Talk:Winston Churchill

Decolonization

Closing discussion initiated by banned User:HarveyCarter.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Why is there so little mention of Churchill's strong support for decolonization? (JimThorpeAllAmerican (talk) 16:56, 23 September 2016 (UTC)) How is Bury St Edmunds at this time of year? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:43, 26 September 2016 (UTC) Not bad, I came over here after the war. Churchill signed the Atlantic Charter in August 1941 which promised self-determination to every country in the world. (JimThorpeAllAmerican (talk) 10:33, 27 September 2016 (UTC)) Yes, Roosevelt signed that one too didn't he? And then there was a joint Declaration by United Nations? So what's your point exactly? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:52, 27 September 2016 (UTC) The point is that Churchill agreed to give independence to all of Britain's colonies. The United States was only occupying the Philippines, which had already been promised independence in 1934. (JimThorpeAllAmerican (talk) 15:56, 27 September 2016 (UTC)) So, the Atlantic Charter article, fully suppported by sources, currently says this: "The acknowledgement that all peoples had a right to self-determination gave hope to independence leaders in British colonies. The Americans were insistent that the charter was to acknowledge that the war was being fought to ensure self-determination. The British were forced to agree to these aims but in a September 1941 speech, Churchill stated that the Charter was only meant to apply to states under German occupation, and certainly not to the peoples who formed part of the British Empire." I don't see any wording about Churchill "agreeing to give independence to all of Britain's colonies". Do you intend to add that, with suitable source(s)? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:20, 27 September 2016 (UTC) The charter confirmed every country in the world had the right to self-determination. By signing the charter Churchill had signed away the British Empire. (JimThorpeAllAmerican (talk) 16:46, 27 September 2016 (UTC)) @JimThorpeAllAmerican: The source doesn't explicitly say that Churchill was a strong supporter of decolonization. Inferring that he did and inserting an edit accordingly would be original research, which isn't allowed. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 17:26, 27 September 2016 (UTC) The United States had three aims in World War II - to defeat the Axis militarily, to defeat the British Empire economically, and to dismantle all the European colonial empires. By signing the Atlantic Charter Churchill did more for decolonization than anyone in history. His wife said it was good he lost the election in 1945, as otherwise he would have been forced to give India, Pakistan, Myanmar, Sri Lanka etc their freedom. (JimThorpeAllAmerican (talk) 17:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC)) @JimThorpeAllAmerican: Since I was nice enough to link to the original research policy, you must've read it. Having read it, you know that Churchill's signing of the Charter and his wife's words aren't even close to enough for us to include a claim that he supported decolonization. So why are you saying these things? RunnyAmiga ※ talk 17:54, 27 September 2016 (UTC) If Churchill did not support decolonization then why did he sign the Atlantic Charter? (JimThorpeAllAmerican (talk) 18:03, 27 September 2016 (UTC)) Because he wanted to "respect the rights of all peoples to choose the forms of government under which they would live; and wished to see sovereignty and self-government restored to those who had been forcibly deprived of them." Just a guess. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:12, 27 September 2016 (UTC) Thus the British could no longer justify occupying a quarter of the globe by force once they had agreed to respect the rights of all peoples to choose the forms of government under which they would live; and if they wished to see sovereignty and self-government restored to those who had been forcibly deprived of them. (JimThorpeAllAmerican (talk) 18:19, 27 September 2016 (UTC)) I don't think Churchill was asked to provide any such justification, was he? Or did he send you a special note, privately dictated to Clemmy? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:23, 27 September 2016 (UTC) My guess would be that he signed the charter because it was August 1941, Britain was standing alone in the West, Russia was being hammered in the East, and he was desperate to bring the US into the war. He'd have signed anything if it made Roosevelt happy. I wouldn't want my guesses as to his motives for signing to be included in this article any more than yours, but there are plenty of reliable sources out there showing Churchill's attitude to the Empire, which make it clear that he was anything but "a strong supporter of decolonization"! Chuntuk (talk) 15:14, 5 October 2016 (UTC) Britain was never alone at any stage in the war. Churchill signed away the British Empire so he was a major architect of decolonization. (JimThorpeAllAmerican (talk) 19:26, 8 October 2016 (UTC)) "To abandon India to the rule of the Brahmins would be an act of cruel and wicked negligence": [1]. But I guess that was ten years earlier, when Mr Hitler was still collecting his kindling? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:35, 8 October 2016 (UTC) Somewhat belated comment, but Churchill fought pretty hard to insist that the self-determination clauses of the Atlantic Charter (Article 3 iirc) were not deemed to apply to the British Empire. He had also, despite his opposition to Indian Provincial Self-Government a decade earlier, committed himself to India getting Dominion Status after the war, so regarded Britain as off the hook on that one, although that didn't stop there being a good deal of US pressure for immediate moves towards Indian independence after the crushing of the "Quit India" rising. Elsewhere, Britain did produce a scheme to buy out the white landowners in Kenya and encourage blacks to buy land (similar to what had happened in Ireland in the 1903 Wyndham Act when the landlords were bought out). This was designed so that Britain could be seen to be making further progress towards the principles of the Atlantic Charter, but nothing much came of it. It is of mild historical interest because the Minister of State for the Colonies across whose desk it passed in 1942 was Harold Macmillan, who was later to preside over the decolonisation of Africa, which happened very suddenly after Churchill had retired.Paulturtle (talk) 04:50, 25 October 2016 (UTC) I spy with my little eye, something beginning with H... Whatever Churchill may have pretended to believe publicly is irrelevant. The Charter stated very clearly that it applied to every country in the world. Macmillan may have presided over decolonization in Africa, but Churchill guaranteed the complete collapse of the British Empire (and all other colonial empires) by signing the Charter. (JimThorpeAllAmerican (talk) 10:15, 27 October 2016 (UTC)) Are you proposing a change to the wording in the article? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:05, 27 October 2016 (UTC) There should be mention of the Atlantic Charter at the beginning of the article, and the fact that it effectively ended the British Empire and the other European colonial empires. (JimThorpeAllAmerican (talk) 17:28, 27 October 2016 (UTC)) I disagree with both of your suggestions. I don't think it was a significant enough in terms of Churchill's entire life to be mentioned in the lead section. And any detail, explaining what it did or did not do, in balanced and neutral terms, belongs not here, but at Atlantic Charter. Happy to hear the views of other editors. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:11, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

