Talk:Winston Churchill/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

First state funeral since 1914 ....

In the article as written it states that this was the first State Funeral since 1914. However, the UK granted a state funeral to Sir Edward Carson. Please see the below from his wikipedia page.

Upon his death, in 1935, he was one of the few non-monarchs to receive a United Kingdom state funeral.

I suspect that this conflict is because Carson was laid to rest in Belfast rather than London but the UK includes Belfast just as it includes London and Carson was certainly given a State Funeral by the UK Government in 1935.

What do people think?

Regards

Jonnie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.202.134 (talk) 15:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hitler in Great Contemporaries

I have excised the noisome quotation calling for a British Hitler because it is not, in point of fact, included in the 1937 version of Great Contemporaries I just read. Among other important points wholly ignored by the article is the fact that this portrait of Hitler was written in 1935, as the text makes quite clear, and not updated. "I have in almost every case left the text as I originally wrote it."(Churchill, Winston.Great Contemporaries.(c)1937 GP Putnam Sons, Inc. New York, NY: p. ix) One would also be forgiven, on reading the WP article, from doubting that WSC said in the second paragraph that Hitler might cause World War II and noted the he was "forced to dwell upon the darker side of his work and creed", described him as governed by "hatred", "ruthless", etc. The portrait decries the beginning of the Holocaust, etc. Although missing a great deal of context about WSC's writing style, etc., the final reference to GC seems an adequate summation of the only way one might argue that the portrait is in any way pro-Hitler. I shall not here go into the concepts of wishful thinking, optimism, or encouragement.Czrisher (talk) 21:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Prime Minister in the '50s

How come everyone seems to have forgotten that he was prime minister for four whole years in the 1950s and lots happened during that time. The article just says he kind of retired in 1945 and he did a few minor things like running the country and all...Ericl (talk) 00:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

There is an entire section on his second term as PM RayAYang (talk) 21:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality of Paragraph at end of Indian Independence section

It seems to me that using terms like "selectively quote" and "canard" fall away from a neutral point of view, and given the age of the sources involved, are a rehash of old political controversies without representing Churchill's point of view. Also, is it appropriate to mention the rearmament dispute in the section on Indian Independence? I propose deleting the two offending sentences, or at least moving them into one of the later sections, possibly the one discussing German rearmament, and editing them for balance. RayAYang (talk) 21:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

If you're looking for support, Have at it. If you're really enthused, you might also cast an eye on the more expansive version in the the separate article created in the wake of criticism about the length of this one.Czrisher (talk) 16:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I've made the edit. Hopefully nobody will find it too controversial. RayAYang (talk) 19:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

OK the edit I dont mind you moving the section (though it dealt with Churchill's attitude with Baldwins) but I do mind your comments. Canard is a nice way of saying Churchill lied. And he did.

He knew what Baldwin said, and if he didn't then he could check the quotation from Hansard what he in fact wrote was to completely falsify what Baldwin said. By selective editing (and he did chop the comment in half) he made Baldwin appear to say that in the 1935 election he had opposed rearmament as it was electorally unpopular. In fact Baldwin was referring to a by election in 1933 and he campaigned for rearmament in 1935. See the references cited in the text. Also this has been thrashed out on the talk page before admittedly in a different context.

And it is a lie, the whole issue had been debated when Guilty Men was first published. See for example Q Hogg, The Left was never Right. Its suggested that one reason Churchill didnt publish The Gathering Storm in Baldwins lifetime was that Churchill knew he was lying and he didn't want Baldwin to sue for defamation.

The text I suggest is

Subsequently, Churchill accused Baldwin of putting electoral politics before the national interest. In The Gathering Storm Churchill wrote that a passage from Baldwin’s speech in Parliament on 12th November 1936 carried naked truth into indecency’’. In the index he writes Baldwin Rt Hon…confesses putting party before country’'. Baldwin was replying to Churchill’s own speech in which Churchill said The Government simply cannot make up their mind or they cannot get the Prime Minister to make up his mind. So they go on in strange paradox, decided only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all powerful for impotency. And so we go on preparing more months more years precious perhaps vital for the greatness of Britain for the locusts to eat James rightly calls this one of Churchill’s most brilliant speeches in this period and Baldwins reply sounded weak and disturbed the House. The exchange gave new encouragement to the Arms and the Covenant Movement

Churchill’s attack in the Gathering Storm however quotes only part of Baldwin’s speech to make it seem that Baldwin spoke about the 1935 election when he said ‘’Supposing I had gone to the country and said that Germany was rearming and that we must rearm does anyone think that this pacifist democracy would have rallied to that cry at that moment’’ In fact Baldwin was referring to the Fulham East by-election, 1933 in which a Labor candidate who campaigned against any rearmament was returned. Churchill omitted the conclusion of Baldwin’s speech in 1935 we got from the country with a large majority a mandate for doing a thing (rearmament) that no one twelve months ago would have believed possible’’

This accusation first made an appearance in the first edition of Guilty Men but was corrected in subsequent editions (including those before Churchill wrote the Gathering Storm) and was also refuted in Lord Hailsham’s The Left was never Right.

I accept its very long and perhaps belongs in the sub article but as it stands after RayAYangs' post the article is very misleading.Backnumber1662 (talk) 05:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the edit on 4 July on the Baldwin/rearmament controversy

This is in reply to a message Backnumber1662 left on my talk page, concerning my edit on 4 July. If you wish, I shall check out the references you listed in the library tomorrow or the day after. However, there are several points which I will note as suggestive of there being at least a controversy, and which I hope you will accept.

First, that rather than being an accusation by Churchill, the initial accusation that Baldwin put party before country was made in Guilty Men, a publication of enormous political impact, holding a viewpoint which was echoed by multiple contemporaries (the Times of London, Lord Londonderry, etc), as set forth in Manchester's book (published in 1988, long after the controversy -- The Last Lion: Alone, pp 216-217). Manchester is a source of high quality, so his judgment must be taken into account.

Second, there are the words out of Baldwin's own mouth, which I now quote (taken from Essential Speeches by Great Neck Publishing, as found on EBSCO): "Supposing I had gone to the country and said that Germany was rearming and that we must rearm, does anybody think that this pacific democracy would have rallied to that cry at that moment? I cannot think of anything that would have made the loss of the election from my point of view more certain. I think the country itself learned by certain events that took place during the winter of 1934-5 what the perils might be to it." It seems like an accusation of putting expediency about honesty is in order.

Third, Q Hogg's book defending Baldwin, The Left was never Right, was published in 1945, suggesting that the accusation in Guilty Men was allowed to stand for 5 years of war. This would be quite incredible if it was a blatant smear.

I submit that these points should be enough to establish the existence of controversy on the subject, and that our article should not state as fact that Churchill lied, particularly not in a way that suggests he originated the smear. At the least, I submit that this controversy belongs properly in the section regarding rearmament, and not in the section on Indian independence. RayAYang (talk) 04:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

see my above comment. additionally the authors of Guilty Men corrected their error in the 2nd and subsequent editions which were published in 1940. Its not true to suggest Lord Hailsham's was the first rebuttal. And where is your source for Lord Lononderry -I'd like to check that if I may?Backnumber1662 (talk) 05:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The Londonderry reference comes out of Manchester (p 216-218) discussing the whole business. I shall go have a look at Gathering Storm this afternoon if the library is open; tomorrow if it is not. However, let me try to understand -- you are saying that Churchill was incorrect in the particulars, but correct in the substance of saying Baldwin did not put forth rearmament out of political expediency? Apologies -- I got the impression from your earlier remarks that Q Hogg was the first serious reply. I retract the third point, but will leave it up for historical purposes for people following the discussion. RayAYang (talk) 18:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

