Articles

Both Churchill and Chamberlain understood that Nazi Germany was a time bomb. But whereas Chamberlain imagined that it could be defused by diplomacy, Churchill believed that it could only be defused by force, or the threat of force. When the diplomacy of appeasement failed Chamberlain was compelled to accept—albeit with the profound reluctance of a man who loathed war—that no other response was possible. In the final analysis the British Empire, which was already in decline, had to be sacrificed so that Britain itself could live.

"I have forfeited a great deal. I have given up an office that I loved, work in which I was deeply interested, and a staff of which any man might be proud. I have given up associations in that work with my colleagues with whom I have maintained for many years the most harmonious relations, not only as colleagues but as friends. I have given up the privilege of serving as lieutenant to a leader whom I still regard with the deepest admiration and affection. I have ruined, perhaps, my political career. But that is a little matter; I have retained something which is to me of great value—I can still walk about the world with my head erect." - Duff Cooper, 1938

Whatever arguments we might make about Ireland in the Second World War, they will help us better to understand the dynamics of today’s relationships between the great powers.

Remarks by Randolph S. Churchill, Winston Churchill's great-grandson, at a dinner hosted by Hillsdale College on 14 June 2019 in celebration of the completion of the Official Biography of Sir Winston Churchill. The biography was begun in 1962 by Churchill's son, Randolph, and continued by Martin Gilbert until 2012, when Larry P. Arnn of Hillsdale College was appointed editor.

Why would Hamilton raise the inconsequential to the significant? With admirers like this, Churchill’s memory needs no enemies.

After witnessing the tragic consequences of modern war and the potential for moral decline in society, Churchill committed himself to discovering how free individuals might remain free in a time governed increasingly by science and mechanization.  He believed that the survival of freedom demanded a serious reinforcement of the ideas that first gave it birth as expressed in the literature, language, and history of the English-speaking peoples. Only in reaffirming their ideological foundations could the offspring of the English tradition maintain the unity, commitment, and virtue necessary to face the threats of the modern age.  In summary, what Churchill saw as necessary for freedom and peace in the 20th century and beyond was strength through the pursuit of truth.

The policy of containment of Communism—now on the eve of victory—had its origin in Churchill’s speech at Westminster College, Fulton, Missouri, in 1946. Known in history as the "Iron Curtain speech," it was entitled  by Churchill “The Sinews of Peace.” Churchill was then condemned for it as a war-monger.We can see now, after may long, weary years, that his own speech title is triumphantly vindicated.

For Churchill, history was a dynamic process rather than an inevitable course. To secure liberty in the future, this must be recognized.

Lecture offers started arriving while Churchill was still in South Africa. The first was from Major J. B. Pond, an American agent, in March 1900. English offers followed. His South Africa exploits gave a ready subject: “The War as I Saw It.” Of course, speaking was only a temporary activity, to earn money for his political career, for Members of Parliament were not salaried until 1911. This became crucial after Churchill, as predicted, was elected MP for Oldham on 1 October 1900.

Among many close personal friendships that Churchill enjoyed in political and military life, one of the more unlikely was with a former foe, the South African statesman Jan Christian Smuts. Richard Steyn has offered a plethora of new information and insights in a readable account of this important friendship.

The fall of Singapore had been such a profound shock in 1942 that Churchill's reaction to Pownall’s explanation may have been more emotional than reasoned.

Of all those appointed to his cabinet in May 1940, Prime Minister Winston Churchill had known Leo Amery the longest—back to when they were schoolboys. Despite the longevity of their relationship, they were never very close. Rather, as Robert Rhodes James wrote, “there was always a definite restraint, a lack of warmth, a noticeable caution and reserve” between them. Nevertheless, Amery played a notable part in ensuring Churchill’s premiership.