"Churchill guaranteed the complete collapse of the British Empire (and all other colonial empires) by signing the Charter." - Roosevelt signed it as well. So when is the United States going to hand over power to their own 'natives' in North America. I'm sure many eagerly await the day when the US President and members of Congress have names like "Eagle Wing", "Hunts With Bears", or similar. Most of the ex-British colonies now have their own 'native' governments. After over two hundred years of independence from Britain, why doesn't yours.

BTW, Churchill and many other people in the British government at the time were wary of giving India independence because unlike many Americans, they actually had around two hundred years of knowledge of India and of the various races and creeds, along with the various factions, within India, many that quite frankly, could not get on with each other and would likely be at each other's throats given half a chance. See Partition of India for the results.

And the people of Iran and Iraq weren't murdering each other in the streets while they were under British administration either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.162.231 (talk) 11:32, 3 January 2017 (UTC) |}

Last needed citation

In June 1936, Churchill organised a deputation of senior Conservatives who shared his concern to see Baldwin, Chamberlain and Halifax. He had tried to have delegates from the other two parties and later wrote, "If the leaders of the Labour and Liberal oppositions had come with us there might have been a political situation so intense as to enforce remedial action." As it was, the meeting achieved little, Baldwin arguing that the Government was doing all it could, given the anti-war feeling of the electorate.