No the substance is wrong. Very few people in 1933 had any reason to suppose Nazi Germany would rearm (we know they were wrong and perhaps if they had read Mein Kampf more closely they would have had more reason). Baldwin's comment about the by election needs to be seen in that light. By 1935 people did see Germany rearming and Baldwin went to the electorate seeking (in face of strong opposition from the Liberal and Labour parties both of whom then and indeed later opposed rearmament) a mandate for much increased defence spending (the 5 King George V battleships, new aircraft carriers, the Hurricanes and Spitfires &c &c). IT wasnt enough as it turned out and by 12.11.1936 (when Baldwin spoke in the Commons many people realised that. But Britain under Baldwin was the first democracy to start rearming and Churchill tries to show that just didn't happen.) Baldwin didnt put party before nation. (This is what Wiki is supposed to be about, people getting into the evidence and coming up with a common mind. Thanks, its appreciated) Backnumber1662 (talk) 02:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I think, the damaging nature of Baldwin's remark about the by-election, is that his defense was not the one you suggested, i.e. that he, like many others, did not believe Germany would rearm in 1933 (and, in fact, I believe that line would not have been helpful to him in a rejoinder to Churchill, who had indeed warned of such a thing). His defense was that if he had asked for it, he would have lost power -- a defense that implicitly acknowledges he knew of the problem but chose not to mention it. This is not necessarily damning -- we can argue that FDR pursued that exactly policy here in the US, for a good deal longer. But it does open him to the attack that he kept silent out of political convenience, irrespective of the timing. As for Baldwin's claim that a substantial rearmament was under way, I understand that the bulk of Churchill's locust speech was precisely in attacking the disorganization, delay, and incompetence with which the rearmament was being carried out. The accusation that Baldwin put party before country, at least on Churchill's part, came much later, in Gathering Storm. Since this is an article about events and not subsequent historiography, perhaps we can say that Churchill attacked Baldwin on the progress of rearmament (since the Locust speech is regarded as one of his more prominent ones), and move the more detailed discussion into one of the longer articles on the period? I wasn't able to get to the library yesterday -- real life intervened. But I hope to get ahold of the Bassett article and the other sources, and maybe we can hash it out in detail later. I hope you don't mind -- I'm having a lot of fun digging into this history, and I'm afraid I'm dragging you along for the ride. RayAYang (talk) 17:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Not at all, this is what Wikipedia should be about, getting to the truth. And yes I think you're right. The piece I suggested above (perhaps with some more revisions) can be put in the more detailed articleBacknumber1662 (talk) 22:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The index for The Gathering Storm, where the accusation that Baldwin confessed to putting party before country comes from, was not compiled by Churchill.--Johnbull (talk) 17:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Who did it then? Are you suggesting Churchill didn't read itBacknumber1662 (talk) 22:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

This is getting curiouser and curiouser. I'm at the library, and I don't quite have the right editions (rather than the Pelican 1973 of James I have the World Publishing Company 1970 version), and rather than the 1948 edition of Gathering Storm I have the Chartwell 1983 Edition. Our library's copy of the Bassett article is missing the first page due to vandalism, but I believe the rest of the article is here. Anyhow, to summarize my findings:

1) The Bassett article deals, not with Churchill, but with several of Baldwin's critics, among whom he does not number Churchill. I can only find one quotation that references Churchill's position on the subject (as opposed to his political positions) directly, and that is in a footnote: "Mr. Churchill may have unintentionally given fresh and extensive currency to the myth by his treatment of the Baldwin speech in The Gathering Storm. His quotation (p. 169) ends at the point invariably selected by critics. More regrettably, the key sentence, 'I am speaking of 1933 and 1934', is omitted (without any indication of omission) from the passage quoted. And there is an unfortunate vagueness in Mr. Churchill's reference to 'the election' Baldwin was 'afraid of losing': it is not made clear that this election never took place."

2) The copy of James I have, in what I hope is the relevant passage (p 296-297), says "Churchill did not continue the quotation from Baldwin's speech which made it clear that Baldwin was talking of an election in 1933, and contained the statement that the 1935 election had been fought on this issue .... Baldwin's supporters, and independent commentators with no personal interest involved, have pointed out time and again the inaccuracy and unfairness of Churchill's charge." There is here a footnote to the Bassett article and subsequent correspondence. I have checked the correspondence up to 1949, and aside from the footnote in part (1), Churchill's position on the controversy is not mentioned.

3) We come now to the part that has me perplexed, and convinces me that further study is necessary, is that the reference in the index to "confesses putting party before country" simply doesn't exist in the 1983 edition of Gathering Storm. I will try to look in on one of the special "centers" we have here that have the original 1948 edition tomorrow.

4) In my copy of Gathering Storm, the Baldwin "frankness" speech (as it is called in the index) is dealt with on p216-217. While there are sentences omitted from the quotation are omitted as charged by Bassett, the overall effect is not to convince the reader that it was the 1935 election that Baldwin was afraid of losing; rather, it leaves the matter ambiguous. However, Churchill goes on to say "Mr Baldwin was, of course, not moved by any ignoble wish to remain in office .... His policy was dictated by the fear that if the Socialists came into power, even less would be done than his Government intended.... But this was no complete defence, and less than justice to the spirit of the British people." In other words, rather than accusing Baldwin of putting party before country, he exonerates him of that charge. It's possible he was being sarcastic, but I see no sign of it.

I'll report more on my adventures tomorrow, when I track down the missing index from the original Cassell edition. RayAYang (talk) 01:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I got to the library today, and looked over the original 1948 Cassell edition of Gathering Storm. There is indeed the reference in the index to "confesses putting party before country." However, the index entry is at variance with the text, where Churchill states: "This was indeed appalling frankness. It carried naked truths about his motives into indecency. That a Prime Minister should avow that he had nto done his duty in regard to national safety because he was afraid of losing the election was an incident without parallel in our Parliamentary history. Mr. Baldwin was of course not moved by any ignoble wish to remain in office. He was in fact in 1936 earnestly desirous of retiring. His policy was dictated by teh fear that if the Socialists came into power, even less would be done than his Government intended. All [Labour] their declarations and votes against defence measures are upon record. But this was no complete defence, and less than justice to the spirit of the British people." The quotation of Baldwin's speech is essentially as Bassett stated -- quite ambiguous, and leaves out the mention that the election of which Baldwin spoke was hypothetical, or a by-election (that last point is, I believe, susceptible to interpretation) -- but it was not the 1935 election, and Churchill does not assert that it was. I don't know where this leaves us.

There are two statements, one in "Churchill's Writing of History: Appeasement, Autobiography and "The Gathering Storm"", David Reynolds, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, Sixth Series, Vol. 11, (2001), pp. 221-247, and another in "Baldwin's Reputation: Politics and History", Philip Williamson, The Historical Journal, 47, 1 (2004), pp. 127–168, which both state (the former without reference, the latter as a reference to the former author, but not the article) that Churchill neither compiled nor sanctioned the original index.

I suppose a case can be made either way. On the one hand, Churchill is undoubtedly responsible for everything that gets published under his own name. On the other, the actual written text of his book explicitly disclaims the charge, and we have published sources which state that he was not responsible for the index. Robert Rhodes James' assertion of deliberate misrepresentation to Churchill rests upon Bassett's article, which does not claim deliberate misrepresentation on Churchill's part, but merely ambiguity caused by omission. RayAYang (talk) 23:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

what published sources say Churchill wasn't responsible for his index? Backnumber1662 (talk) 09:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

There are two statements, one in "Churchill's Writing of History: Appeasement, Autobiography and "The Gathering Storm"", David Reynolds, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, Sixth Series, Vol. 11, (2001), pp. 221-247, and another in "Baldwin's Reputation: Politics and History", Philip Williamson, The Historical Journal, 47, 1 (2004), pp. 127–168, which both state (the former without reference, the latter as a reference to the former author, but not the article) that Churchill neither compiled nor sanctioned the original index. RayAYang (talk) 15:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It's also in Reynolds's In Command of History: Churchill Fighting and Writing the Second World War, page 94 (Allen Lane edition). Again I can't find a footnote. However a lot of book indexes are not compiled by the author (I wonder if Reynolds's own index falls into this category) for all manner of reasons and it may just be seen as so obvious a point as to not need referencing. Reynolds's book is the most comprehensive about Churchill's writing that I'm aware of and it's possible there's a reference buried somewhere else ("index" is not the index). Timrollpickering (talk) 16:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

