Talk:Winston Churchill/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Areas of concern

Would someone look at content in the 4th and 5th paragraph of the Churchill as artist, historian, and writer section? In question is wording in the following paragraph: "From his first book in 1898 until his second stint as Prime Minister, Churchill's income was almost entirely made from writing books...". The beginning of the next paragraph: "Churchill was also a prolific writer of books..." It seems to me that someone that almost entirely makes his living writing books would most likely be considered a prolific (Producing many works) writer. He was a writer (author) of books but 'also' a prolific writer of books! I do not think simply removing the word "also" (which certainly is not necessary) would be an appropriate correction. Content concerning his "writings" are also covered in the Military service section, "His writings brought him to the attention of the public, and earned him significant additional income. He acted as a war correspondent for several London newspapers[34] and wrote his own books about the campaigns.

• Suggestion:

From being a war correspondent in 1895, and first book in 1898, until his second stint as Prime Minister, Churchill's income was almost entirely made from writing books and opinion pieces for newspapers and magazines. The most famous of his newspaper articles are those that appeared in the Evening Standard from 1936, warning of the rise of Hitler and the danger of the policy of appeasement. Churchill wrote a novel, two biographies, three volumes of memoirs, and several histories, in addition to his many newspaper articles. Otr500 (talk) 02:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Otr500: did he not derive an income from his activities as MP? 66.185.212.81 (talk) 15:43, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

MPs didn't earn a great deal in those days; indeed it's only been within the last generation or so that MPs have come to be well-paid (and it's now a full-time 9-5 job, which it never used to be). In Churchill's day MPs, if they were not wealthy, needed other sources of income (practising as barristers, trade union sponsorship etc). Churchill lost a good deal of money in the Wall Street Crash of 1929 and whilst out of office in the 1930s he relied on a large income from journalism, much of it trash and ghosted under his byline, to pay for the costs of Chartwell and of keeping his tribe of young adult children. One of the reasons Clementine was so irritated by his "Life of Marlborough" writing project was that it was eating into his journalism income. After WW2 he became a rich man from his "Second World War" and Chartwell had by then been bought for him by a rich admirer.Paulturtle (talk) 21:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Further to the above, according to an article in the newspaper today, MPs were not paid at all before 1911. Between then and 1937 they were paid an annual "allowance" (not salary) of £400 - between £20,000 and £30,000 at today's prices (although worth more relative to everybody else at the time as standards of living were lower then). There were no expenses to cover travel or employing a secretary (although the volume of casework was vastly less than today) until 1971. Ministers earned more than today, though - Neville Chamberlain's salary as PM was £10,000 (about £500,000 in today's money). So Churchill would have been dependent on his writing income before 1905 and in the 1930s.Paulturtle (talk) 23:30, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

And further further, whilst researching something else today I stumbled across a good discussion of Churchill's finances in the appendix to Peter Clarke's recent book on his writing career. Taxes went up sharply in World War One. Most of his receipts from "The World Crisis" came in as a lump in the early 1920s, but under tax law at the time he was able to spread the tax liability over three years - having already spent the money (he was heavily in debt at the time). His financial worries thus began with tax demands in the late 1920s just before the ten-year hiatus in his ministerial career. Although Peter Clarke is an excellent historian, I don't own the book - I'll buy a used copy on Amazon for 10p in a few years' time, so if somebody else owns it and wants to add the information, feel free.Paulturtle (talk) 22:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

correction of Churchill's nanny's name

Churchills nannys name was not Everest But Elizabeth A Everett, This can be verified by checking the 1891 census

CHURCHILL, Lady Randolph Wife Married F 37 1854 Brooklyn, Us VIEW JEROME, Leonard Mother In Law Widow F 63 1828 Rochester, U S VIEW CHURCHILL, Winston L Son Single M 16 1875 Scholar Woodstock, Oxfordshire VIEW CHURCHILL, Jack Strange Son M 11 1880 Scholar Dublin, Phonix Park VIEW PAICE, Susan Servant Single F 33 1858 Ladys Maid Domestic Servant Egham, Surrey VIEW EVERETT, Elizabeth A Servant Single F 59 1832 Nurse Domestic Servant Chartham, Kent VIEW EDWARDS, Annie Servant Single F 23 1868 Kitchenmaid Domestic Servant Kennington, Middlesex VIEW WILLIAMS, Mary A Servant Single F 29 1862 Housemaid Domestic Servant Tombers Combe, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allandjo (talk • contribs) 15:38, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2014

He died in 1965, not 1955.

Mnby4as3 (talk) 18:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Nowhere in the article says he died in 1955. Can you be more clearer. -- [[ axg // ✉ ]] 18:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Lead Needs Balanced POV

Perhaps include a reference to the more controversial aspects to Churchill's character in the lead - some of his more nightmarish peace time policies such as the handling of the 1925 Gold Standard debate and his advocacy to crush an Iraqi revolt with chemical weapons in 1920. The article overwhelmingly buys into the Churchill war hero narrative, and the reader would benefit from hearing about his failure in Gallipoli, the calamitous return to the gold standard, his ruling-class thuggery against the labor movement, his diehard imperialism over India, and his pre-war sympathy for fascism.

Potential references: Christopher Hitchens:(POV but useful) http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2002/04/the-medals-of-his-defeats/306061/ Henry Pelling: http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198206262.001.0001/acprof-9780198206262-chapter-8 General information about his comments towards Attle...

Just something to think about, other than that I liked the article. KingHiggins (talk) 19:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Bengal famine of 1943

No proper reference to Churchill's role in the Bengal famine of 1943. In question is the following sentance, "Another source of controversy about Churchill's attitude towards Indian affairs arises over what some historians term the Indian 'nationalist approach' to the Bengal famine of 1943, which has sought to place significant blame on Churchill's wartime government for the excessive mortality of up to four million people." The author of the article has not stated the facts about Churchill's involvement in the famine and made the issue sound like a mere controversy with little truth behind it.

SUGGESTION: Adding the following fact "By August 1943 Churchill refused to release shipping to send food to India". Considering the high death toll of the famine, Churchill's role no matter how small or controversial needs to be clarified further.Diwan07 (talk) 12:18, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

RAF Bomber Command

No reference to Churchill's order to bomb Berlin. Quoting from RAF Bomber Command,"The Bomber Command was also indirectly responsible, in part at least, for the switch of Luftwaffe attention away from Fighter Command to bombing civilian targets. A German bomber on a raid got lost due to poor navigation and bombed London. Churchill consequently ordered a retaliatory raid on the German capital of Berlin. The damage caused was minor, but the raid sent Hitler into a rage. He ordered the Luftwaffe to level British cities, thus precipitating the Blitz." Diwan07 (talk) 12:18, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Attack on Mers-el-Kébir

No reference to the Attack on Mers-el-Kébir. Churchill's decision was a pivotal point in the war for the act demonstrated to the world and to the United States in particular, Britain's commitment to continue the war with Germany at all costs and without allies if need be. Diwan07 (talk) 12:18, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Conclusion