References

Has anyone a copy of The Gathering Storm to look up the page number? Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 13:20, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorted. Most of what Churchill wrote about this kind of thing needs to be taken with a pinch of salt - he later claimed that the Rhineland (March 1936) was the moment Hitler should have been "stood up to" - but he wasn't saying that at the time, whilst Rhodes James writes amusingly about how his views about defence and weaponry were often less well-informed than popular mythology would have us believe.Paulturtle (talk) 06:30, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 12:51, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

And now there are twenty citation-needed-tags addedto the article. Well, at least I had my joy for three weeks.Jeff5102 (talk) 11:18, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Which are cut down to three, now.Can anyone solve the last three remaining needed citations? Thanks in advance and best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 23:03, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Guyana coup

Why is there no mention of his coup in Guyana? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/aug/26/mi5-files-coup-british-guiana (Morbson (talk) 13:53, 28 December 2016 (UTC))

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2016

Change Republic of Ireland to Ireland. The name of the state is Ireland. Republic is the system of governance of the state. 86.44.127.1 (talk) 00:09, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

You mean in the "Funeral" section, when describing the broadcast? Martinevans123 (talk) 00:23, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Not done: "Discussions relating to the naming of Ireland articles must occur at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration by order of the Arbitration Committee." Stickee (talk) 00:58, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Length missing

Add length. People search that data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.37.9.29 (talk) 00:47, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

We dont normally use the term "length" in biographies it has no meaning except related to time served in office which is included, if you actually mean height then it will only be mentioned if it was notable for some reason. MilborneOne (talk) 17:17, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

It looks like you do mean height. Do you have a better source? 1.67 metres (5.5 ft) wasn't that tall, but it was 4 inches shorter than that German guy. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:48, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Five foot five or six wasn't that tall, but it wasn't that short either. By way of example, the table of "Average weights for healthy persons" in the 1933 Pharmaceutical Pocket Book gives heights from 5'2" to 6'0" for men. This article says he was 5'8" at his tallest, shrinking to a little over 5'6" in old age. DuncanHill (talk) 23:14, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

The 2014 article you link to is quite interesting. I'd not seen it before. And as it's the subject of a focused piece, in a WP:RS by a notable political person, I'd say that might argue for mentioning his height somewhere. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:24, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, I don't think Boris has any psychological or psychiatric qualifications, and short man syndrome seems to be a load of bunk anyway, so for my money I wouldn't put it in. DuncanHill (talk) 23:35, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Now, now. Just because Boris suffers from giant prat syndrome. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

References

Oldham

I know it can be rough, but does being the MP count as military service? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.81.159.219 (talk) 17:52, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, the front row can be especially tough, I believe. But that's a fair point. The "Military service" section describes what he was principally engaged in during that period. And the Oldham by-election really can't be moved go anywhere else without disrupting the chronology. So I think we'll just have to live with it. Unless you have a better suggestion. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:42, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Antwerp 1914

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill#First_World_War_and_the_Post-War_Coalition

I'm not at all sure that the claim about saving the Channel ports is correct here. The Germans had no designs on them at this stage. They were attempting to implement the supposed Schlieffen Plan (assuming there was such a thing), which didn't even allow for British participation in the War, so the ports were of no relevance. If anything "saved" them, it was the battle of the Yser, as an unintended consequence.

What James actually says is: " ...the seven days respite almost certainly allowed Dunkirk and Calais to be secured", which is not quite the same thing. John French says in his memoirs that he feared for the Channel Ports, but he would, because they were vital to the British, but hey weren't in German plans at that time. An editor's footnote in Margot Asquith's War Diary: "(Churchill) claimed to have gained time to enable the Allies to secure the Channel Ports by preventing Antwerp's surrender until 10 October, a claim disputed by Strachan, First World War, p272-3." Hengistmate (talk) 11:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

