Explore

In late 1899, Winston Churchill was catapulted to prominence following the famous armoured train attack and his subsequent escape from a Boer prison camp. His adventures fostered long-lasting controversy. A very hostile account was written as late as 1994. This essay was first published by John Hussey in 1999. So far as he and we know, no further discoveries have been made to dispute his conclusions.

Mannerheim stepped down as Commander-in-Chief in January 1945 and as Regent-President in March 1946, aged 78. No actions were taken against him by the West for having been Hitler’s ally for three years. Winston Churchill, and every other objective observer, recognized that he was the savior of his country. He acted at a time when Finland was intolerably squeezed between the two most evil and violent totalitarian dictatorships in history.

“For Nemon,” Rosenthal said, “Winston Churchill symbolized greatness of character as a bulwark against inhumanity. This was the mainspring of Nemon’s message, as expressed in the numerous busts and statutes of Churchill now in many lands.”

"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.

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.

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.

“Only Churchill carries that absolutely required criterion: indispensability,” wrote Dr. Krauthammer. “Without Churchill the world today would be unrecognizable.”