Subscribe now and receive weekly newsletters with educational materials, new courses, interesting posts, popular books, and much more!
Articles
The Myth of Churchill and Alcohol: A Distortion of the Record
- By MICHAEL McMENAMIN
- | May 18, 2018
- Category: Personal Matters Truths and Heresies
Two of the most persistent myths about Churchill’s personal life are that he suffered from manic depression (Bipolar Disorder) or major depression, and that he was an abuser of alcohol. Search for “Churchill and Depression” or “Churchill and Alcohol” and page after page after page will pop up.
Both myths suffer from similar faults. Persons qualified to diagnose manic depression or alcohol abuse usually have a superficial knowledge of Churchill, while those knowledgeable about Churchill usually have a superficial understanding of mental illness or alcoholism. The depression fable has been capably addressed by Carol Breckenridge. A similar approach may be made to the subject of Churchill and alcohol—a subject on which we heard even more of than his alleged mental illness.
A recent example was “How was it possible for Winston Churchill to drink so much and still function at a high level?” by Scott Alexander Williams on quora.com in 2018. First, the author gets wrong the amount of Churchill’s daily (considerable) consumption of alcohol. Then he uses this exaggerated amount to conclude that Churchill was “a high-functioning alcoholic.” In fact, the amount of alcohol a person consumes does not define an alcoholic. And “high-functioning alcoholic” is an oxymoron along the lines of “deafening silence.”
The limit of moderation
It is quite true that Churchill drank a lot, and did so every day. I illustrated this in a scene at Chartwell in my historical novel, The Parsifal Pursuit:
“Thank you,” she said as she took the gin and tonic…. “I’m doing my best to cut down….Alcohol is decidedly detrimental to one’s health.”
“Not if you drink in moderation,” Cockran said.
“You sound just like Mr. Churchill,” she said. “‘Everything in moderation’ I hear him tell people. I must say, if the way Winston drinks is ‘moderation’, then he drinks an awful lot in moderation.”
Cockran had to laugh. “True,” he said. “If there is an amount that defines moderation, Winston is likely near the limit.”
The point is that, for Churchill as an individual, his “limit of moderation” was quite high. The following (from Richard Langworth’s Winston Churchill, Myth and Reality) is a fair approximation of his minimum daily consumption of alcohol:
(1) Several whisky and sodas (less than an ounce of whisky) around 11am, teatime and bedtime and occasionally one other during the evening. (He never drank whisky neat.)
(2) An imperial pint (20 oz.) of champagne or wine at a 1pm lunch followed by a brandy, also likely an ounce.
(3) An imperial pint of champagne or wine at dinner followed by a brandy.
This translates into approximately six glasses (1½ 750 ml. bottles) of champagne or wine daily along with 5 to 6 ounces of whisky or brandy spread over a 12 to 15 hour period. By any standards, that’s a lot of alcohol. A person’s body will process and metabolize pure alcohol at the rate of one ounce per hour, however, so Churchill’s regular daily consumption is within that rate.
Defining an alcoholic
Were there occasions when Churchill drank more? Undoubtedly. But the amount of alcohol a person consumes does not define an alcoholic. What matters is the effect of the alcohol on a person’s health and life. Labeling Churchill an alcoholic based on the amount he consumed is no more accurate than calling him Bi-Polar or manic-depressive because, like most people, he was from time to time depressed. He lost elections, lost cabinet offices, lost battles, lost political arguments. “The things he went through would depress anybody,” his daughter Mary often said.
Let us begin with a basic dictionary definition of alcoholism before we consider the more detailed criteria in Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders IV (hereafter DSM-IV) of the American Psychiatric Association (1994), and whether it relates to Churchill.
The American Heritage Dictionary defines alcoholism as a “disorder characterized by the excessive consumption of and dependence on alcoholic beverages, leading to physical and psychological harm and impaired social and vocational functioning [emphasis added]. This definition alone establishes that Churchill could not possibly be an alcoholic. Where is the evidence of his impaired social and vocational functioning? During his life, he wrote over fifty books in eighty volumes. He produced over 500 oil paintings after the age of forty, played polo until he was fifty, rode horses into his seventies. He was the highest paid journalist in the world during his “Wilderness Years” of 1929-39, he eventually won the Nobel Prize for Literature. In a political career spanning sixty years, he held every major Cabinet position except Foreign Secretary (where he assumed its duties and served as acting Foreign Secretary while Anthony Eden was on medical leave). Along the way in 1940, when Britain and her Commonwealth stood alone, he saved Western Civilization.
