Explore

"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.”

G.C.B Dodds, a private secretary in 1944, recalls Churchill’s energy, fearlessness and pugnacity, and an uncomfortable moment over de Gaulle.

Nora Henty, last survivor from Churchill’s wartime staff, had vivid memories of those “dark days and darker nights” when Britain stood alone.

Sharing Churchill’s appreciation of the wisdom of Edmund Burke, Andrew Roberts compares the two great figures, and wonders what they’d make of Brexit.