By avoiding several issues as stated above, the end result is that the article no longer is written in a neutral point of view. Several core issues during Churchill's tenure such as his views toward eugenics and racist beliefs been downplayed while Churchill's accomplishments have been highlighted with references to his popularity and even being called a national hero. After reading the subtly biased article, I conclude with irony - 'History will judge us kindly', Churchill told Roosevelt and Stalin at the Tehran Conference in 1943; when asked how he could be so sure, he responded: 'because I shall write the history' Diwan07 (talk) 12:18, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2014

70.48.218.31 (talk) 15:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC) At the begining of the winston Churchill article it says Britain was alone?As a Canadian and Grandson of two Veterns of D day!!!!!!!I am Angry at this!Canada was there from the begining and we where a great military power then, maybe not on the scale of the US or the other great powers but we were definetly significant enough to mention!Thank you

Cant actually see any request for a change to the article being angry is not actually an edit request. If you are aware of this history of the conflict you need to read Churchill's speech in context I have, myself, full confidence that if all do their duty, if nothing is neglected, and if the best arrangements are made, as they are being made, we shall prove ourselves once more able to defend our island home, to ride out the storm of war, and to outlive the menace of tyranny, if necessary for years, if necessary alone. At any rate, that is what we are going to try to do. That is the resolve of His Majesty's Government – every man of them. That is the will of Parliament and the nation. The British Empire and the French Republic, linked together in their cause and in their need, will defend to the death their native soil, aiding each other like good comrades to the utmost of their strength. as far as I am aware Canada gets a mention under "British Empire". MilborneOne (talk) 18:40, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Churchill and the Bomber Command area bombing offensive

I propose a new section on Churchill and the RAF Bomber Command area bombing offensive. This is perhaps one of the areas Churchill`s war (and his about face in attitude after it) that is least well known, and I have to say, most shameful.
During the war Churchill was one of the foremost proponents of the area bombing offensive against Germany, in fact a huge (arguably the largest) proportion of the British war effort was directed towards this strategic bomber offensive. Yet after the war Churchill tried hard to distance himself from it. I have the abridged copy his Memoirs of the Second World war War and using the index the Strategic Bombing offensive has just one paragraph, and most of that is concerned with support of the Allied (land) offensive up to and after D Day. Dresden is mentioned just once and that only to do with the direction of possible Russian offensives, not the infamous air raid ! There is no index reference to Area Bombing, or Bombing Command, or even the Lancaster, despite there being many index references to the Spitfire and Hurricane ! Most surprising, Harris (Bomber Harris) isn`t even in the index, the latter is very comprehensive and includes anyone who Churchill came across even in passing. Harris isn`t mentioned despite him being one of the most important of the war leaders who actually dined at Downing St regularly ! Does anyone know how many references to the Bomber Command/Harris in the full edition ? Even if there is I`d have thought what was in the far more widely read abridged version was of more significance.
I don`t consider the existing section on Dresden sufficiently covers the Churchill`s attitude to the Bomber Command offensive throughout the war and after it.
Has anyone any thoughts ?--JustinSmith (talk) 14:02, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

This seems to suggest that it was an American response to a Soviet request. Statistics in that subsection seem to confirm that there was heavy American involvement, and maybe even (from the West's pov), an American idea. So maybe not Churchill? Student7 (talk) 20:59, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Just read article. Seems a bit heavy on Dresden, considering. I think that the Allies were running out of military targets about then. The idea was to end the war before the Germans invented an atomic weapon or something similarly nasty. In other words, "bomb anything and everything until they stop fighting." Also, after the bombing of London and Coventry, the British public was probably not in a generous mood. Attributing this to one individual seems a bit much, considering the weight of evidence. Student7 (talk) 21:04, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Another example of historical revision that seems endemic on Wikipedia. 81.110.28.183 (talk) 14:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

It`s not "historical revision", Churchill`s change in attitude (after the war) to BC`s area offensive was well known at the time, not least by the BC crews themselves. I can remember being shocked at the lack of references (i.e. virtually none) to the BC offensive when I read Churchill`s WWII memoirs, and even more so when I read Hastings` book on BC which went into just how enthusiastic Churchill was for the area offensive during the war itself..--JustinSmith (talk) 17:01, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

The RAF had been bombing Germany for months before the Blitz started. (92.11.194.129 (talk) 19:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC))

I agree, the issue certainly deserves a mention in the article. No enough emphasis has been placed on 'war crimes' and 'victors justice'. If Churchill is attributed as one of the greatest wartime leaders who lead britan and her allies to victory, he is also responsible for the the lengths britan took to end the war. The article is glorifying Churchill, glorifying Britans victory with no mention to the cost of millions of innocent civilian lives. When we look back in history, the world war is nothing for humanity to be proud of. Human life is precious, killing in the name of country or religion serve to remind us that we're still growing as a civilisation. While the article is neutral most of the time, it deviates in certain areas by encouraging nationalist feelings in subtle undertones. Diwan07 (talk) 06:47, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

First Lord of the Admiralty misplaced?

Just bringing this to the attention of regular editors, but it seems to me that the section First Lord of the Admiralty is misplaced where it is, in his military career. The First Lord is a political post, not a military one - shouldn't it be in the political career section? PiCo (talk) 01:59, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Destroyed the UK

Should the article mention that Churchill destroyed the British Empire, and also the UK as a world power? (92.11.200.15 (talk) 10:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC))

Seems an unlikely claim have you any reliable references ? MilborneOne (talk) 12:22, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

World War II turned the UK into an American satellite, as the Suez Crisis proved. By declaring war on Germany in 1939 Britain ensured Stalin would be able to overrun all of eastern Europe, including Poland. Churchill signed away the British Empire in the Atlantic Charter. (92.11.200.15 (talk) 12:44, 22 March 2014 (UTC))

"References" means, you know, real references to reliable sources expressing such a viewpoint, not your personal, somewhat idiosyncratic, analysis of history. Fat&Happy (talk) 15:54, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm just talking about the facts. Churchill did more to destroy the UK and its empire than anyone else in history. (92.11.205.206 (talk) 23:15, 22 March 2014 (UTC))

Thanks just tell us were you discovered these facts so we can make sure you have a reliable source. Bit concerned as I am sure if this were true it would have been added already, so we welcome any new reliable sources we can look at and discuss. MilborneOne (talk) 11:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2014

In the photograph of Winston Churchill firing the Bren Machine Gun, the caption states that Churchill's bodyguard, the man in the pinstriped suit and trilby, is on his left. However, the man is located on Churchill's right. 71.198.67.20 (talk) 03:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: The caption appears to be correct; Thompson is indeed on Churchill's left. LittleMountain5 05:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 March 2014

Please can you put the section on Churchill as First Lord of the Admiralty into the 'Early Years in Parliament' section, instead of the 'Military Service' section. Churchill's role as First Lord of the Admiralty was strictly a Parliamentary one. He sat in the Cabinet as an MP, by virtue of holding that position. Although he was responsible for naval affairs, he lacked military decoration and was primarily a politician, subject to public accountability.