Clearly, using the a simple dictionary definition, Churchill was not an alcoholic. Let us however consider DSM-IV and similar, albeit more detailed and specific, criteria for a diagnosis of alcoholism. Like Bi-Polar Disorder, Substance Abuse and Substance Dependence (including alcohol and other drugs) are defined in DSM-IV as a “mental disorder.” Substance Abuse and Substance Dependence are two different things (abuse being a precondition for dependence, i.e., you have to abuse alcohol before becoming dependent on it). Churchill comes no closer to meeting these criteria than he comes to the dictionary definition.
DSM-IV is over 900 pages long and the following definitions are taken from the smaller sized Desk Reference to DSM-IV. Note: DSM-V (2013), combines the two substance disorders into a single “alcohol use disorder” but with almost identical criteria:
Substance abuse
A maladaptive pattern of substance use leading to clinically significant impairment or distress, as manifested by one (or more) of the following, occurring within a 12-month period:
- A recurrent substance use resulting in a failure to fulfill major role obligations at work, school or home…
- Recurrent substance abuse in situations in which it is physically hazardous (e.g., driving an automobile)…
- Recurrent substance-related legal problems (e.g., arrests for substance-related disorderly conduct)…
- Continued substance use despite having persistent or recurrent social or interpersonal problems caused or exacerbated by the effects of the substance…
At no time within any twelve-month period in Churchill’s long and astonishingly productive life did his alcohol consumption manifest any of these criteria. His capacity for work—writing, painting, bricklaying, speaking, administering government departments—was legendary. Though he rarely drove automobiles himself, he had no “legal problems” associated with excessive use of alcohol. Any “persistent or recurrent social or interpersonal problems” he may have had were not alcohol-related, and usually political in origin. For example, when he held cabinet office, he would frequently annoy other cabinet members by intervening in or offering his opinions on matters outside his own jurisdiction. This, of course, was unrelated to his alcohol consumption. It was simply his nature.
Since it is clear that Churchill never abused alcohol, he was never, by definition, dependent on alcohol in a clinical sense. Nevertheless, let us also consider the DSM criteria for dependence and apply them to Churchill.
Substance dependence
A maladaptive pattern of substance use, leading to clinically significant impairment or distress, as manifested by three (or more) of the following occurring at any time in the same 12-month period:
- Tolerance, as defined by either of the following: (1) a need for markedly increased amounts of the substance to achieve intoxication; (2) markedly diminished effect with continued use of the same amount of the substance…
- Withdrawal as manifested by either of the following: (1) the characteristic withdrawal syndrome for the substance; (2) the same (or a closely related) substance is taken to relieve or avoid withdrawal symptoms…
- The substance is taken in larger amounts or over a longer period than was intended…
- There is a persistent desire or unsuccessful efforts to cut down or control substance use…
- A great deal of time is spent in activities necessary to obtain the substance, use the substance, or recover from its effects…
- Important social, occupational or recreational activities are given up or reduced because of substance use…
- The substance use is continued despite knowledge of having a persistent or recurrent physical or psychological problem that is likely to have been caused or exacerbated by the substance (e.g., continued drinking despite recognition that an ulcer is made worse by alcohol consumption).
Churchill does not meet any of these criteria, let alone “three (or more)…in the same 12-month period.” Churchill did not consume alcohol in order to “achieve intoxication.” Nor did he have “a need for markedly increased amounts” of alcohol. His consumption stayed virtually the same throughout his life. Hence, he did not consume alcohol “in larger amounts or over a longer period than was intended.” There is no evidence of his ever suffering withdrawal—let alone consuming alcohol to avoid the symptoms of withdrawal. He rarely made an effort to “cut down” his consumption of alcohol, though in 1936 he apparently won a bet with a friend who challenged him to abstain from spirits for a year. Of course he never spent any time, let alone “a great deal of time,” in obtaining alcohol, even in his youth, when he presumably had to order supplies himself. Nor did Churchill ever cancel “important social, occupational or recreational activities” because of alcohol. Only one of the DSM criteria may apply: it is possible that alcohol contributed to certain physical maladies as Churchill aged. Yet he was never treated for alcoholism, or told to stop drinking to improve his health.
