist-neutral Discourse and Downplayed Bloodlust

The entire article is appallingly and routinely westernized and imperialist-neutral (of an almost literary nature - Churchill's honey moon spot gains equal status as his vicarious bloodlust concerning Indian independence) through the descriptions of his pre-war career and the praising introductory paragraph - one wonders how his "achievements" would be differently amplified if they were to interchange with, say, Stalin's? Would his bloodlust, view on Gandhi, love for British imperialism in general, and his approving the notion of gassing "uncivilized tribes" be differently prioritized and amplified? The answer to that question makes me cringe by the hypocrisy. The status of the current article aligns perfectly with the twisted and one-sided common view of Churchill by the British people (see how Stalin's westernized article's deems him "a tyrant" (by the centralized Western view?) and having mixed opinions "within the Russian Federation" - no mention of the poll with over 50 million participants establishing him as the 3rd greatest Russian in history, something that would be in the introductory paragraph had he been an American President - you notice how such a poll is included in Churchill's article neatly before stating his greatness).

I'm merely using Stalin as an example because of how striking the differences are in using and twisting angles based on which side of the Iron Curtain they circuited. Wikipedia is supposed to be politically neutral but aligns with the overarching Western political mindset, a hypocrisy not so easily noticeable.

I deem Churchill's war-mongering and hate for Gandhi and his cause (e.g. his almost sociopathic lack of empathy with the famine-struck people) on the whole significant enough to be included in the opening paragraph. What do you think? Revan (talk) 17:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest you read through the talk page archives for previous discussions on this matter. MilborneOne (talk) 10:29, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Revan, I am Russian, and I find your comparison of Churchill and Stalin prepostorous. But this is not about your or my opinion. Nor this is a popularity contest. If you think some significant facts about Churchill are missing, you can include them (with proper sources etc.). If there is something you would like to include in the lead, I suggest you propose the exact sentence here. Just complaining about bias is not very constructive. - BorisG (talk) 17:18, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

"Just complaining"? I was making a suggestion on top of my discontent with the article. The current status of the article shows that the previous discussions didn't go anywhere, so I won't waste my time. Neither do I care if you're a Russian on Churchill's side - I wasn't making a comparison, you clearly missed the point.

In order for you to meet a suggestion instead of meeting my opinion with scorn: words to be included in the lead: Churchill's imperialistic ambitions and his oppositions to and scorn of Gandhi. Revan (talk) 11:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

On top of that, I think this requires a mention: http://barnesreview.org/pdf/TBR2010-no5-4-13.pdf Revan (talk) 13:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Emphatically not. According to our article on the Barnes Review, it is a publication dedicated to Holocaust denialism and similarly outlandish forms of historical revisionism. That would make it a non-neutral source of highly dubious reliability. Ray^Talk 21:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 July 2013

For readers from the continent at least, it is strange that there is no mention of Churchill's role in giving an impulse to post-war European integration, notably his Metz and Zurich speeches in 1946, his role at the Hague Congress of the European Movement in 1948 and his speeches in Strasbourg at the Council of Europe (with a change in his position regarding Britain's involvement). May I suggest the following?

"While in opposition, Churchill helped launch the idea of European integration. In a speech in Zurich in 1946, he declared that "We must build a kind of United States of Europe" and that "the first practical step would be to form a Council of Europe". Initially, he envisaged this taking place without Britain which, with America and the Commonwealth, would simply be "the friends and sponsors of the new Europe". But he later took the view that the creation of a united Europe would include Britain. He lent his considerable personal prestige to the Hague Congress of the European Movement in 1948, where he called for the then 16 democratic European countries, "including Great Britain, linked with her Empire and Commonwealth", to start building Europe. In 1949, he spoke at the new Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe saying "we are engaged in the process of creating a European unit in the world" and in 1950, he used the same platform to call for "the immediate creation of a unified European army, subject to proper European democratic control and acting in full cooperation with the USA and Canada" - the UK of course part of it. His role in this is commemorated by the naming of one of the European Parliament's buildings in Strasbourg after him."

I'm not familiar with your procedures, but if need be I can be reached on richard.corbett@european-council.europa.eu

it would be better if you found references to his speeches. 66.185.212.81 (talk) 15:46, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

91.194.202.200 (talk) 16:09, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 03:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 August 2013

A History of the English-Speaking Peoples; a four-volume history covering the period from Caesar's invasions of Britain (55 BC) to the beginning of the First World War (1914).

132.250.22.5 (talk) 03:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC) A History of the English-Speaking Peoples; a four-volume history covering the period from Caesar's invasions of Britain (55 BC) to the death of Queen Victoria (1901).