Although reference is given in the 'Early Years in Parliament' section that Churchill was First Lord of the Admiralty at this time, it would be better to remove the body of the text from 'Military Service' and replace the small reference with the larger text in 'Early Years in Parliament'. The text in question is copied below.

First Lord of the Admiralty In October 1911, Churchill was appointed First Lord of the Admiralty. While serving in this position, he put strong emphasis on modernisation and was also in favour of using aeroplanes in combat.(See Captain Bertram Dickson) He launched a programme to replace coal power with oil power. When he assumed his position, oil was already being used on submarines and destroyers, but most ships were still coal-powered, though oil was sprayed on the coals. Churchill began this programme by ordering that the upcoming Queen Elizabeth-class battleships were to be built with oil-fired engines. Churchill also established a Royal Commission chaired by Admiral Sir John Fisher, which confirmed the benefits of oil over coal in three classified reports, and judged that ample supplies of oil existed, but recommended that oil reserves be maintained in the event of war. The delegation then travelled to the Persian Gulf, and the government, largely through Churchill's advice, eventually invested in the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, bought most of its stock, and negotiated a secret contract with a 20-year supply.[55][56] Churchill continued to serve as First Lord of the Admiralty into the First World War. When a coalition government was formed in May 1915 Churchill was removed from the Admiralty because he had proposed the disastrous Battle of Gallipoli. He remained in the Cabinet for six months as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster until the decision was made to evacuate the Gallipoli bridgehead.

Thank you for your help.

Jhfc201 (talk) 15:50, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Although it was a parliamentary role, it was related to the army. More input should be sought about what others think about it. --Mdann52talk to me! 13:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

First Lord of The Admiralty definitely ought to be in the political section (it was a Cabinet Appointment) not the Military Service one. The First Lord was the politician responsibel for the navy as opposed to the First Sea Lord who was the most senior Naval Officer. In passing, I note that his second appointment as First Lord in 1939 hasn't been included in this section. I refer to the article Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty which states: "The president of the Board was known as the First Lord of the Admiralty, or sometimes First Lord Commissioner of the Admiralty, who was a member of the Cabinet. After 1806, the First Lord of the Admiralty was always a civilian, while the professional head of the navy came to be (and is still today) known as the First Sea Lord." Please amend. An edit also needs to be made to the info box which has a gap from 1911-1915 when he was serving as First Lord.

Jwasanders (talk) 11:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree the time as first lord is misplaced. His time at the western front was serving as a soldier, but as first lord he was part of the government, by virtue of being elected as an MP. If his time as first lord comes under military, then his activities during the second world war when he also assumed the post of first lord of the admiralty ought to be in this section. the section as a whole discusses his political activities in managing the navy and in fact does not mention the one point he actually joined in the fighting by accompanying the naval brigade when it was sent to belgium at the start of the war. (for which i think he has been criticised, as having had no business being there with the fighting instead of at his desk trying to organise british efforts)

The US President stood up

...but FDR couldn't do that. Source for whole paragraph is also a dead link. 71.231.66.105 (talk) 22:40, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

The introduction is wrong

Britain was never alone at any stage during World War II. Every country in the British Commonwealth and Empire, apart from Eire, had declared war on Germany in September 1939. (92.11.195.191 (talk) 21:37, 5 March 2014 (UTC))

By the time of the outbreak of war Eire was not part of the British Empire - it had declared itself a sovereign state and a republic outwith the effect of British rule. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Geologist (talk • contribs)

Eire was part of the British Empire from 1937 to 1949. It was not a republic until 18th April 1949. (92.11.198.244 (talk) 13:35, 8 June 2014 (UTC))

retirement and death

The article comments that churchill was offered a dukedom on retirement. just been reading 'Elizabeth' by Sarah Bradford, where on p. 227 it discusses this. This is further referenced by that book to Martin Gilbert's long biography, vol viii (Never despair), p.1124. It says in Bradford that the suggestion Churchill be made a duke was made by Colville, Churchill's private secretary, to the palace. The Queen was not inclined to do this since it had been decided no new dukes would be created except as a title for royal princes. Colville then ascertained, without asking churchill directly, that if the title was offered Churchill would anyway refuse it. The queen then agreed to make the offer, on the assumption it would be refused. Colville is quoted by Bradford in a passage where he says Churchill afterwards told him what had happened, and said that the queen almost seemed relieved when he refused. Bradford says Churchill was adamantly opposed to receiving a title for his own reasons that he wanted to live and die without one. The article ascribes his refusal to the wishes of his son.

I dont know what Gilbert actually said about this, but presumably he accords with Bradford or she wouldnt be citing him. His was the official biography with full access to the family and papers, and he was originally hired to work on it. The article cites someone called Rasor. i have no idea what he wrote or what is the reliability status of his book?

This also applies to the sub-article which expands on Churchill's later life. At present this article says more on this point than does the supposedly longer one.Sandpiper (talk) 07:22, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Nobel Prize in Literature

He is the only British Prime Minister to have won the Nobel Prize in Literature, ...

I think this is badly phrased because it implies that the award of a Nobel Prize in Literature is older than designation of Prime Minster for British politicians. It needs to be qualified with something like "since its inception in 1901". -- PBS (talk) 16:29, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I see someone has put the edit in. Actually, i disagree. I think anyone discussing Nobel prize winners would appreciate that any genius alive before they were invented could not have won one, and would automatically allow for that when considering merits of people before and after their invention. The truly remarkable thing, worth mentioning in an article, would be if someone had indeed won one before they came into existence. To point out in the article that no british prime minister managed to win a Nobel before they were invented is hardly worth stating explicitly. Sandpiper (talk) 21:08, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Churchill's Responsibility for the Bengal Famine/ Genocide of 1943-44 killing around 4 million Indians

Churchill was directly responsible for the Bengal Famine of 1943-44 killing around 4 million Indians, his role in causing the genocide should be included in this page. Source - http://www.tehelka.com/remembering-indias-forgotten-holocaust/ The article contains enough evidence about his direct culpability leading to the genocide.

If you read back in the archive you will find this has been requested before and why it was rejected then. MilborneOne (talk) 12:08, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I see it requested on several occasions but not one good reason to exclude it. We should of course use impeccable academic historical sources and I would suggest Amartya Sen in the first instance. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:38, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

The cited reference contains plenty of academic historical sources and if you can not cite credible matter contrary to those positions, than I'm afraid it doesn't suffice, you cannot omit massacre of million people because of individual opinions, you need to present historical evidence for the exclusion, Amartya Sen cannot be a singular source for this. Sumitkewl (talk) 14:28, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Are you sure at least Talk:Winston_Churchill/Archive_10#Churchill_and_racism has some good reasons and argument against it by User:Lachrie so I dont think we need to go over the same ground again. MilborneOne (talk) 12:49, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

No, opinion of a member cannot override verified academic sources. Besides, it doesn't even have good reasons against it...the premise that 4 million Indians lives, which could be saved with some good management, were of less priority than larger number of European lives which could only be saved by war, is not a good one. If it was, why even make so much fuss about the holocaust then, surely given a chance Churchill would have sacrificed them himself, because of the overriding priority of larger number of British lives. Please provide credible sources against indictments in the cited reference like "Urgently beseeched by Amery and the then Viceroy Archibald Wavell to release food stocks for India, Churchill responded with a telegram asking why Gandhi hadn’t died yet.", to justify the exclusion. Sumitkewl (talk) 14:28, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

 Not done The request must be in the form of "please change X to Y", rather than asking for general changes. Please obtain consensus for specific wording for insertion before making a new request. Benea (talk) 15:20, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Command of Royal Scots Fusiliers, 1916.