OK then, what I wrote above probably needs some further revision (one of the reasons I put it on the talk page in the first place). Let me suggest this for the main article

On 12th November Churchill returned to the topic. Speaking in the Address in Reply debate after giving some specific instances of Germany’s war prepardness he said ‘’'The Government simply cannot make up their mind or they cannot get the Prime Minister to make up his mind. So they go on in strange paradox, decided only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all powerful for impotency. And so we go on preparing more months more years precious perhaps vital for the greatness of Britain for the locusts to eat'’’

James rightly calls this one of Churchill’s most brilliant speeches in this period and Baldwins reply sounded weak and disturbed the House. The exchange gave new encouragement to the Arms and the Covenant Movement

And let me suggest this for the more specific article Winston Churchill in politics: 1900-1939

On 12th November Churchill returned to the topic. Speaking in the Address in Reply debate after giving some specific instances of Germany’s war prepardness he said ‘’'The Government simply cannot make up their mind or they cannot get the Prime Minister to make up his mind. So they go on in strange paradox, decided only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all powerful for impotency. And so we go on preparing more months more years precious perhaps vital for the greatness of Britain for the locusts to eat'’’

Baldwin’s reply has been controversial. In the course of his speech he said ‘’Supposing I had gone to the country and said that Germany was rearming and that we must rearm, does anybody think that this pacific democracy would have rallied to that cry at that moment? I cannot think of anything that would have made the loss of the election from my point of view more certain. I think the country itself learned by certain events that took place during the winter of 1934-5 what the perils might be to ‘’ He was referring to an hypothetical election or to the Fulham East by-election, 1933 in which a Labor candidate who campaigned against any rearmament was returned. And he concluded we got from the country with a large majority a mandate for doing a thing (rearmament) that no one twelve months ago would have believed possible’’

James rightly calls this one of Churchill’s most brilliant speeches in this period and Baldwins reply sounded weak and disturbed the House. The exchange gave new encouragement to the Arms and the Covenant Movement.</ref>James op cit , p. 343 </ref>

Churchill in the ‘’Gathering Storm’’ quotes only part of Baldwin’s speech to make it seem that Baldwin spoke about the 1935 election when he said ‘’Supposing I had gone to the country and said that Germany was rearming and that we must rearm does anyone think that this pacifist democracy would have rallied to that cry at that moment’’ Churchill omits the conclusion. He commented on Baldwin’s speech ‘’ This was indeed appalling frankness. It carried naked truths about his motives into indecency. That a Prime Minister should avow that he had not done his duty in regard to national safety because he was afraid of losing the election was an incident without parallel in our Parliamentary history. Mr. Baldwin was of course not moved by any ignoble wish to remain in office. He was in fact in 1936 earnestly desirous of retiring. His policy was dictated by teh fear that if the Socialists came into power, even less would be done than his Government intended. All [Labour] their declarations and votes against defence measures are upon record. But this was no complete defence, and less than justice to the spirit of the British people." The index to the original 1948 edition of ‘’The Gathering Storm’’ (Which was not compiled by Churchill) has this entry Baldwin Rt Hon…confesses putting party before country’'

James accuses Churchill of deliberately misrepresenting Baldwin’s position by suggesting that the Baldwin was referring to the 1935 election and not the by election

Comments please Backnumber1662 (talk) 00:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The proposed text for the main article looks great. On the more extended article, I would swap paragraphs 2 and 3 (paragraph 3 seems to be about Churchill's speech, which we want to put right after the speech, w/o reference to Baldwin's reply). I think maybe we could drop the word "rightly" - it has a POV connotation that's not needed here. Rather than "to make it seem" at the start of paragraph 4 maybe we should say "allowing it to seem," since Churchill's intent is not clear. At the end of the last paragraph I would insert (before the reference) "However, Bassett, whose research is James' source for this accusation, suggests that Churchill's omission was inadvertent."

RayAYang (talk) 01:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a difficult debate to parachute into without also spending a day in a good library. However, the quote from 'Gathering storm' does not seem to me to criticise Baldwin (at least, not as a hypocrite). Churchill sets up a premise about how Baldwin's speech might be interpreted, and then demolishes it in the next sentence. He then says that having dealt with the issue of whether Baldwin was just seeking to retain power, when in fact he was homestly doing what he thought best for the country, that he, Churchill, would still criticise Baldwin for not doing enough. Possibly he feels Baldwin should have been more open and trusted the people more, but this is an issue of tactics in obtaining the goal of rearmament, not in what that goal was.

I find myself at a bit of a loss to follow the argument about which election is being refered to, and why it matters. Those here may understand, but armed only with a careful reading of this discussion, the section of the article, and a quick look at the wiki page on the 1935 election (which says absolutely nothing about what issues were considered important), I don't see why it is important to mention at all, unless the fact tht some other author made it an issue is deemed worth mentioning. Baldwin's words 'gone to the country' in election terms nowadays would imply he is talking about a general election, not a by-election. On the basis of this passage I see no evidence Churchill was deliberately trying to make it seem he was talking about 1935, rather than just not explaining a detail (for example). If Chuchill had quoted the bit about 'certain events' he would then himself have become bogged in the issue of exactly what those events were. When Baldwin spoke, I think his meaning would have been rather clearer to his audience, who would have a very good idea of the issues in recent elections. This might also apply to readers of 'gathering storm' at the time it was written? You might say someone said he was deliberately trying to mislead, but you cannot simply claim ...quotes only parts of baldwin's speech.. to make it seem... It just isn't self evident enough to state that is what he was doing.

You can't say 'James rightly calls this...'. It is POV to definitively say James was right. You could say 'This was regarded as one...' and ref it to James.

My opinion of the index note, assuming it is correct that it was not written by Churchill, is that it was a simple mistake. The passage referred to is complex, and does start off saying what the index claims. It is only reading on that you see Churchill refutes his own comments. So it is perfectly possibly an honest clerical error.

James accuses Churchill of deliberately misrepresenting Beldwin... This is fine as a statement of James position, but should only be mentioned at all if the issue is considered important. If James view hs been refuted, then this has to be mentioned if James' criticism is mentioned. Phew. Sandpiper (talk) 12:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Gas

Our old friend the "gas" controversy is back. Does anyone think that suggesting using tear gas really constitutes a controversy? DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Certainly not if there wasn't any major political fuss about it. Using nonlethal tear gas on protesters? Downright humane by the standards of British suppression of native revolts. RayAYang (talk) 18:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

But perhaps it is sensible to include it in the article in an NPOV fashion -- which RayAYang DJ Clayworth has basically ensured -- to preempt the constant, "Ah, but nobody has mentioned how he wanted to use Xyklon-B on innocent people! You see, he was evil and we should all hate him!" additions that tend to crop up. I have never shared the concern of others as to length, and this seems precisely the kind of useful material that WP should have to help those who hear something that sounds suspicious or curious and want to find out if it's accurate. Czrisher (talk) 20:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I've re-inserted the wiki-link to Gas in Mesopotamia, as the latter seems to be NPOV. Hope that's OK! best, Sunil060902 (talk) 00:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Should it not be made a little more clear that Churchill only meant tear gas? The brief mention currently in the article doesn't make it very clear in my opinion. Robert.cunningham (talk) 00:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

If you have the sources to make a definite claim, be bold! Best, RayAYang (talk) 01:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Eugenics

Is there any reliable evidence to support this historian's theory about Churchill's support for eugenics, or was he just a crackpot? If there is no evidence, I suggest the whole section be deleted. If there is some doubt, I suggest the section should be left, but it should be made clear that this is one man's allegations and they were highly controversial. Robert.cunningham (talk) 01:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