To an extent, Churchill himself was responsible for the two leading personal fables, his depression and drinking. He freely used the “Black Dog” metaphor, learned from his Victorian nanny, to describe his bad moods and or sometime melancholy. And he fanned his reputation for drinking. There were the several occasions when he asked “the Prof,” his friend Professor Lindemann, whether the amount of alcohol he had consumed in his life would reach in a room. The Prof would always give a trifling level, and Churchill would quip: “How much to do; how little time remains.”
But none of this behavior on his part excuses historians or even serious writers to state flatly that Churchill was depressive or an alcoholic. He was neither. Those who say he was simply don’t know what they’re talking about. And if you don’t know what you’re talking about, it is a good policy to remain silent.
The author
Michael McMenamin is the co-author with Curt Zoller of Becoming Winston Churchill, the Untold Story of Young Winston and His American Mentor, and the author of several Churchill historical novels. For the past two decades he has written a column in Finest Hour entitled “Action This Day,” chronicling Churchill’s life at 25-year intervals.
Many arrogant posts herein, including the author’s concluding statement. The essay is clearly VERY informed. The author does err in asserting that “High-functioning alcoholic” is a misnomer (no less akin to deafening silence). Speaking as clinical psychologist, there have been legions of HFAs, such as William Faulkner and Frank Sinatra.
Why did Churchill drink as much alcohol as he did? What did he get out of it? Was it to relax? To knock himself unconscious? As an escape into tipsy-town for hours and hours? To ease social anxiety? To digest his food? Did the alcohol act as a modern day prescription tranquilizer that kept him in a cocoon of warm comfort 24 hours a day? To me, an alcoholic is someone who drinks because they can’t stand the agony of going through withdrawal, so they can’t or don’t stop drinking.
Quite a bit of rubbish. Churchill drank like a fish, and took decisions of grave consequence while intoxicated. It is written in the private diaries of those who dealt with Churchill during his political career. David Irving’s book: “Churchill’s War” covers this in depth.
–
If you believe that, you will believe anything. Apparently General Grant really drank like a fish. (Do fish drink?) President Lincoln supposedly asked to find out what he was drinking, and send cases to his other generals. This is probably apocryphal, like most of that book. —RML
There is alleged to be a long tradition of puritanism in American society – manifested by various temperance movements, the 21st Amendment, and the scolds in these comments.
One such even had the temerity to speculate that if Churchill: “had to quit abruptly, he would have died in a few days in agonizing seizures and delirium tremens.” All the scolds had the opportunity to apply (as the author did) the DSM to the question: “Was Churchill an Alcholic?” All declined, choosing instead to apply his personal definition to the matter. While this may be interesting to them, and a glimpse into their states-of-mind vis-a-vis adult behavior, I find it interesting only to the point of amusement. But also, it speaks to what so many regard as valid argumentation (and by implication shows that not all professorships are equal).
–
A more recent manifestation of that tradition is the anti-smoking fervor – so strident that most view the pleasure of smoking though the lens of the “addiction model”. Simple subtraction shows that if the scientifically-establish proportion of tobacco addicts is 30%, then 70% smoke because they enjoy smoking. Without checking, I understand that Churchill was a prodigous consumer of cigars, so much so that a particular length and gauge of cigar is dubbed the “Churchill.” Had this article addressed any of that, imagine how many more scolds would have emerged from the woodwork!
From the article: “Churchill did not consume alcohol in order to achieve intoxication.’” Pardon me but the list of things wrong with this ridiculous assertion is longer than your entire article.
–
Pardon granted, but please explain why the assertion is ridiculous. —Eds.
There is much more complexity to human’s relation with alcohol and other drugs than society acknowledges. Clearly some people are more productive under the influence of whatever combination of drugs they have found to work with few problems. Others may produce slightly less but simply enjoy their consumption habits. Really the only people who can judge whether someone is negatively affected are those quite close to them. But unfortunately many users, and humanity in general, have difficulty seeing and accepting and acting on their own situation.