"As a commander he continued to exhibit the reckless daring which had been a hallmark of all his military actions" - Wikipedia.

The 6th Royal Scots Fusiliers did not participate in any set battle during Churchill's command, and at that time the Ploegsteert trenches were in a "quiet sector". For example, total losses for March 1916 amounted to six. Churchill did make some sorties close to the front and was shot at, but he did not exhibit reckless daring as a commander, only as an individual, which was not untypical. Hengistmate (talk) 10:41, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Churchill bombed Germany first

Surely the article should mention the fact that Churchill ordered the RAF to bomb German cities every night beginning on the night of the 15th May 1940, which directly resulted in the Germans retaliating with the London Blitz on the 7th September 1940? (2.103.233.70 (talk) 21:43, 8 September 2014 (UTC))

Every night? Anyway, The raids on the 15th were in response to the Rotterdam Blitz on the 14th, and targetted industrial sites in the Ruhr - and while the Battle of France was still going on. Perhaps you would like to read our article on Strategic bombing during World War II. Perhaps also you would like to suggest some reliable sources for your more outré suggestions. DuncanHill (talk) 21:51, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Last time I checked Rotterdam was not in the UK. The Blitz was in direct response to the RAF bombing Germany first in 1940. (2.103.233.70 (talk) 22:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC))

Last time I checked the Netherlands and the UK were on the same side and I think the Dutch were a bit busy with other things, that aside I cant see why we need to mention every order that Churchill gave. MilborneOne (talk) 11:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Holland was neutral. Anyway the point was that Britain bombed Germany first in both world wars. (2.103.233.70 (talk) 20:58, 11 September 2014 (UTC))

• Oh no, shock horror, Britain bombed German industry when we were at war with them! How simply awful! Now, if you don't have anything helpful to add here I suggest you go away and find a suitable internet forum to expound your views on. DuncanHill (talk) 21:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

The RAF was the first to target civilians. (2.103.233.70 (talk) 21:39, 11 September 2014 (UTC))

Still awaiting some reliable sources on this. (Hohum ^@) 00:43, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Funeral Train Project for 2015

Winston Churchill funeral train on track for 50th anniversary (National Railway Museum, York -- Press Release)

"The National Railway Museum will be commemorating 50 years since Winston Churchill's state funeral at St Paul's Cathedral in 1965 with a 30 January – 3 May recreation of the funeral train which carried the illustrious former Prime Minister from Waterloo, London, to his final resting place in Oxfordshire."

...etc (you can read the rest at the link, yourself!)

Essentially, they are re-uniting the cosmetically restored loco Winston Churchill, with the baggage car mentioned in the article, and a Pullman coach.

I spotted this while researching something else, and thought the custodians of this page would want to follow it up in due course.

EdJogg (talk) 18:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Britain was never alone

The introduction says "Britain stood alone in its active opposition to Adolf Hitler". However Britain was never alone. Every country in the British Commonwealth and Empire - apart from Ireland - had declared war on Germany in September 1939. (ClarksonW (talk) 16:07, 6 October 2014 (UTC))

A very important point (apart from the fact I didn`t think Ireland had ever been in the Commonwealth ? ). Churchill made it quite plain on many occasions that when he talked about "Britain" being alone, he meant the British Empire. Interestingly there is an amusing cartoon of 1940 (reproduced in "Britain`s War Machine" by D Edgerton p49) where there`s a drawing of a couple of soldiers discussing "the poor old Empire all alone in the world", the next line being "Aye we are - the whole five hundred million of us".--JustinSmith (talk) 20:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Ireland was part of the Empire, of course - and the Irish Free State was (very) briefly a member of the Commonwealth. Not that that's got anything to do with it as Ireland was in neither by 1939 and was neutral in WWII. More to the point - I have tweaked the change that was made to the article - the "British Commonwealth and Empire" was how it was usually referred to in my youth. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:12, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually Ireland remained a member of the Commonwealth until declaring a republic in 1949. However in its last years of membership it largely didn't show up to the club, though equally didn't actually resign its membership. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

The sligt problem I have with your tweak SoM is that although it undoubtedly reads better it doesn`t remind readers that whenever Churchill was speaking about Britain he meant the British Empire. What do you think ?--JustinSmith (talk) 10:02, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Honestly can't see that - it says "British Commonwealth and Empire" which is how "the Empire" was formally described at the time - even in Britain itself, but especially in the "Dominions" (Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa). All but very conservative people in those countries balked a bit, even then, about being designated as "part of the Empire". In fact the Empire itself was in so far as the war was concerned almost a net liability rather than an asset - India in particular. Collectively of course these countries (all of them very much "minor powers") and the support (sometimes not unqualified!) they offered were surely in Churchill's mind (staunch and unashamed Imperialist as he was) - but by "Britain" I have a strong feeling he essentially meant Britain. Precisely what was really in his mind is of course speculation anyway, and doesn't belong here. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Ireland was a Dominion of the Empire from 1922 to 1949. Churchill did not respect its right to be neutral in World War II, as the 1937 constitution had not made clear whether the state was a republic. Therefore he argued that all of Ireland was committed by the King's declaration of war on 3rd September 1939. I think the "inspired British resistance" should be changed to just "inspired resistance", as the entire Commonwealth and Empire was at war with Germany, along with Greece and Free France. Had the UK been overrun the Royal Navy would have continued the Battle of the Atlantic from Canada, Newfoundland, Iceland, Malta, Gibraltar, South Africa etc. (ClarksonW (talk) 14:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC))

I`m sure I`ve read before that Churchill implicitly meant Britain and it`s Empire when talking about Britain when fighting alone. If I get some time I`ll look up the references.
I really can`t agree that the Empire was "almost a net liability". Australia and Canada, plus to a lesser extent NZ and South Africa in particular provided many men for all branches of the forces, especially the RAF and the Army (Canada was a major player in the vital Battle of the Atlantic, plus India provided huge numbers of men for the Far Eastern campaign). Plus the resources etc and the fact they could be used as bases. Lastly just knowing the Empire was there must have had a significant effect on morale, the cartoon I mentioned on the 7th Oct sums that up well --JustinSmith (talk) 12:44, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Justin - while a lot of what you say is true - the net benefit from Canada has to be balanced against other countries (even Australia "drew on the account" of Empire defence as well as contributing). South Africa's contribution was highly qualified (the S.A. government was only luke-warm in its support, and their forces only fought in Africa). The bulk of the Australian ground troops were eventually pulled back to the direct defence of Australia. India was a major liability of course - among other things we won't go into substantial forces were necessary just to hang on to it, not to mention to "defend" it from the Japanese: in fact the whole far-eastern thing was fought to preserve Britain's Indian Raj. The Americans were not prepared to do anything to defend British Empire interests in India or Burma, even after they had declared war on Japan. And the whole North Africa campaign was largely fought to defend Empire communications. On the whole, as I said, it is rather debatable whether the Empire was an overall asset - if you drew up the balance sheet it would be a close run thing at best.