It appears there is documentary evidence to suggest that Churchill did like the idea of 'doing something' about the feeble-minded. But the text as it stands is an exaggeration of an exaggeration. The main source for the pro-eugenics Churchill is Clive Ponting's biography of Churchill, which by most accounts takes a wildly uncharitable view of all of Churchill's life and actions. In Ponting's book, there is no context for the quotation,[1] and other accounts suggest it was a private letter, or non-official suggestion. see also. Without seeing the original documents that Ponting is quoting from, I would be inclined to take Ponting's allegations with a pinch of salt, and soften the wording slightly. 86.139.237.238 (talk) 00:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:Winston_Churchill#Controversial_issues section below. TuckerResearch (talk) 20:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikiquotes

Why is there no link to Churchill's wikiquote article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.110.77.118 (talk) 02:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps no one has added one yet?Sandpiper (talk) 16:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. Bazj (talk) 13:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Crimes against Humanity (or at least the innocent)

Great Britain, under the direction of Winston Churchill, clearly committed crimes against humanity (and by UN definition, a war criminal, definition right after the war and applies today); which was the purposeful targeting and bombing of innocent civilians (based on ethnicity/locale). The excuse made here is that anything is allowed provided you win the war, which is frankly infuriating (and clearly shows why the road to Hell could be paved with so called “Good Intentions”). Why is the section, which points this out about this clear war criminal (by today's standards), not equal in size and scope as the vane attempts to justify their monstrous acts?

I agree with others that lacking of a criticisms section, or at least fixing the overall far from critical bias the article clearly possesses. Thank-you. Nonprof. Frinkus 20:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Crimes against humanity? Do you have any reliable sources verifying that, or is it original research? —Dark ^talk 01:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I was refering to the material already directly on this page which was sourced already; “Bombing of Dresden in World War II”. Beyond that there is plenty of material out there listing possible atrocities, but I personally as of yet, do not currently anything assembled in complete form.

Countless peaces of evidence and many direct conclusions have been published. Some minor examples, like ‘ethnic cleansing’, as stated by Winston Churchill in the House of Commons in 1944: “Expulsion is the method which, insofar as we have been able o see, will be the most satisfactory and lasting. There will be no mixture of populations to cause endless trouble... A clean sweep will be made. I am not alarmed by these transferences, which are more possible in modern conditions…” <Text of Churchill Speech in Commons on Soviet=Polish Frontier (1944-12-15). The United Press.>. Just on this item alone, much more material can be obtained another source: Várdy, Steven Béla and Tooly, T. Hunt Ethnic Cleansing in Twentieth-Century Europe (the result of the conference on Ethnic Cleansing in Twentieth Century Europe held at Duquesne University in November 2000). Lots of material already in Wikipedia about the Allied “Terror bombings”. More examples? How about support for slavery, such as I found in a Yalta transcript 3: In the in the meeting on May 18th 1945, Winston Churchill discusses the amount of German labour they will request for use in the British agriculture, and in the meeting on June 11th 1945 they discuss the provisions made for Slave labor in the Yalta conference protocol, and how many slaves the Russians should get.

We can begin going through so many more examples, too many to list right here, so just one last quote that demonstrates a conclusion: “Had there ever been a sincere effort to punish those who intentionally inflicted needless death and suffering upon civilian populations, Winston Churchill and Harry Truman would have ended their careers on the hangman’s scaffold (as would Roosevelt, had he survived the war). It has been estimated that British and American terror bombings of German cities – directed not at military installations, but civilian targets – killed over half a million people. The fire bombings of Dresden – a city with no more military significance than Beverly Hills – led to the deaths of anywhere from 30,000 to 100,000 or more persons. The attack on Hamburg killed some 40,000; Wurzburg added another 6,000 dead; while the massive raid on Cologne (Köln) added more victims.” Written in an article “War Crimes Trials and Errors” by Butler Shaffer <professor at Southwestern University School of Law> Nonprof. Frinkus (talk) 22:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I consider the lack of a "critical bias" a compliment -- it suggests that the article does not push a point of view, in conformance with Wikipedia policies. As the original complainant notes, relevant material on the bombing of Dresden, etc., is included inside the article in an organic fashion. Material that would not fit neatly inside those confines is currently in the "controversial issues" section; in general, I do not view a "criticism" section as a requirement of an article -- it is far better when it is possible to organically include relevant material, so that the reader may judge for himself. Sadly, few articles reach this state of grace. Those wishing to use this article as a soapbox to push a particular moral viewpoint on Churchill by synthesizing his actions with particular modern moral standards can and should be disappointed. This article reports on Churchill and his actions in a historical fashion, and does so very well. RayAYang (talk) 00:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Hear hear, there is often bias camouflaged using coded language based on PC within wiki articles by the usual suspects as opposed to the historical reality, these glaringly obvious attempts at deceptive sophistry fools no-one. Twobells (talk) 12:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Not to worry, my intentions were completely missed. Alas. Significantly less than a century is hardly historical, especially when free and frank discussions of such material have only been introduced in more recent decades. Standards today are based on increasingly liberal participation of educated peoples, to come to a better standard of assessing reality, with the idea that over time, reality is probably more closely attained (which is good). Soap box, hardly? My opinions (which differ greatly from what people assume, as in this case), and anyone else's is completely irrelevant here (which is good). However, I guess in Wikipedia, facts do not matter. Anything someone opposes is watered-down, sidelined or eliminated. Quest for accuracy is just a non-starter here (popularity and culture being more important than accuracy). C’est la vie. This article mirrors popular belief (meaning matches the opinion of most, ignorant or otherwise), and shall so it remain. Peace be with you. :-) Nonprof. Frinkus (talk) 17:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Frinkus -- I agree with you and I think some editors confuse NPOV with Political correctness. --BBird (talk) 16:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I think in the wiki context it is arguable that PC is NPOV. Or more precisely, NPOV is significantly affected by what the majority believe to be the case. It is entirely true that, at least officially, wikipedia is not interested in truth, merely attributability and popular belief.Sandpiper (talk) 21:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

An Addition.

Why is there no mention of Churchills role during the 'Police Strike' in Liverpool. Where Churchill sent RN Gunships into the River Mersey and also placed the Army on the Streets. Streets in which two Liverpool citizens died from British Army bullets? 92.234.248.31 (talk) 16:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)Prober92.234.248.31 (talk) 16:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Some of these crticisms are revealing in their triviality. Condemning him for putting the army on the streets in a police strike is strange. If the police are on strike, who would you recommend placing on the streets to keep order? The Boy Scouts? The Women's Insitute?

One of the troubles is that we apply judgements applicable to today to circumstances that were completely different. Churchill is talking about the removal of Germans from Poland. Let's remember how many of the Germans got to be there - they invaded the country. Was anybody seriously expecting that Germans and Poles were going to live side by side in peace after that? If "ethnic cleansing" prevents a genocide, are we really going to say that it's unacceptable? Churchill because of his prominence, attracts attention from a lot of people who want to air their greivances in the most public place possible. Only a few years ago there was an editor who insisted that there should be three or four paragraphs on the "betrayals of the Polish people" in this article (more text than was then used to describe Churchill's role in WWII), despite the fact that Churchill was not in power at either the beginning or the end of the war, when the alleged 'betrayals' took place. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Lol....and the Navy warships in the Mersey were for what? Peace keeping? Intimidation?

lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.248.31 (talk) 19:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should ask the Irish about Winstons and the Churchill's 'political' neutrality?

I can't say if its in the article, but Churchill believed there was only one way to fight a war, as ruthlessly as possible. He coupled this with the need for magnanimity in victory. He applied this concept generally, not just in war. Never mind Dresden, what about Coventry, which he also ordered destroyed, I seem to recall.

If we are being philosophical, then I would agree that anything is indeed allowed just so long as you win. That is the one overriding lesson of history. Did you not notice the US having declined to sign up to various war crime agreements, a precise example of the winner making the rules? It is very hard to argue there is even an absolute scale against which actions can be judged in retrospect, because standards change all the time. As to crimes against the innocent, well we all do that. Just what will they think of us in a few hundred years: squandering resources unforgivably at the expense of all those innocents yet unborn, or sensibly making the most of resources in the period before X was discovered and made life easy?