Warren Kimball comments:
Mr. McMenamin is a tenacious, devoted defender of Churchill, but neither a health scientist nor an arithmetician. His numbers for Churchill’s alcohol consumption do not add up. After listing Churchill’s daily consumption of alcohol, McMenamin provides an escape clause: “This translates into approximately six glasses (1½ 750 ml. bottles) of champagne or wine daily along with 5 to 6 ounces of whisky or brandy spread over a 12 to 15 hour period. By any standards, that’s a lot of alcohol. A person’s body will process and metabolize pure alcohol at the rate of one ounce per hour, however, so Churchill’s regular daily consumption is within that rate.” Assuming that rate of metabolization is accurate, ”within that rate” means nothing. Moreover there is no substantive evidence that WSC’s whiskies were as Mr. McMenamin measures them. To blur the image of heavy drinking, he mentions the claim that Churchill’s whiskies were watered down, but the question is how much alcohol, not how much water. And as he admits, Churchill drank during most of his waking hours. Churchill’s rate of all-day consumption was that of an alcoholic, although ”alcohol-dependent” may be a more comfortable phrase. So what? As Lincoln supposedly said when General U.S. Grant was accused of drunkenness, give me more alcoholics. I refer readers to my assessment of Churchill’suse of alcohol: “‘Like Goldfish in a Bowl’: The Alcohol Quotient,” in Finest Hour 134 (Spring 2007), 31-33. Whatever Churchill’s prodigious consumption, it was a lifetime habit, not a temporary response to the pressure and tension of wartime leadership. Warts and all, Churchill was a great historical figure. That’s what matters.
=
All I can offer on Professor Kimball’s questions involves the watered-down cocktails. Sir Winston’s daughter several times poured me what she called a “Papa Cocktail.” It consisted of enough scotch to cover the bottom of the glass, the rest water. This he sipped for hours. -Richard Langworth
To survive in war often requires a lot of things. In case of Mr. Churchill there is I think sufficient evidence that drinking good wine and whisky did no great harm to his health, and certainly no harm at all to the Continent … :).
The mystery is how Churchill managed to function at such a high level while drinking quantities of alcohol that would incapacitate most people. In Martin Gilbert’s biography of the war years, it is often clear from the comments of bystanders that Churchill was beyond tipsy. For Alan Brooke and others close to him, he occasionally comes across as an insufferable bore. His need for verbal performance late into the night and early morning are familiar signs of alcoholic behavior, as are his sentimentality and occasional irritability. Undoubtedly depression played a role in this, because depression is often inseparable from alcoholism. “Alcoholic” need not be a value judgment, and we have all known high-functioning people who cannot control their consumption of alcohol, tobacco, or even food. For some very high functioning people, these behaviors appear to come with the territory. The high functioning alcoholics of my acquaintance did not, in the long run, escape the consequences of their addiction. Of course Churchill was an extraordinary man. But lesser mortals should not try this at home.
Replying to Mr. Baker: Those are deft points, although Brooke’s late-night rants (thought at the time to be private), after excruciating days arguing tactics and strategy with a Prime Minister steeped in war, clearly influenced what he wrote, and the observation of a bystander less familiar with Churchill than his family and staff is only that. WSC certainly had an iron constitution, as C.P. Snow quipped: “Winston could not have been an alcoholic—no alcoholic could drink that much.” If Mr. McMenamin’s article above doesn’t satisfy, consider Drs. Vale and Scadding in their new book, Churchill’s Illnesses. From our review by Dr. Antoine Capet:
–
“Was Churchill an Alcoholic? For Vale and Scadding, the answer to that question is easy. In spite of all the common misapprehensions, they say, one needs only to consider the list of eleven possible criteria for Alcohol Use Disorder (the current technical term for alcoholism). This leads inevitably to the truth. ‘We conclude, to use the familiar lay term, he was not an alcoholic'” [409].