But none of this has very much to do with what Churchill meant when he said "Britain". As we have said - he was a rabid imperialist, and was certainly very much aware of the Empire - but essentially by "Britain" he meant England, Scotland and Wales. While in at least one speech he mentioned the possibility of the Empire continuing the fight if Britain itself fell - a lot of what he said in those speeches (fight them in the hills etc.) was never meant to reflect the real situation, and everyone knew it. In any case we need to avoid WP:OR here - no speculation in other words. I think the text as it now stands gives enough emphasis to "Britain and its Empire" being what was actually "standing alone", anyway. Re-read the article itself and see what you think. -Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Funeral

The section of Winstons funeral states "only Ireland did not broadcast it live." Is it being stated that every country in Europe, apart from Ireland broadcast the Funeral live? It seems unlikely to me that Finland, for example Broadcast the funeral live. Infant it would seem strange if any country outside the UK broadcast it live. Note the only reference is from a book called. "Man of the Century: Winston Churchill and His Legend Since 1945.". I think you only have to read the title of the book to determine that it may be a bias source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iantierney (talk • contribs) 17:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Not sure about Finland but the funeral broadcast was distributed by the Eurovision network to member countries. MilborneOne (talk) 18:49, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Just to add Finland has been a member of the EBU since 1950 so would have had access to the coverage, it is likely they Finland did broadcast at least some of the funeral but I cant find a reliable source at the moment. MilborneOne (talk) 19:06, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Just to add more about your disbelief that anybody outside the UK watched, outside Europe it was broadcast live in at least the United States and Canada. MilborneOne (talk) 19:09, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Dual citizenship

Did Winston Churchill have dual American-British citizenship since his mom was American ? Cmguy777 (talk) 23:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

No. See Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship by Birth Abroad to U.S. Citizen Parent, sections "7 FAM 1132.5 Section 1993, Revised Statutes of 1878" and "7 FAM 1132.6 May 24, 2934", p. 11. This would apply if Lady Randolph did not renounce her U.S. citizenship upon her marriage, another not unlikely scenario. 2600:1006:B163:761B:5AD:4287:E314:1B02 (talk) 02:18, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Do you have the link to 1878 Statue ? Churchill's mother was free to return to the United States as a U.S. citizen. If Churchill's mother had dual citizenship, why would not Churchill? Did this 1878 law forbid dual citizenship? Cmguy777 (talk) 06:14, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Did you check the State Department PDF file linked above? It doesn't contain the entire statute, but has excerpts and explanations.

Actually, there's a bit more of a gray area than I indicated; the "no" should have been "highly unlikely". The document explains the case between 1878 and 1934, when citizenship for the foreign-born was explicitly limited to deriving from a citizen father, not a citizen mother, and describes the 1878 law as a codification of the 1802 and 1855 laws, which are what would have been in force when WC was born in 1874. The 1802 law referred to "children of persons" who were citizens, so depending on the legal interpretation of "person" (this was the early- to mid-1800s, after all), under that law, a mother may have counted. But, the law was phrased "persons who now are, or have been citizens". Since Churchill's mother was not a citizen in 1802 (the law's "now"), there is a question as to whether she would have been able to transmit her citizenship under the 1802 law.

The 1855 law added the (somewhat) clarifying phrasing "[foreign born] persons ... whose fathers [were/are] at the time of their birth citizens", the rule incorporated into the 1878 law. But the 1802 law was not repealed, leaving open the possibility it might still be deemed to apply.

So apparently the only chance of WC being entitled to dual citizenship would be based on the 1802 law being considered controlling. The remaining kicker, though, is that both the 1802 and 1855 laws, as well as the 1878 law, specifically withheld citizenship by descent from those whose fathers were never U.S. residents. Is there any evidence that Lord Randolph Churchill was ever a U.S. resident? 2600:1006:B163:761B:5AD:4287:E314:1B02 (talk) 08:35, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the discussion...I am not sure if Lord Randolph Churchill visited the U.S. prior to his marriage to Jennie Jerome...I believe Jerome would have dual citizenship having been born in the U.S. and married to a British citizen...she would have been free to return to the U.S. at anytime...The subject of naturalization was pressing during the 1870s while British-American relations was at an all time high after the Treaty of Washington in 1871...Ulysses S. Grant's daughter married a British citizen...also Grant dined with Queen Victoria in 1877...Grant's Attorney General Edwards Pierrepont was an authority on U.S. naturalization in the Steinkoanler (1875) case...since Churchill was born in Britain...his mother's dual citizenship may not have passed down to Churchill...had Churchill been born in America he may have had dual citizenship... Cmguy777 (talk) 11:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

In the Steinkoanler (1875) case, Steinkoanler, a Prussian immigrant and naturalized U.S. citizen, had a son born in the United States. Steinkoanler returned to Prussia...The question was whether Steinkoanler's son was forced to serve in the Prussian military...Pierrepont ruled that after Steinkoanler's son reached the age of 20 he was an adult and as a U.S. citizen could not be impressed into the Prussian military, could return to the U.S. at anytime, and run for President of the United States. Cmguy777 (talk) 12:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Birth name versus actual name.

It seems ridiculous to me that this article begins with "Sir Winston Leonard Spencer-Churchill...". He wasn't known as Spencer-Churchill, nobody refers to him as Spencer-Churchill (even though that was the name on his birth certificate), so why give that as his name?

I edited it yesterday to read "Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill (born Winston Leonard Spencer-Churchill)...", which is in my opinion historically accurate and concise, but it's been reverted on the grounds of 'excessive duplication'.

It doesn't seem excessive to me.

What do others think?