Now, as to 'intentionally inflicted needless death and suffering upon civilian populations'. What on earth does this mean in this context? The only person taking part in a war who does not do this is a pacifist who refuses to take part. Even then, how can such a person be certain that because he refuses to fight, the total suffering is less and not more? I don't believe for one minute Churchill deliberately ordered civilians killed for the fun of it, which seems to be the core of the charge. Find something which says that he did. Anyone who chooses to resist aggression is condemning someone to suffer. Anyone who refuses to, does likewise. Some actions may be more questionable than others, especially afterwards, when circumstances and consequences can more easily be seen. But I begin to think I am horrified by the lack of understanding of war which has crept upon us. Churchill understood war rather well. He was trained as a soldier. Experienced revolutions, rebellions, honourable enemies and dishonourable friends. Had a part in running one world war. Saw it flare up again twenty years later. Really, what would you not do to stop that? All this because Kaiser Wilhelm II had a malformed hand and envied his cousin? Because the Romans never sorted the Goths? Exactly who can decide where to draw the line except the winners? What is considered a 'war crime' is always defined by winners. Sandpiper (talk) 21:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

what about Coventry, which he also ordered destroyed, I seem to recall. Amazing how much traction that canard has. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

not really, history changes all the time, it would seem. Sandpiper (talk) 01:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Sandpiper, the Germans destroyed Coventry, do some reading. Rather they knew about the bombing before hand but an evacuation they feared would alert the Germans to the fact they had cracked some of their codes. Coventry was something that needed to happen as it did to save more lives, Ultra saved many more lives then were lost at Coventry.

What is a war crime is easy to determine because you determine what was a war crime at the time, not now. The standards we hold nations to today is vastly different then it was 60 years ago. Nothing Churchill did we know of was at the time against the rules of war. City bombing was not a war crime during WWII, and NO ONE was held accountable for city bombing, even the Germans (except one officer who bombed a city declared an Open City and which was not defended thus not legitimate during the 1940's. City bombing was morally questionable but certainly not a war crime. Other then authorizing city bombing I'm not aware of other allegations of war crimes are thrown at Churchill.69.157.74.90 (talk) 19:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

In total war anything goes, as far as war crimes are concerned many thousands of people would of had to of been strung up at the end of the war if we were following the modern definitions. Its alright criticising Churchill for the carpet bombing of German cities but 'what goes around comes around' and i think you'll find that the vast majority of European Countries were happy to see a bit of payback. It wasn't just Britain that suffered from the German Airforce, how about Amsterdam that was flattened to get Dutch surrender or Warsaw or countless Russian and French Cities. Highly dangerous raids were made on German cities in 1940 when Britain was holding on by the skin of its teeth purely to BOOST the morale of the battered British public.

The UN did not exist at this time so the very idea of us judging by this noble institution is absurd. In fact by the calculations above every leader of a nation fighting in the Second World War would of been strung up afterwards. 'Thankyou Mr Churchill/Truman/Stalin (Stalin actually killed more people than Hitler so should definetely of been strung up but that was in Gulags and is a seperate issue) you have helped us to defeat an evil empire that was intent on taking over the world and wiping out various ethnic groups however unfortunately we are going to have to kill you because we're safe now and we dont like the muckier points of the war that preserved our freedom.' Lets get one thing straight if Germany had won you would not be in a position to criticise the victor as the Gestapo would be beating down your door! ([User:Willski72])Willski72 (talk) 22:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Why is there still NO mention of Churchills Role in 1911?

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9A02E5D91E3EE233A25755C1A96E9C946096D6CF

http://libcom.org/history/1911-liverpool-general-transport-strike

http://www.lmu.livjm.ac.uk/LHOL/content.aspx?itemid=8

? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.248.31 (talk) 21:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

well thats interesting, but those links say hardly anything about churchill or his role in any of it. Sandpiper (talk) 21:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The true face of Britain, Churchill - The Venom . Nobel Prize till 1960 - A school topping prize exculsive for Europeans.

It is alarming and also nauseating to see Mr Gandhi, a seditious Middle-Temple lawyer, now posing as a fakir of a type well-known in the East, striding half-naked up the steps of the Vice-regal palace...to parley on equal terms with the representative of the King-Emperor

Winston Churchill favoured letting Gandhi die if he went on hunger strike, newly published Cabinet papers show.

Winston Churchill brought victory to England against Axis Powers. Very great statement. Sign pacts with all the white savage civilizations and bomb the non white and peace preaching nations to build a tomb and pray in front of it for years peacefully . Term it as victory .

I still wonder if too many extra marital affairs and professing it ,with beef/pork eating and grass doping called a culture and a zeal to top the world by any path is the major cause for this that a term like savagic civilization is not at all a derogatory but a single apt equivalent of caucasian race.

What is the difference between Hitler and Churchill then. Both went to end the war but Hitler was declared bad and Mr Goofy Churchill became a leader. It's alarming how the offsprings of the history writers of the previous generations still make sure their children are doing the same with one of the most oblique intellegentsia favoured in the direction of their forefathers. This can surely be greatest sincerity than the expected one from a American circumscribed child / Islamic fundamental / Brahmin who threads their progeny to oath of secrecy.

A small East India Company and it's spread as to rule the whole of the sub continent is nothing but a untethered , sublime, nauseating and dirt minded convoy against a nation as diverse as India. Though the act involved not troubling the upper class and monarchs but subduing the masses and creating a great gap between religions demarcating them between confronting lines. A huge set of historians to write and rewrite history, a huge set of generals to pose as administrative heads, a huge set of alliances to dog scare and a small set of white fuckers to turn Brahmin head of Nehru .

What else is a Britain in India? A piece of shit which is still fuelling venom. History textbooks of MacAulay system penned by whims and fancies of Monier Williams still think twice before wrting the facts. Sonia Gandhi heads nation with a surname which is niether her's nor her far flung relations. Fortunately the Indian National Britain congress is fading out.

To make the world neutral as one of the historian who reverted my edits said I would include the names of Gandhi, Mandela, Lincoln and Mother Teresa that still world can look for exemplary ones. There is no virtue in separating the Policies, Administrative laws as an alien philosophy not at all related to mankind would be the begotten mistake which we would follow of the footsteps of some of the most weak and ill placed people in the history of mankind.

It requires a tough thinking by rest of European nations to segregate Britonic attitude to restore world peace.

Well for nobel prize it's good that the English speaking and proud population of India never are given it else the craze would have made much more services and boot licking of their masters. Kali-K (talk) 07:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Um. Was there a point to this long quotation of vitriol? RayAYang (talk) 18:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

OfCourse , to eliminate partiality , to show the dark character of Churchill . I can see in the article that he saw combat in India.... . What is meant by this? Was he a gentleman who came and saw it happening and tried to resolve it? He was a bloody invader under suits who fuelled it and any edit on that will be removed in English Wikipedia Hope it's not wrong to discuss vitriolic character of a apparently good person. I really cannot beleive how a person can delete a whole section from discussion page. JohnBull Are yu trying to improve the character of Churchill??? Are you scared of your own truths? Is wikipedia scared of criticism of Churchill??? Kali-K (talk) 05:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• If you have particular suggestions for improving the article, please let us know. Ranting isn't necessary or helpful. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 07:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Jpgordon. It's not a rant . It's about one of the greatest revolutions turned down as a mere independence declared by Britain!!! Nobody calls Indian freedom for struggle as a revolution even though it went for centuries because it never approached slightly towards it's goal and people forgot that they were fighting for independence and fought with each other and mastermind to erase the appearance or completely change the direction of the goal was Churchill and his divide and rule policy. I would like to draw the attention towards this article Churchill's vitriolic character towards India - Exit Wounds and would like to quote a few lines from it.