Mr. McMenamin writes: “3-4 weak (no more than an ounce) whisky and sodas at 11am, teatime and bedtime and occasionally one other during the evening (He never drank whisky neat).” This is confusing. Did he have 3-4 at 11 am, then another 3-4 at teatime, etc. 9 total? Or a whisky and soda at 11, tea, bedtime, making for a combined total of 3-4?
=
The latter. We have reworded point 1 above. Thanks for this. -Editors
The criteria for what defines alcoholism or drug abuse in this article are really messed up. By this standard Michael Jackson was not abusing drugs as long he was still alive, but right after he died he was: the only problem showing up using this “drug/alcohol abuse scanner” is his death, and according to the definition presented in this text he was perfectly all right right before that. It is a self referring circle argument; as long as you stay alive you don’t have a drug problem, if the drug abuse kills you it proves in retrospect that you had a drug problem when you were still alive. There must be something wrong with a definition like this, you should be able to detect alcoholism or drug abuse BEFORE someone dies of the abuse, not in retrospect when they have died from it.
–
Mr. McMenamin replies: My memory is I used the definition from the DSM-IV manual and applied it to Churchill’s life and then ran the draft past the psychotherapist I live with, and she approved. I have absolutely no idea how to respond to this other than to say her disagreement is with the DSM, not me. And I’m not qualified to defend the DSM.
Love this article. It says so much about a man who could function at such a high level especially later in his life, drinking large amounts of alcohol every day. My guess is genetics. Similar to the Keith Richards analogies. It says so much about how he could socialize at the highest levels of government and society. It also says a lot about the science today. Most people would have major heath problems, let alone from smoking so many cigars throughout his life. But he also played polo into his 50s and rode horses into his 70s. So he still was a physical person, not the gym type but the physical type. And as science today suggests, staying physically active is massively important. Churchill did live to the amazing age of 90, kind of like 104 today. Thank you Michael McMenamin for sharing your journalistic opinion. I’m sure Sir Winston Churchill would approve and pleased that you look at this from another not so popular view.
I disagree. He had massive problems with money and many of his friends helped him pay off his alcohol debts. My father was an alcoholic and was a wonderful engineer but could not manage his money. There are many stars and politicians that have done great things but suffered from addiction. So are we to say their addiction was not real because they starred in films or won political races? Please. Daily drinking or drinking to the point of blackout—either one—gets you a seat in a 12 step program. Drinking six drinks a day or all day is not normal whether you function or not.
=
Mr. McMenamin replies:
“I disagree”? Well, it’s not with me. It’s with the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) and its definition of substance abuse. It might be wrong. There’s no such thing as “settled science,” as the pandemic as well as “climate change” have taught and are still teaching us. Nevertheless, DSM-IV is what I used to evaluate and apply the facts of Churchill’s life to its criteria to arrive at my conclusion. If the DSM-IV is someday shown to be wrong scientifically, then my conclusion might be wrong. Until then, my conclusion stands.
“Drinking six drinks a day or all day is not normal whether you function or not” is an opinion, and not supported by the DSM-IV. What you do after consuming those six drinks is what counts. That was my main point. When informed that General Grant drank too much, Lincoln apocryphally asked to find out what brand he drank and send barrels of it to his other generals.
I don’t know what the writer means by saying Churchill “had massive problems with money and many of his friends helped him pay off his alcohol debts.” Churchill’s problems with managing money dated from his school days, long before he began alcohol consumption. And Churchill’s admitted money problems in the mid- to late-1930s had little to do with his “alcohol debts.” No More Champagne by David Lough is instructive on this and I commend it to the writer.
The author ignores the fact that the mind and body react differently to continued substance use. Sure you can drink all day and be highly functional, but the body is going to get used to that consumption pattern. Not to mention that in such a place of stature and power, Churchill never had an opportunity to go without, alcohol was almost always 100% accessible to him. So how would anyone truly know if he was able to suffer withdrawal outside of the short time in the morning before he would start drinking?
A poorly executed and rather insulting use of semantics of the DSM to discuss something that affects the body as much as the mind and lifestyle.
–
Circa 1938, Churchill went without hard spirits for a year to win a bet with Lord Rothermere, with no apparent effects pro or con. The author replies below. —Eds.