Gnu Ordure (talk) 14:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

It's normal procedure everywhere (NYT obituaries, etc.) and it's quite okay with me. For example, the article on Bill Clinton is titled "Bill Clinton", but then, the first line of the intro reads: William Jefferson "Bill" Clinton (born William Jefferson Blythe III (all in bold, if you please...)--Lubiesque (talk) 18:53, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2014

For the article on Winston Churchill, source 2 is confirmed to be unreliable. However, the website for the Churchill Centre contains the same information. Rocapp (talk) 09:20, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. If the primary source backs up "source 2" then that confirms it is a reliable source. Since secondary sources are preferred over primary ones, I'm first not sure exactly what you want changed, and I'm guessing you'll need a consensus to use the primary source instead of the secondary one. Thanks for your interest in contributing to the English Wikipedia! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 16:56, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

"Return from exile" subsection heading

The subsection dealing with his return to ministerial office in 1939 needs a less potentially confusing heading. To many native English speakers 'exile' may be accustomed metaphoric parlance for being out of government office - "wilderness" has been another metaphor much used about the period. However it may be confusing to readers who only know English as a foreign language and may understand it only in its literal sense. During the 1930s Churchill remained a resident British citizen, he was not banished or deprived of his passport, and he continuously served in parliament.Cloptonson (talk) 06:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Personally I feel that if someone gets a wrong impression from a superficial reading of text then the cure is not for some kind soul to translate everything into "basic English" (regardless of loss of information), but for the reader to read the text that has been giving him problems more closely and get the proper gist. Imagine if we asked the editors of the French edition of wiki to write it down to the level of people with high school French! On the other hand I am a mean grumpy old "anglo" and the idea of watering down wikipedia for the ignorant and those who can't speak English very well is anathema. In other words on this particular question I am very prejudiced indeed. Is there anyone to speak on the other side? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:36, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Army or Navy?

Churchill wasn't an officer in the British Army, he was an officer in the royal Navy and he was a First Lord of the admiralty the highest rank you can become in the royal British Navy. SOURCE::: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_First_Lords_of_the_Admiralty Mancls 19:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done - Sorry but he was in the British Army as well as First Lord of the Admiralty, which doesn't make him a naval officer either as it was normally a political position rather than a military one. MilborneOne (talk) 20:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I concur with the latter point. First Lord was a political position by the 19th century and was invariably so in Churchill's own lifetime, with the result that many First Lords were not even ex-servicemen. It was the post of First Sea Lord that was the supreme naval office in the Admiralty. Churchill's service career was in both the regular and Territorial wings of the British Army, but he had an interest in naval affairs that had an outlet in his Admiralty office.Cloptonson (talk) 20:39, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Good heavens. Is it not totally clear, from the second paragraph of the lede and the whole of the Military service section that he was a very distinguished British Army officer? This is like suggesting that Lord Nelson wasn't in the Navy, but only messed around in the bath. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Not really that "distinguished" an army officer really. He left the army quite early on for a career in journalism and politics - then rejoined the army after basically getting the sack from the Admiralty over the Gallipoli disaster (it's all in the article!!!) @Martin, nearly missed that pun about the bath - quite witty. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:24, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

"His actions during the ambush of the train led to speculation that he would be awarded the Victoria Cross, Britain's highest award to members of the armed forces for gallantry in the face of the enemy, but this was not possible, as he was a civilian." But then in later life, apparently, he was some kind of building inspector, enjoyed fried chicken and had some interesting legwear. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Surprised

I am surprised that, to find his dates of birth and death, I had to scroll down three poages of infobox. It was a searching excercise. Hope other those readers succeeded too. -DePiep (talk) 08:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Most dont really need to scroll down because as with all wikipedia biographies it is on the the first line of the article. MilborneOne (talk) 09:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah, the "search somewhere else" search answer. I actually wanted to know his age at death. -DePiep (talk) 10:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

And was the information on the first line of the article adequate for you to work that out - or do you need some help?--Soundofmusicals (talk) 11:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Joking aside, not QUITE as silly as he looks - the "personal details" in the infobox for a statesman goes UNDER the list of offices and thingees he held (look at the corresponding infobox for his nemesis for instance - Churchill's list is long because, well he did have a particularly long and active political career! BUT is there a valid point here - do we need to change the format for a statesman's infobox? Or perhaps make exceptions and put the personal details first for Churchill and other politicians with a very long list? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 11:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

re1: yeah, work it out yourself (again: be careful to blame bad search result on the one searching. First response should be: the searcher is right).

re2: Of course I understood (had to) that his offices are more important, eg being Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in 1915. But of course not his Military service. And under "personal life" also is his party membership - sure. -DePiep (talk) 13:13, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

So what would you like changed? The format of the lead? The format of the infobox? Hve you an actual constructive suggestion for the improvement of either? In what way was your search result "bad"? In what way has anyone "blamed" you for anything? Do you now have the information you were seeking? You are every bit as entitled to point out anything in the way Wikipedia articles are organised that you don't like as anyone else (and probably better qualified than most of us to do just that!!) - but sarcastic carping about a particular article that actually follows the currently agreed pattern may just not be the right way to do it? As you, of all people, must surely be aware? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 13:44, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Saluting cranes

As mentioned by a respectfully unshaven Paxo, the saluting cranes were arranged, but not without some difficulty. Only six months into a Labour government, feelings among the dockers were running high. But am having difficulty finding any reliable written source for the near dispute. But maybe it would warrant only a footnote, here or at Later life of Winston Churchill. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:34, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Dont see anything particularly notable about this, as usual for the time the operators were paid for the time on a Saturday despite any possible dispute they may have had. MilborneOne (talk) 12:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

True. Perhaps it was the expectation that those who respected Churchill would not want to be paid, while those who did not would not be expected to make the gesture at all. Quite a divisive situation. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:05, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

It was put about (although I'd struggle to find a source for when and by whom) for many years that this had been a spontaneous and deeply moving gesture by the dock workers, a claim which I am ashamed to confess I believed. It now appears that the dockers were rather cross about it. That is where the notability lies.Paulturtle (talk) 01:52, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Written sources may be hard to find. Wikipedia does not seem to like TV documentary sources, even if they involve first-hand witness accounts by people who were there at the time. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

"You were given the choice between war and dishonour"

I'm dubious about this being a speech to the House of Commons. No mention in Hansard

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/search/dishonour?decade=1930s&speaker=mr-winston-churchill — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.231.146.140 (talk) 00:03, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I am always chary about attributions to Churchill - quite a lot of things he's supposed to have said or written he either didn't say at all, or quoted (consciously or otherwise) from something someone else said - perhaps many years before. I just wasted a merry half hour with that Hansard tool (great fun, isn't it?) and I can't find him listed as saying it there either - although since the remark at least borders on "un-parliamentary" language it may well have been struck from Hansard or not recorded there in the first place. Wouldn't have stopped it being reported in the press, or even, Churchill being Churchill officially or semi-officially released to the press. All the same, I share your doubts. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:54, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I had a look in the London Times around this time but no mention of Churchill making comment, similar comments and arguments are made by a number of people at the time but no attributed to Churchill. A web search find quote repeated but so far cant find a reliable reference for when or where he said. MilborneOne (talk) 10:18, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

It's a misquote of a comment he made in some private letters in the run-up to Munich to Lloyd George and Lord Moyne. Churchill's public comments - about the leaders of his own party - were a lot more circumspect until at least the end of 1938, and I dare say until Hitler marched into Prague, at which point official policy changed anyway. Publicly, he talked about whether or not time would prove Mr Chamberlain's policy to been right. He was a politician, not a character in an epic myth, and hedged his bets like all politicians.Paulturtle (talk) 13:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2015

It is wrong to describe the Labour government of 1945 as a "caretaker government". This disagrees with the wikipedia page that describes these. The government was elected by means of a normal General Election.