• As late as 1940, Winston Churchill hoped that Hindu-Muslim antagonism would remain a bulwark of British rule in India.
• Karl Marx predicted that British colonials would prove to be the unconscious tool of a social revolution in a subcontinent stagnating under Oriental despotism.
• In the nineteen-twenties and thirties, Churchill had been loudest among the reactionaries who were determined not to lose India, the jewel in the crown, and, as Prime Minister during the Second World War, he tried every tactic to thwart Indian independence. I hate Indians, he declared. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion. He had a special animus for Gandhi, describing him as a rascal and a half-naked fakir (In a letter to Churchill, Gandhi took the latter as a compliment, claiming that he was striving for even greater renunciation.) According to his own Secretary of State for India, Leopold Amery, Churchill knew as much of the Indian problem as George III did of the American colonies.
• What Leopold Amery denounced as Churchill’s Hitler-like attitude to India manifested itself most starkly during a famine, caused by a combination of war and mismanagement, that claimed between one and two million lives in Bengal in 1943. Urgently beseeched by Amery and the Indian viceroy to release food stocks for India, Churchill responded with a telegram asking why Gandhi hadn’t died yet.
• Jinnah was a toy under Churchill's hands which subsequently led to partition. Glamour boy Mountbatten acted like a pimping his wife for seducing a weak Nehru diseased by his wife's death in 1936 and had to pose to nation as heir to Gandhi though he knew it was impossible.

It becomes obvious that what he did half a century ago is taking it's toll now. The Pentagon , Trade centre , Glasgow is what west sees now. The Divide and Rule causes thousands every year in the subcontinent.

When I see Hitler's article I would be greeted with a totalitarian and fascist dictatorship and words like that ( it seems a little justifiable seeing his troubled childhood and rebellion with his father) but someone who was more totalitarian and dictatorial ,also a coward who couldn't listen to his weaknesses even after born to Spencer and becoming a Duke , nothing of such term comes to define his character. It seems to be veiled under Queen Victoria's secrets....!!!!!!

Hence my edit of him not seeing combat in India but his own disastrous , and ill minded motives leading and fuelling the combat and his view on India and most importantly Gandhi need to be highlighted in the first few paragraphs which are currently reserved to only describe his bought honours and overloaded virtues. Kali-K (talk) 07:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I take it none of this can be regarded as synthesis of multiple sources? Remember that Wikipedia, as a neutral encyclopedia, cannot accept Churchill, seen to most of the living population as the person bringing the end to the fascist regime of Hitler, as "someone who was more totalitarian and dictatorial" than Hitler, without multiple reliable and unbiased sources all stating this. —Dark ^talk 07:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

As a further note, this is a controversial statement; so please do not add this into the article until consensus is formed for the change. —Dark ^talk 07:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Relationship with Ike

Perhaps WSC and Ike did not get along as President and Prime Minister, but certainly WSC does not mention any discord between himself and the General. But I certainly have not seen any notes about a discord between them in WSC biography... or in his own Memoirs of the Second World War. (I just finished it yesterday). A citation of this important relationship having soured would thereby be appropriate. Cheers V. Joe (talk) 16:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC) To kali-k,k,k: go away. you are very annoying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.84.125.145 (talk) 20:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear none of Kali's views are supported with good references, nor are they neutral. He's free to hold those views but not to push them in Wikipedia. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

What is meant by good reference ?? Forget about reference . We should be bothered about the facts . Show me a reference which says my reference is bad??? Whatever I quote is bad and whatever you quote is good. Good are the ones written by your forefathers ? Get out of the sleep. That's too narrow minded. I really don't understand why wikipedia is still under sheets without saying anything about the edits. Where are the barnstars and numerous epithets of wikipedia???? Are they Churchilled ???? .Kali-K (talk) 11:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Kali: if you can't be civil to other editors then please stop editing. Just because you have found one person who holds these views about Churchill doesn't make them consensus. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Clayworth: if you can't be civil to other editors then please stop editing . So you mean if you have a large number of Churchill followers all become civil and facts become criminal!!!!!. The literate democratic bull.... I don't want any of my individual viewpoints to be published at all but just the fact and none of the quotes are my own. They are straight from any history book . I know how disgusted you could feel about your icon but sadly that's what the fact is. I can give you hundreds of such articles on the net and you can synthesize the multiple sources to your fancies but the question is Can the English Wikipedia digest it? I am still looking for an answer and I think it is failing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kali-K (talk • contribs) 10:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's stay civil by examining the obvious errors that you have made so far. Focussing on your GA delisting:

• "Churchill's life was focussed orientally". Simply not true. Churchill's activities ranged widely across the world. Leaving aside his main focus of the British people, he focussed a lot of attention on the US, and campaigned strongly for an integrated Europe. Asia was merely one of the places he gave attention to.
• "Churchill was the only person to oppose Gandhi". Think how stupid that sounds? If Churchill was the only person opposed to him, why Gandhi's campaign for independence immediately succeed when Churchill was out of power? I regret to say it, but Gandhi was not a superhuman saint, universally approved of by everyone. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Now you are perhaps looking things in light. Let me put more light.

• I never said his range of activities were not in west but the focus was on Britain and it's explorations and colonies. The rich always get recognition and wide range of activities.
• Even many Indians don't follow many of Gandhi's ideologies forget about people, even some of his children are partially victimised, but let's not deviate ; what is core here is he opposed Gandhi all through his life. I can never search anyone who opposed Gandhi in completeness, all through his life. His public brawl against Gandhi , shows his helplessness, unable to accept defeat at hands of an ordinary common man.Kali-K (talk) 09:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Amazing, everyone in the Western World has been brainwashed into believing that Churchill saved us from an evil dictator. Then we find out that it was the other way round! Perphaps once Hitler had purged Britain of half its population we might have been forgiven for ever daring to try and keep up with the other powerful European Nations. Maybe France would rule India (at one point it did rule part. I wonder what Napoleon would have done there), or Russia once it had forced its way through Afghanistan. But i guess we will never know, and all because of that evil Churchill! ([User: Willski72])

16:27, 5 October 2008Willski72 (talk) 15:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

GAR

Kali-K has started de-listing proceeding at Good Article Review. Here is the review page. The GAR banner which should appear at the top of this page hasn't been posted, which may be due to the current server problems. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 14:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Winston Churchill - The Devil?

I can quite clearly see Revisionistas are hard at work in some sections here. So let me clarify some issues. Winston Churchill was a great man. But he was also a man of his times. In an unusual twist of fate, those times happened to be the period from the Victorian Era to the 1960s - the most tumultuous period in modern history. Churchill, being human, held on to attitudes that were considered silly or even contemptible by the time he became Prime Minister. Some of those served him. His old fashioned Victorian belief in Good and Evil served him well in identifying Hitler as a genuine threat to peace when everyone else in the world considered the tyrant silly or even visionary. But the same era bestowed upon him an attitude at best prejudicial and at worst racist towards Indians and a supreme belief that Britain should rule India forever. As for his bombing policy, one must remember that attacking civilian targets was the accepted strategy of the time. It was embraced by all nations, Nazi Germany being the first but not the last, as a sensible policy towards defeating enemy morale and production. Churchill did not invent this strategy. Perhaps if Hitler had offered to avoid hitting civilian targets, Churchill might have responded in kind. But as it was, he used the strategy because he believe it worked and as a kind of tit for tat from the London Blitz. A great biographer, William Manchester, pointed out that Churchill's judgments were either incredibly right or disastrously wrong. I will add that when he calculated something that had sweeping world wide effects or effects not relating to the Empire, he was nearly always right. But when calculating anything to do specifically with the Empire, his judgment was invariably impaired. Gandhi is the best example for that failing, as Churchill went out of his way to heap contempt upon a man as great or greater than he, and remained hostile to Indian independence for longer than reasonable. Finally, I will add that getting on a moral soap box and judging the past by the ideals of the present without understanding the context of that past is contemptible. It demonstrates a willfully naive attitude and a serious lack of compassion, which is curiously a value such people think their displaying. People are people. Some, like Churchill are great or famous or rich. But all of them deal with the difficulties of being human just like you and I. They succeed or fail and in studying them a serious scholar must walk a fine line. You can't put guys like Churchill on too high a pedestal. It denies that humanity which in part makes them interesting and forces you to assume a subservient attitude when you willfully ignore their shortcomings. But if you drag them in the mud, you deny what great things they did do, and frankly make you look like an envious fool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.177.47.44 (talk) 21:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, anon. That's an excellent approach to the whole thing. Wikipedia's policy is neutrality and factuality, so both of those errors should be avoided. The temptation can be to either ignore 'bad' points in a great man's life (or to judge him by today's standards) or attack him mercilessly for his perceived failings as a kind of 'counterbalence' for the good things said about him.