Not done: Please express the change you want to make in a 'please change X to Y' degree of detail. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 03:57, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

historical inaccuracies of this article

the vote of credit to begin the war with germany occurred on 1 september, not on 3 september.

the lords were NOT silent on the appointment of Churchill as PM, as can be seen in the Hansard 13 may 1940.

it does no one any good to continue to report such inaccuracies, even if supported by common (and that term is used advisedly) history books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.185.212.81 (talk) 15:40, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Would it not have been a good idea to provide a source so "inaccuracies" could be reviewed? Otr500 (talk) 17:04, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

thanks for your reply, Otr500. Please see List of MPs elected in the United Kingdom general election, 1935 , 'history' section (at the bottom) for references to hansard. 69.60.245.100 (talk) 15:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

It would have been easier to provide the reference here as you only added it a few days ago, I cant see anything about starting a war in the ref you point out, it clearly says and the efficient prosecution of any war in which His Majesty may be engaged and for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community and as far as I know "may be engaged" is not the start of the war. I will change the other article as it is misleading. MilborneOne (talk) 20:58, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that was the enactment of additional emergency powers, the act of which had been passed on 24th August. Emergency Powers (Defence) Act 1939 Financial and resource measures. Irondome (talk) 21:10, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Thanks for the eagle eye, MilborneOne, with which you removed the defect in my understanding. It was indeed at nine am, 3 sept 1939 that the deadline to cease fire went unobserved by Germany. I have changed the other page to reflect this situation, and thank all contributors for their patience and assistance.

As for the other point about 'the silence of the lords', I believe that the historical record shows that the lords were indeed loquacious on 13 may, and what is more, UNANIMOUSLY supported the new government (search for "nemine contradicente"). The passage is false that reads

Churchill probably could not have won a majority in any of the political parties in the House of Commons, and the House of Lords was completely silent when it learned of his appointment.

and this reader proposes that some senior wikipedian should correct the unfortunate inaccuracy on the Winston Churchill page.69.60.245.100 (talk) 06:02, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Alcoholic

Why does the article not refer to Churchill's notorious alcoholism at all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.158.157.132 (talk) 10:42, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Hanborough not Handborough

Please change Handborough to Hanborough Arryharrington (talk) 15:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. --Stfg (talk) 15:53, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Winston Churchill/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This article is currently at the top of the Good Article cleanup list by tags, and so I am starting a good article reassessment. Here are the initial issues that I found in a quick sweep:

• First, tags:
  • References needed banner in Ancestors section
  • Cleanup banner in External links section
  • Three citation needed tags scattered through the article
  • Nine tagged dead links
• There are numerous other unreferenced areas in the article, including opinions and at least one quote.
• Google books should not be listed as the publisher of a book, it's merely the archiving service - see refs #18 and 219-221, for instance.
• Text shouldn't be sandwiched between images.
• There are a lot of one- and two-sentence paragraphs, which make the article read very choppily. This is a more minor issue, though.
• "It has been claimed that the young Churchill first developed" - claimed by who?
• Check for American spellings - I see "organization", "program"

These are the biggest issues, when/if they are addressed I'll take another swing through. Let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 01:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Dropped by and have done some tidying of the references: standardised on last/first format, fixed some dead links, google books replaced by publisher, depreciated parameters replaced. I have also handled the American spellings that you pointed out. I would suggest that the short form references be switched to Havard type linkage for ease of use at some point in the future. Hopefully some of the regular editors of the article can fix the textural points that you have raised and supply the missing references. Keith D (talk) 17:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Nick-D

I have the following comments on the coverage of Churchill's first term as PM:

• "it became clear that, following failure in Norway, the country had no confidence in Chamberlain's prosecution of the war and so Chamberlain resigned" - the views of "the country" (whatever that means) are irrelevant: he resigned as he'd lost the confidence of the MPs in his party (who are the people who actually decide who the PM is)
• "Churchill was still unpopular among many Conservatives and the Establishment" - and hugely unpopular among many on the left
• "By refusing an armistice with Germany, Churchill kept resistance alive in the British Empire and created the basis for the later Allied counter-attacks of 1942–45, with Britain serving as a platform for the supply of the Soviet Union and the liberation of Western Europe." - seems rather simplistic
• "It was Beaverbrook's business acumen that allowed Britain to quickly gear up aircraft production and engineering, which eventually made the difference in the war." - highly dubious: you can't expand plant space that quickly. Beaverbrook is generally considered a success, but he inherited an expanding and competent industry.
• Much of the material in the 'Relations with the United States' section has nothing to do with this topic
• The coverage of Churchill's role in the Dresden bombing is massively over-long, especially as the article doesn't cover his role in the overall bombing campaign against Germany (which accounted for something like a quarter of total British expenditure on the war).
• The article presents a ridiculously positive view of Churchill's performance as war leader. There's nothing at all on the fall of Malaya and Singapore or the Burmese campaign, nor the Greek campaign and Churchill's foolish obsession with finding a "soft underbelly" to the German empire (which led to several campaigns of doubtful value).
• The article also doesn't discuss the development of the post-war program during the war (which was widely seen as lacklustre, hence the massive swing to Labour which was seen as having much better ideas), or the fact that Churchill was leading a government of national unity which included Labour ministers in senior positions.
• The material on Churchill's The Second World War should note that much of it was actually researched and written by a team of military officers and historians (see David Reynolds' excellent book In Command of History). Nick-D (talk) 05:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as the majority of the comments above have not been addressed, I am removing this article's GA status. Keith D, I truly appreciate your work, as it made the existing refs far better, but the cleanup banners and unreferenced areas continue to be a problem. Dana boomer (talk) 23:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I must say that I am disappointed by the absence on any editing by regular editors of this article. Without any sources I could not do any of the work in that area. Keith D (talk) 01:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)