Icebear917 (talk) 20:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Tend to agree. It was landslide victory for Labour: "This was the first election in which Labour gained a majority of seats, and also the first time it won a plurality of votes." And it lasted a full five years. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:06, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 16:52, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

The sentence in dispute seems to be this one:

"After the general election of October 1951, Churchill again became prime minister, and his third government—after the wartime national government and the brief caretaker government of 1945—lasted until his resignation in April 1955."

What is this supposed to mean? Was he Prime Minister three times? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:03, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I read this as referring to the caretaker government that ran things in the brief interval between the wartime parliament being dissolved and the general election for the first postwar parliament. This is the normal routine for a British style parliament - Churchill would have been "caretaker Prime Minister" until the first meeting of the new parliament. During this period he may not introduce any new policy or propose any new legislation, but continues to hold the office, basically just to preserve continuity. This is obviously the butt end of his previous term - not a new one. What confuses me is why the "caretaker government" even needs to be mentioned at all - since the reference is obviously causing confusion, and doesn't impart any real information. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 13:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:43, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Avva butcher's 'guvnor, I've bin and gorn and dunnit! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 14:07, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Cor blimey, me ol' china. Looks Robin 'ood to me, mate. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Not correct, I’m afraid. The caretaker government of 1945 was a separate government, containing the Tories and National Liberals (and a few other people like the former civil servant Sir John Anderson). It was a Tory Government in all but name but fought the 1945 election under the “National” title (i.e. as a continuation of the 1930s Tory-dominated Coalition of that name) in the belief that this would be an electoral asset. It did not, however, contain the official Liberals (Archibald Sinclair) or the Labour ministers (Attlee, Bevin, Morrison etc), who departed – and insisted on a General Election, as there hadn’t been one for almost ten years - as soon as the European War was over. I don’t normally recommend getting one’s information from Wikipedia but this is actually discussed correctly on the list of British Prime Ministers.

There wasn’t much change in the top jobs (Eden remained Foreign Secretary, Anderson Chancellor of the Exchequer, Simon Lord Chancellor) but somebody called Sir Donald Somervell replaced Morrison as Home Secretary. Macmillan became Secretary for Air having previously been Minister Resident in the Mediterranean. Had Churchill won the 1945 election the “National” Government would have continued in office, but that didn’t happen.

There is no such thing as a “caretaker Prime Minister”, other than in loose and inaccurate parlance, in the UK. Prime Ministers are (in principle, at any rate) appointed or dismissed by the monarch, and in practice a Prime Minister who has lost an election normally just resigns the next day, unless there is a hung Parliament and he chooses to hang on for a few days and make a fool of himself attempting to negotiate a coalition (Heath in Feb 74, Brown in 2010). The custom of “meeting the new Parliament” and waiting to be defeated in a No Confidence vote died out in the late nineteenth century iirc – although I think the last PM to do so was Baldwin under the very odd circumstances of Jan 1924.

In 1945 the election results took a long time to be known as the votes of men fighting in the Far East needed to be counted.Paulturtle (talk) 01:43, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

It may well be the case that in other countries with a "Westminster system" the government waits to meet the new Parliament before resigning, but this has long ceased to be the case in the UK.Paulturtle (talk) 02:32, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Notwithstanding, it was not a separate term for Churchill as Prime Minister. Nobody calls the "caretaker government" (what it actually is, regardless of what it is called) in this kind of case a "separate" and distinct government. Prime ministers often change the members of their cabinets etc. during the term of a government, ministers resign or change their portfolios and so on. Parties (and individual members of a government) may well leave a ruling coalition during the course of a parliament without a "new" government being formed. This is not generally done after the parliament is dissolved, but of course this was a special case. As you point out, the wartime "national unity" government was not strictly standing for re-election, Churchill and his colleagues were specifically standing as Conservatives, and expected, if successful, to form a normal "Conservative" government, with a formal opposition formed by the members of the other parties. Being Churchill, our hero was quite capable of going a little past the normal very restrictive mandate of the interim period (the famous flexibility of the British constitution leaves this pretty open). On the other hand we still can't talk about a Conservative interim government - constitutionally, it only held office due to the confidence of the previous (now dissolved) House of Commons, so that it was in a real sense a continuation of the Government of National Unity. Likewise Churchill remained Prime Minister until the new house met- regardless of whether he went through the (surely empty and unnecessary) formality of seeking the confidence of a house in which he knew very well his political opponents held the majority of seats. In this situation any sane Premier obviously resigns, and the sovereign invites the leader of the largest party in the house to form a government (at least it is officially that way round, he or she normally does not take the initiative at this point). In a way this may seem a quibble - but this is the way the interim period is usually described, either specifically or by implication. The text I edited was so ambiguous one editor saw the "caretaker" government as the Labour Party government!

Even if we were to count the interim government as a distinct Conservative administration (and I don't think we can) This rather unconventional interpretation at the very least needs to be clearly and unambiguously expressed, which it currently isn't. Since this article is about the life of Winston Churchill I think relatively obscure matters of constitutional law are really best ignored, unless they can be clearly and succinctly expressed, and are definitely relevant to the subject. And our authority needs to be the best authority we can muster on British constitutional law! We can't argue this out between ourselves here, even if we are constitutional lawyers! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 05:17, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Ever thought of writing an article about it? Yes, it appears as a small text note in the table at List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom, but does that make Churchill PM three times? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:57, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Strictly speaking he was Prime Minister three times, although he is seldom listed as such (same as Harold Wilson was usually listed as being Prime Minister twice, not four times, although nowadays a custom seems to be arising of describing Thatcher or Blair as having been PM three times). WSC certainly headed three separate governments, and certainly is usually listed as such. It doesn’t need a whole article, it just needs a brief para, which I have now added, and which I trust will not be subjected to further ill-informed edit-warring. To be honest the term “Caretaker Government” – I don’t think Martin Gilbert uses it at all – just serves to sow confusion, not least in SoundofMusicals’ mind. The brief government of May-July 1945 was – partly at Churchill’s own insistence - as valid and distinct a government as any other, even if it made little impression on the sands of time. It would obviously not be known by that inaccurate name if – as almost everyone expected - it had been reelected in July 1945.

SoundofMusicals is completely wrong about this (take this gem: we still can't talk about a Conservative interim government - constitutionally, it only held office due to the confidence of the previous (now dissolved (sic)) House of Commons, so that it was in a real sense a continuation of the Government of National Unity – each of the three clauses in that sentence is plain wrong). In May 1945 Churchill was the previous Prime Minister, forming a new government, (similar to May 1915 or late summer 1931), which then – as a fully constituted government - sought re-election (as in 1931, successfully in that case). Governments in the UK exist from when they are formed or resign (strictly speaking, when the PM is appointed or otherwise by the Monarch), not when they win or lose general elections or confidence votes in the House. Indeed, it used to be perfectly common in the nineteenth century for a completely new government to be formed at the fag end of a Parliament (1858-9, 1866-8, 1885, or more recently December 1905). This is a completely distinct situation from an existing government carrying on, with a few ministerial changes. If the existing text seems “ambiguous” to the ill-informed, that is a reason to improve it, not to delete correct information because somebody doesn’t understand it (as per your own comments about the phrase “political wilderness” elsewhere on this page).