Incidentally you will find that this problem occurs to a much greater degree the other way round - that some people will absolutely refuse to admit that a 'bad' person has any redeeming qualities at all. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not bothered about my own perceptions to be reflected in wikipedia as people have already commented on the reassessment page. I not only bring him to mud but further more than that . Forget about my own opinion. When I see your reasoning you are blaming the TIME . If we take that into consideration we need to also rethink about Hitler. Both went through same BAD time. Why is Churchill's time, Being a strong proponent of Britain as an international power troubled. If we consider him as a simple human , people are people and things like that , why didn't he resign and leave all the unnecessary work. He would have let all the empire and slept peacefully and rest of world would have rested in peace. People go explore sea routes , in the name of trade try establishing their empire , over that make others as slaves to work for them and then when they can no longer baptize them completely, when they come to know that matrix itself is becoming stronger than the string, then create divisions and then go and sit to decide for the peace of the whole world and then tell after a century that he was still a human . To err is human and to forgive is divine...... Too funny a moral.

It's widely portrayed that Potsdam conference declared to surrender Japan but Was the atom bomb dropping really necessary???? The statement the alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction even after Hitler's death and surrender was totally unnecessary and Churchill was heading the conference then with subheads of Soviet and America .With all the stupendous contributions to world peace this anti-communist lost elections to Labour Party in his own land and to propagate his ideas authored best selling The Second World War. How extravagant. Kali-K (talk) 11:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think English is not your first language, because much of your writing isn't comprehensible. But I will try to answer what I can understand. I am not blaming the TIME (or TIMES in Churchill's case, since he lived through the Victorian Era, the Edwardian Era, WW I, the Roaring 20's, the World Wide Depression, WW II and the early Cold War). I am saying that because the world is different in each era, each society has different ideas of morality. Yes, most people can agree on moral generalities like "thou shalt not kill". But when you get to the particulars and applications the consensus breaks down. Again, Churchill's decisions were mostly based on his Victorian view of the world. These views followed that morality or were logical extensions of it. And they did not include the idea of just resigning. This does not defend Hitler, since his actions do not reflect the morals of his time. His morality was so far out of whack he had to define Nazi morality as its own thing. Research it sometime. It mirrored some Christian values until Hitler gained enough power intimidate the Church. Then it got really weird. It had to in order to use mass murder as a continuous national policy. Finally, "To err is human and to forgive is divine" is wise, not silly. Forgiveness is necessary. It heals both the ones forgiven (deserved or not) and the forgiver with peace being the result. Don't believe me? You try and maintain a grudge in your life over EVERYTHING that insults you or your sense of moral righteousness. You'll either be jailed for assault or die of a rage/stress induced heart attack or both within 5 to 10 years. BTW, in case you're curious, Nazi morality wasn't big on forgiveness.

Atheist

I wonder if Yahnatan was right to add Atheist as WSC's official religion in the infobox. While I don't like it, I'll raise no fuss about the section in the article on which he bases the decision, but I don't believe that WSC ever professed atheism. IIRC, he delicately skirted the issue by suggesting, at one point at least, that, with the mandatory, daily chapel he'd attended as a student, he'd banked enough time in church that the occasional visits for weddings and funerals as an adult kept him in good standing. As a Conservative politician, disowning CoE might have been a needless hassle, whereas the inclusion in the infobox seems to suggest a more active rejection than he evidenced. Anyone else care about the issue? Czrisher (talk) 20:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I hate this tendency to think we must add a 'label' to every person; Atheist: yes or no. And heaven forbid that we ever acknowledge that a person's views might change throughout their life. All that aside, if there isn't a clear reference stating definiteively that he was an atheist, and not contrdicted by other references, then we shouldn't add the label. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

If it's not sourced and can't be verified, let's get rid of it. I'm similarly a little bothered by the addition of Churchill to the list of bipolar people; while there is sourced speculation to that effect, none of his biographers have gone so far as to make the actual diagnosis. RayAYang (talk) 04:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed them both, including removed from the bipolar list page. I am also bothered by this trend, not just with Churchill. There appear to be some editors who think that any source claiming that some person is (whatever) allows them to add the statement to the article as fact. DJ Clayworth (talk) 08:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

First off by this time public expressions of faith were generally not a notable feature of British politicians, although there were some exceptions amongst Churchill's contemporaries (e.g. William Joynson-Hicks or Stafford Cripps). So I question whether this is really relevant at all. Secondly Churchill was a baptised member of the Church of England, became the main target of opposition to the Tithes Bill in his first election as the only even nominal Anglican, and his speeches in general indicated a belief in God. He famously described himself as being a supporter of the Church of England, albeit as a buttress rather than a pillar, rarely actually attending. But there's nothing to indicate he was anything other than a non-regular Church going Anglican throughout his life. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm bothered by the fact that the article classifies Churchill as an Anglican while also containing the claim that in his early twenties "Churchill read William Winwood Reade's Martyrdom of Man, a classic of Victorian atheism, which completed his loss of faith in Christianity," and goes on in the same paragraph to supply more claims for his atheism. These are mutually exclusive, aren't they?

I would like to argue for a return of the "atheist" tag on the following grounds. First, the religion a person is born (or baptised) into isn't an adequate indication of their beliefs; his later non-attendance at church and atheist statements cited in the article surely suggest that he moved a long way from any faith he was born into; second, the strength of the atheist statements cited in the article; third, the consideration that "Anglican" was by far the majority religion in the UK at the time and may be a convenient default position rather than a statement of active choice. It would have been unusual for him not to have been born and baptised an Anglican, whatever his actual beliefs.

What do others think? Mswake (talk) 07:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

His page states that "He lost whatever religious faith he may have had through reading Edward Gibbon, he stated, and took a particular dislike to the Catholic Church, as well as Christian missions." It also says that he was a materialist. One cannot be a materialist and believe in God. Therefore he was atheist. 86.31.49.142 (talk) 17:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Atheism is a specific stance with strong cultural and political connotations, not merely the absence of a belief in God. Absent rock-solid proof of deliberate intent by Churchill to adopt such a position, it should be avoided. We have covered such issues concerning Churchill's faith that can be verified; amplification there would be welcome, if it can be throughly verified to the standards expected of a fine article. RayAYang (talk) 20:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Churchill did supposedly describe himself as an optimisic agnostic once [2] although we need a better source if we're going to mention it. I largely agree that we shouldn't label him agnostic but I also don't think we should label him an Anglican either yet both the infobox and category do label him Anglican Nil Einne (talk) 17:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Martin Gilbert 'Churchill: a life' (the short gilbert biography) quotes him on p.102 on the subject of religion c.1900 with such lines as: that people who think much of the next world rarely prosper in this: that men must use their minds and not kill their doubts by sensuous pleasures: that superstitious faith in nations rarely promotes their industry; that, in a phrase, Catholicism - all religion if you like, but particularly catholicism - is a deliciious narcotic. It may sooth our pains and chase our worries, but it checks our growth and saps our strength. And since the improvement of the British breed is my political aim in life, I would not permit too great indulgence if I could prevent it without assailing another great principle - Liberty. Gilbert comments Churchill warned his cousin against being identified with anti-catholics. The quote there suggests he was opposed to the practices of the Catholic church (incense...robes...and superstitious practices), and describes protestantism as at any rate, a step nearer reason. On page 92, just before the battle of Omdurman he wrote to his mother, contemplating the possibility he might be killed, ..I can assure you I do not flinch - though I do not accept the christian or any other form of religious belief.... I have plenty of faith - in what I do not know - that I shall not be hurt. From various quotes he seems to have been generally convinced of his immortality in battle. He was also critical of mohamedism writing in 'the river war', so it wasn't just christian religions he had issues with.