–
Mr. McMenamin replies: Mr. Green’s point is not especially clear [“A poorly executed and rather insulting use of semantics of the DSM to discuss something that affects the body as much as the mind and lifestyle.”] But snarky ad hominem comments are no substitute for applying the facts of Churchill’s life to generally accepted definitions of substance abuse, such as the American Heritage Dictionary or the DSM cited in the article. And the facts are these: There is nothing—repeat nothing—in Churchill’s long and productive life, including his “body…mind and lifestyle,” that falls within any of the criteria for generally accepted definitions of substance abuse. Period. Full stop.
The author doesn’t have a clue about alcoholism. The whole article is wrong. Anyone who consumed that much alcohol for a prolonged period would most likely die from withdrawal if they were suddenly cut off. That’s what people should be told. Leave Churchill out of it.
–
Right, so why wasn’t he dead by then? Instead he lived to over 90. Could it be the stuff was watered down, or consumed over long periods, or that he had a particular resistance to the effects? The facts are there. Read. -Ed.
This article reflects a clear misunderstanding of alcohol use disorder and exhibits the false idea that people who abuse substances cannot function or be highly accomplished. That is simply wrong. Why the Madonna-whore complex? People we admire don’t have to have been perfect. Substance disorders don’t erase their accomplishments. The author references the DSM IV while writing in 2018 and again responding to comments in 2021. The DSM-5 has been the reference for professionals since 2013. That is a hint that the author doesn’t understand substance use disorders and has not been trained in diagnosing them. Arguing that “six drinks a day being problematic is only an opinion” is a no-true-Scotsman fallacy. Professionals consider anything above two standard drinks per day for a man to be risky use. This article describes Churchill consuming up to 12 drinks per day. It’s absurd to say that “there is nothing—repeat nothing” that falls within the criteria for generally accepted definitions of substance abuse.
=
Mr. McMenamin replies:
There’s nothing new here except for a few fact-free ad hominem attacks. Had the unsigned writer bothered to read the replies to other comments that follow the article, he would have discovered that all the unsupported opinions he offers and points he raises except one have already been addressed. The only new point—my using the DSM-IV rather than the DSM 5—is a red herring. As I explained in the article, all the DSM 5 did was to combine DSM-IV’s substance abuse and substance dependence “into a single ‘alcohol use disorder’ but with almost identical criteria.” He does not explain why he thinks this undermines my conclusion that Churchill was not an alcoholic and supports his implied opinion that Churchill was an alcoholic [“professionals consider anything above two standard drinks/day for a man to be risky use”]. It might help him to read the 26 November 2020 reply to Stewart Baker’s comment above where our editor references the 2020 book Winston Churchill’s Illnesses 1886-1965, by Doctors Vale and Scadding. Their conclusion, that Churchill “to use the familiar lay term, was not an alcoholic” mirrors my own. Perhaps he could review their Chapter 13 (“Was Churchill An Alcoholic?”) and tell us where the doctors went wrong?
I find the entire premise odd. He admittedly drank a lot. He seemed to need it for daily life. I call that an alcoholic. Yet the author bends over backwards to say he was a very heavy drinker, but no, not an alcoholic. What was the point of this exercise? If anyone today drank what he drank on a daily basis, surely they would be considered an alcoholic?
–
“Seemingly”? Not much to base one’s conclusion on, is it? The point of the exercise is obvious: The decisions that made history are open to debate; but right or wrong, they were were not made by a drunk. Giving up hard spirits for year to win a bet with a friend (1938) seems quite an accomplishment for an alcoholic. —Editors
Giving up hard spirits for a year wouldn’t be such an accomplishment if one still imbibed other forms of alcohol to replace that…. Not entering into arguments as I’m not well informed enough to do so, but would appreciate clarification if the hard spirits were simply replaced by another alcoholic drink?
–
Your assumption that he replaced the spirits seems reasonable, but lacking details of his daily quantities in 1938, this is hard to calculate. Not having been alcoholics (which is what Mr. McMenamin is arguing against in Churchill’s case), we find it hard to judge how easy it would be for one to give up hard spirits for a year.