In a situation like this it’s usually best to check the books rather than revert other people’s edits (inflammatory behaviour at the best of times), sling words like “nonsense” in edit summaries, invite them to get their information from other crap Wikipedia pages (I mentioned that the Wikipedia list of PMs was basically correct in this regard, which is a different matter – and in fairness this one is correct as well), and then waste your own time and everybody else’s with idle speculation about what “nobody” thinks and about what you imagine constitutional practice to be.

Page numbers from Volume 8 of Martin Gilbert (by definition, the most detailed account). Notes in italics are mine.

VE Day was 8 May. After some days of bickering, as to whether Labour would remain in the Coalition until the defeat of Japan, the matter was settled by a vote at the Labour Conference on 19 May. Labour pulled out of the coalition on 21 May, and on 22 May Churchill obtained the King’s “permission” for an election …

P22-3 On 23 May Churchill resigned as Prime Minister. He drove to Buckingham Palace and resigned, and then there was “a pause” as Churchill observed the convention that the Monarch was free to appoint anyone he chose as Prime Minister, and he returned to Number Ten. He then returned to the Palace later in the afternoon and accepted the King’s invitation to form a new government {Note1: appointing or in extremis sacking a Prime Minister is a “personal prerogative” of the Monarch, part of his role as Head of State and on which ministerial advice is not necessarily binding, not to be confused with “Royal Prerogative”, which means that most of “HM Government”’s functions are conducted in the Monarch’s name under “ministerial advice” even though the monarch’s day-to-day involvement in government gradually dwindled to legal fiction in the 150 years or so after 1688 – contrary to popular myth, very few Crown functions, apart from the important ones like raising taxes or keeping a standing army, legally require prior Parliamentary approval under the 1688 settlement}.

Churchill then spent three days, assisted by Eden and the Chief Whip, forming his new government (until 26 May) {note2: in practice this would have meant appointing MPs, many of them unknown to the PM, to junior ministerial posts – hence the involvement of the whips, who are often left to get on with this for a few days longer}.

P27 On 28 May Churchill kissed hands and was formally reappointed as Prime Minister. {Note3: I think nowadays a Prime Minister is just appointed/reappointed on the spot by the Monarch, and left to get on with the job of appointing his ministers; this hiatus of five or six days in May 1945 seems like an extended feature of the pre-1900 practice in which a new PM was still “first among equals” and might sometimes have to “form a government” by negotiation with other leading figures (Queen Victoria still had a bit of latitude about whom to ask before she had to grit her teeth and send for Mr Gladstone again). Would have to check though.} {Note4: although the little-known Conservative-dominated government of May-July 1945 is sometimes and inaccurately described as the “Caretaker Government”, this period between 23 and 28 May does appear to have seen Churchill acting as a “caretaker” Prime Minister in the sense that SoundofMusicals means it – he continued in the job, and in this time had meetings about the Potsdam Conference with US Ambassador Joseph Davies and exchanged a telegram with President Truman. Given that during the crisis of December 1916 the period of Asquith's resignation, Lloyd George being asked to form a government and Lloyd George kissing hands had taken only three days, it seems likely that as the same Prime Minister was continuing, albeit heading a different government, he left his formal reappointment a little later than usual. With an election looming, an increasing amount of his time was taken up by party business, though.}

Gilbert is totally clear throughout this that a new government was being formed (as is Charmley - I don't have any other heavyweight biogs (e.g. Roy Jenkins) immediately to hand).

P43 On 29 May the House of Commons met again with Labour (and the Official Liberals) in opposition. Churchill answered Prime Minister’s Questions on behalf of his new government.

On 14 June Churchill spoke in the House of Commons. This is the last mention of him doing so in Gilbert, although I can’t find a date for when Parliament was formally dissolved. {Note5: iirc nowadays the House of Commons often meets one final time after the election date has been announced. Again, would have to research further, and life is too short.}

P57 Polling day was 5 July

P107-9 The election results became known on 26 July. For what it’s worth Churchill, in a filthy temper, initially wanted to “meet the new House of Commons” but was strongly advised against doing so by Eden on the telephone (Eden was at his own seat in the Midlands, near Warwick iirc). By that evening Churchill had calmed down and wrote a letter of congratulation to Attlee. He resigned (to the King, as is usual) as Prime Minister that evening; Attlee was presumably invited to form a Labour Government then or the next day.

P117 New parliament met 1 August.

Churchill sometimes referred to the War Coalition as the “National Government” but it’s best to avoid confusion in this regard as that name was also used for the Conservative-dominated 1931-40 coalition, which Churchill briefly resurrected in 1945. At other times he referred to the War Coalition as the “Grand Coalition” as it had everybody apart from Aneurin Bevan in it.Paulturtle (talk) 01:59, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

OK - suppose I should have read this before reverting you. On the grounds the the King accepted Churchill's resignation and then re appointed him. Most unusual.. still think its a bit of a quibble, to call it a third premiership, given that this is not really a specialist political dictionary but a general encyclopedia... --Soundofmusicals (talk) 07:16, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Best to consult books rather than relying on supposition, and an encyclopaedia needs to contain correct information. The important point is not that Churchill resigned and was reappointed as Prime Minister – I’d have to check whether Asquith (May 1915) and MacDonald (August 1931) resigned and were reappointed when their party governments dissolved and they formed a new coalition government. The important point is that a completely separate government was in office between May and July 1945, even if it is little remembered because it lost the election. If Churchill had won that election, as most commentators expected him to do, it would be a point of political history trivia that the Conservative Government of 1945-50 took office a few weeks before its election victory, like the Liberal Government of 1905.

British Governments do not derive their legal authority from Parliaments or from elections – many of their functions, like deploying troops and declaring war, are carried out under Royal Prerogative (i.e. exercising powers which were still the King’s in 1688 and which in legal theory still are), on which Parliament is asked simply as a courtesy and in which the courts were reluctant to get involved until the last few decades. In practice, it is the hardest of all conventions that the Monarch appoints a Prime Minister who can command a majority in the House of Commons, because the government would not be able to raise supply otherwise, but that it is another matter. Unlike in a lot of “Westminster system” Parliaments (i.e. Parliaments created by Britain in imitation of Westminster), governments are not “voted in” by the new House of Commons.

As for the nickname by which this brief government is known, the only person I’ve come across calling it “a caretaker government” is Anthony Eden in his long and turgid memoirs, and as discussed above it’s not a legally meaningful concept in the UK – a government is a government. Most other writers – AJP Taylor, Henry Pelling, John Charmley, Roy Jenkins, use it as a proper name, sometimes with and sometimes without inverted commas. Churchill himself (in his “History of the Second World War”) mentions twice that this government came to be known as the “Caretaker” Government, i.e. that it was a nickname which he found a bit irritating. Again, the name stuck because the government was so short-lived, like the “Who Who” Ministry of 1852.Paulturtle (talk) 14:36, 20 February 2015 (UTC)