I notice the paragraph about his religious stance has entirely disappeared. Perhaps it ought to go back somewhere? whatever his view, religion is a highly contentious topic to many and is of interest. Sandpiper (talk) 00:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I suspect, however, that Churchill's religious views will defy labelling, either because it was politically convenient to be ambiguous, or perhaps because Churchill himself was ambiguous on the topic. I'm going to speculate that while Churchill found religious fervor distasteful, and disliked superstition, he would have found the open rejection of centuries of tradition embodied in atheism and continental skeptical philosophies to be equally repugnant. I would guess that he liked a grand old tradition, and if that meant going to church on Christmas, he wouldn't object overly much, but he wasn't going to be the sort who brought prayer into everything either. Ray (talk) 06:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Do we agree then to remove Anglican from the infobox and cat? Nil Einne (talk) 11:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the following on his practice of observance, from My Early Life would convey some of the ambivalence? (If you like, I'll give full citation.) "I accumulated in those years [youth and at Harrow] so fine a surplus in the Bank of Observance that I have been drawing confidently upon it ever since. Weddings, christenings, and funerals have brought in a steady annual income, and I have never made too close enquiries about the state of my account. It might well even be that I should find an overdraft."Czrisher (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC).

Gilbert quotes that line too. while it might be the belief of a fanatic who absolutely believed in a literal God, and that observance was literally cash in the bank, I would be sceptical that a reasoning believer really meant God worked on the bank account principle. I think his warning to his cousin, not to rock the boat by objecting to catholicism and thereby arousing hostility, is to the point, and that he publicly followed his own advice. As to the issue of whether he was an anglican, well, everyone was by default? It is a cliche that it is not necessary to be a believer in God to be an Anglican, in the sense of a supporter of the established church of England. But, on the other hand, it is equally false to label him as an anglican thereby implying he was a committed believer in that faith. The quote I gave above suggests he was very sceptical about the benefits of any church, so difficult to claim he was even an anglican in the sense of approving of it despite not believing in god. I think Gilberts points are reasonably clear, that essentially he wasn't an anglican in a real sense. RayaYang, you may object to the label 'atheist' as implying a dedicated position, but labelling him 'Anglican' has a similar effect. On the evidence of these quotes, I would go towards 'atheist' rather than 'anglican', but then his letter home from Omdurman might suggest he believed in something other than established religions? The quotes and discussion refers specifically to c.1900, I havn't read anything about his later life, when things might have changed? Sandpiper (talk) 20:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I think we may be going round in circles here. Since no one seems to have objected to the removal of the Anglican label, not even Yang, I'm going to be bold and remove it. Nil Einne (talk) 11:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The religion was partially reinserted after I removed it by a user along with several edits. I'm presuming the user wasn't aware of this discussion or that I just removed it. I invited the user to join the discussion but as there has been no response I've left a hidden comment and removed religion from the infobox again Nil Einne (talk) 14:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Churchill society

Hi. I would like to gauge people's thoughts as to whether the Churchill Regular Association for Poker should be included on this page. Although it has poker in the name, the society was originally set up to play games such as Bezique. Churchill College is the college at the University of Cambridge set up by Winston Churchill and it is known that he supported such student activities. Let me know your thoughts. WikiWebbie (talk) 18:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

You need to provide some references to prove the things you say, and to show that this club is notable and relevant to the article about Churchill. Being named after him is not sufficient. Your club appears to have been founded in 2007 and to be entirely devoted to poker and not Bezique or anything else. Please do not add anything about this club until you have provided such references. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Even if you provide references for the above, Churchill did not set up your club. He set up the college named after him, from which you seem to have named your club. Would it make sense to name here every club and committee within the college? Probably not... On the other hand, were you to argue that you named the club after Churchill rather than the college, your club isn't notable (sorry) and your bestowing on Churchill the honour of naming your club after him isn't noteworthy. Were I to bestow on WSC the MNOVS (most noble order of Vincent's sock) I doubt it should be left in the article... Vincent (talk) 06:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Controversial issues

To the "Controversial issues" section:

1. I think that the "Eugenics" section, pardon my language, is a pile of crap. To be more cordial, first I don't think that it merits a section of its own, if mentioned at all it should be put into the main body of the text. Secondly, the sources are thin, and Chomsky is a very BIASED source here.
2. The "Poison gas" episode should be put into the main body of the text, and not have a section of its own.

TuckerResearch (talk) 20:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

You're probably right. But there is a vocal minority that wants to see Churchill vilified (the grounds seemingly being that Churchill is deified by other people). We've managed to stop people writing whole paragraphs about how Churchill betrayed the Poles, starved the Bangladeshis, deliberately allowed the bombing of Coventry, delayed rescuing Jews, oppressed Gandhi, and much more. These ones are relatively well referenced, so it's probably best if they stay. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

If so, let's integrate them into the main body of the article, not have them as separate sections. TuckerResearch (talk) 20:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Feel free. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

NIRE - Churchhill and Partition - Northern Ireland

Why is there no mention of Winston's role in Partition, and the Churchill families role in Northern Ireland ?

http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=704

It is a curious omission; the Irish question was certainly a prominent political issue in pre-WWI Britain and occupied a good chunk of Churchill's time both before and after the First World War. Churchill's family's role is probably a little too peripheral for our article, but feel free to add something about the issue. RayAYang (talk) 20:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

In office as First Lord and as President of the Board

|order5 = First Lord of the Admiralty |term_start5 = 3 September 1939 |term_end5 = 12 May 1940 |primeminister5 = Neville Chamberlaine |predecessor5 = James Stanhope, 7th Earl Stanhope |successor5 = A. V. Alexander, 1st Earl Alexander of Hillsborough |term_start6 = 24 October 1911 |term_end6 = 28 May 1915 |primeminister6 = Herbert Henry Asquith |predecessor6 = Reginald McKenna |successor6 = Arthur Balfour |order7 = President of the Board of Trade |term_start7 = 12 April 1908 |term_end7 = 14 February 1910 |primeminister7 = Herbert Henry Asquith |predecessor7 = David Lloyd George |successor7 = Sidney Buxton, 1st Earl Buxton

Berend Tent (talk) 20:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Noble Prize

I'd like to point out that Winston Churchill won the noble prize for Literature, but the symbole used for noble prize winners is not to be found on the page.

Den david 10.46 GMT+1 5 dec. 08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.164.9.184 (talk) 09:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Nobel prize? ColourSarge (talk) 21:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The use of the symbol was abandoned as a result of the discussion here Template talk:Nobel icon (I'm not surprisied, it always was a bit odd) Nil Einne (talk) 18:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

We can not acept such desision since the discussion you are pointing out clearly highlited the lack of consensus as weather the icon should be use. Furthermore I find it practical to include the nobel price icon. Why? Lets be practical. If you are a schoolar, a person who knew Wiston Churchil, or if you have graduated in english literature, universal history etc... You probably know that Wiston Churchill was a nobel literaute or whoever you spell that. Nontheless if your a britsh middle school student that has accesed this page just to glence at his birth, and death dates to include them in a school presentation or whatever (there must be tens of thousends) by watching the unorthodox little medal next to his name, a kid in a hundred might be compelled to do some further reading. Education being the goal here... Cmon!!! So I ask you, would the inclusion of this icon be any more detrimental than its omision? Sorry if this reply uses hyperbole... just traying to make a point —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jorgecalle (talk • contribs) 05:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Did you bother to read all the discussion or just decide to randomly comment? It's quite clear consensus was reached in the end... BTW how about we create an icon for if the guy owned cats? And one for if he has sex more then 3 times a week on average? Another icon for if the guy likes milk in his tea? Better yet, why on earth do we need text? Let's just create an icon for everything and anything possible. Oh wait, maybe we should just make this the Mandarin wikipedia Nil Einne (talk) 13:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)