Reliable sources tell us that WSC gave up “undiluted” spirits and brandy for a year to win a bet with Rothermere. Since, according to all the sources, he never drank undiluted spirits anyway, that wasn’t much of an achievement. (See, e.g. Andrew Roberts, “Churchill: walking with destiny”, p.395n. for terms of the bet.) In “The diaries of Sir Robert Bruce Lockhart 1915-1938”, WSC is drunk on at least four occasions (pp. 113, 186, 198, 352). The obsession of memoirists and fans with proving he was never drunk or was drunk once in 90 years, etc. is weird. A few observations: 1. I agree that by the usually accepted expert definitions WSC was not an alcoholic, but he did seem to have a psychological dependence. 2. Can one find a single day, even in the encyclopedic work of Martin Gilbert, when WSC dank no alcohol? 3. Can one think of any other solid or liquid substance that a healthy person can’t skip for even one day? 4. “Alcoholic” has for long been such a pejorative term. What’s wrong with just saying that WSC loved to drink various forms of alcohol, especially Champagne, but almost never seemed to observers to be intoxicated”, and leaving it at that – minus psychiatric reference books, jiggers, the definition of “diluted”, how old he was before he gave up riding horses, etc.? 5. A slight complaint: Yes, WSC produced a large number of books, but the he “wrote” them is inaccurate, rather like praising the late Queen for her speeches, when her role was not to write them but to read them; for many of WSC’s most famous books he had not only a research assistant but teams of research assistants. The method included their writing drafts and his giving those drafts the inimitable WSC touch. That is one reason the books are so long.
* * * * *
Your assertion that WSC never drank undiluted spirits is denied by Andrew Roberts’ note, especially the part you left out: “So tonight is my last sip of brandy.” Lockhart’s diaries are hardly dispositive. Page 113: “Winston drunk but unconvinced” in an argument about Empire Free Trade. Page 186: “Winston…slightly the worse for drink.” (Slightly?) Page 198: “Winston, I imagine, is going the same way” (as the alcoholic F.E. Smith). Page 352: “Although Winston has a bet with Rothermere not to touch spirits, he drank loads of beer and then after luncheon five large glasses of port. (No, only undiluted spirits. What are “loads,” and how large is a port glass?)
Churchill did have an astonishing capacity, and most historians grant him a decided preference for lubrication. But Lockhart is no more reliable than others from Alanbrooke to Bessie Braddock, who attributed to alcohol a Churchill who worked 18 hours a day and was often exhausted…. Yet apparently not drunk enough to debate Empire Free Trade—or to spark Lockhart’s imagination.
Comparing Churchill’s books to The Queen’s Speeches at the opening of Parliament is not only irrelevant but disrespectful to Her Late Majesty. Sovereigns have read canned speeches by the government since 1852. Churchill wrote large portions of his early works in longhand (e.g. River War, World Crisis), researched Marlborough with the help of one assistant and A History of the English-Speaking Peoples with a handful. Dr. David Reynolds established that, while the far more complex Second World War employed a team of researchers, WSC signed off on every word, drove his publishers to apoplexy with proof revisions, and continued to make textual corrections to later editions through 1956. Not bad for an 80-year-old drunk.
As to the length of his volumes, Churchill also put out abridged and cheap editions for those unable to digest the complete text. Given your concern with length, we cordially recommend his one-volume abridgements. —RML
A fascinating set of insights into a Churchill who produced more viable work, some brilliant, than anyone around him, desite what seems to me a steady-state concentration of alcohol at a quite modest level in his system. From the “drinks report” published here—call it 5 oz. of 40% liquor and 40 oz. of 10% wine—he consumed 10 US “standard drinks” per day, doubtless with excursions in either direction. So: 2 vodka squash on the train, 2 Martinis at lunch, 2 Manhattan’s on the train, wine with dinner (2) and a brandy at bedtime, all US standard pours, would come close to Churchillian. I know personally fund managers who look after trillions who double this intake, yet succeed. Are they alcoholics? Perhaps to an addled Puritanical treatment industry. I have no doubt they, or Churchill, would experience a withdrawal syndrome if they ceased drinking suddenly. I further have no doubt a three-day-taper (as Churchill himself discussed doing to prepare himself for front line duty) would have more than sufficed. Alcoholic? Hogwash.
–
Thank-you. It does seem a formidable goal to match! —Eds.