John French's memoirs are notoriously unreliable, so I wouldn't take anything in there as gospel. If anything the intention (certainly of Churchill, and perhaps French) at this stage was to seize the Channel Ports to make sure that Britain rather than France controlled them. At one stage that autumn there was a plan to build a giant fortified camp around them, which Joffre vetoed. He was always keen to keep the British away from the sea to stop them doing a runner, and usually tried to keep a French army (Tenth iirc) between the BEF and the Belgians, with Foch playing a local coordinating role, so that Flanders didn't just become a British fiefdom. Some of Elizabeth Greenhalgh's books are good on this ("Victory through Coalition"), as is Philpott's 1996 book on Anglo-French relations and the Flanders theatre (back in the days when Philpott was writing sensible history rather than ridiculous polemic).Paulturtle (talk) 07:16, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Did a bit more digging on this. In September 1914 the Allies thought that the war was won after the Battles of the Marne and Aisne, and Churchill was hoping to hold onto Antwerp as the left anchor of a new Allied line. It was only somewhat later that the German reserve corps turned up and marched headlong into British forces at First Ypres. Churchill did indeed claim that he had saved the Channel Ports, and his claims, even claims of foresight, grew a little during the drafting process of The World Crisis, but were repeated by the early batch of historians like Edmonds, Crutwell and Liddell Hart. The stuff I mentioned above about Anglo-French friction over control of the Channel Ports was during the autumn. See Robin Prior, Churchill's World Crisis as History (pp.32-6), quoted with approval by Charmley in 1993.Paulturtle (talk) 06:33, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any reason not to believe French in this instance - he had nothing to gain by saying that he wanted a secure bridgehead. The rest is fair comment, but I don't think it addresses the question of what the article should say about this particular point. The German advance in western Belgium was an attempt to turn the Allied flank, not to seize the ports. Strachan says, "(Churchill argued) that he had prolonged the defence of Antwerp until 10 October, and that in doing so he gave sufficient time for the Allies to secure the Channel ports. In reality, Belgium's decision-making was determined not by Churchill but by the continuing power struggle between its senior commanders." How should this ambiguity be reflected in the article? Hengistmate (talk) 15:16, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Inexcusable suggestion by User:BenStein69 that Sir Winston Churchill was an anti-semite.

Hi.

I feel User:BenStein69 is extremely off-base for suggesting Sir Winston is an anti-semite.

Indeed even a simple cursory assessment of this outrageous claim suggests this is the type of misinformation that deters people from making edits.

Edit: Additionally, User:Rms125a@hotmail.com claimed that the Template:officeholder religion field is deprecated, which does not seem to be true. And, following the brief comments on the field, I believe that this field (with a citation, I may add) should be re-added.

So this request is to make two changes:

1. Remove the Antisemitism in the United Kingdom stub, as it is not true.
2. Re-add the religion field, along with the citation. In the case of Sir Winston, this field is of decent importance.

Edit2: Hello @Jimbo Wales: please forgive the intrusion but it is imperative to get this matter resolved immediately. It is not acceptable to just insert an offensive category for a national figure, and remain silent when it occurs. Surely individuals with appropriate privileges to alleviate at least one of the two concerns has read this.

• The antisemitism allegation is extremely serious and any similarly serious subscription to this belief is both uncivilised, as the mechanisms invoked to uphold this belief as true requires sufficient effort--i.e., some level of sentience--to uphold.

References

Rubinstein, William D. (2004). "Winston Churchill and the Jews". Jewish Historical Studies. 39: 167–176. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) MisinformationFighter (talk) 00:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Relax. There is certainly no need to ping JW. I have reverted, and expect some reply from BenStein69 with supporting sources to justify this rather odd claim. Irondome (talk) 03:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Someone removed all of the successors/predecessors

I know the list of Winston Churchill's offices does indeed make the infobox quite unbearably long, but I'm not sure removing information is the best solution. - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 01:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I am that someone. The templates at the bottom of the page contain the same information. Kablammo (talk) 01:47, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but wouldn’t scrolling down to the bottom of the page be counterintuitive to the purpose of an infobox? --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 23:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

What is the purpose of an infobox? Kablammo (talk) 01:18, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

There are other infoboxes with this problem - such as Theresa May, Ken Clarke and Harriet Harman. A better solution is to organise the list into collapsible sections as I did there. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 00:50, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

The Right Honourable Sir Winston Churchill KG OM CH TD DL FRS RA
Churchill, December 1941 (photograph by Yousuf Karsh)
Prime Minister of the United Kingdom
In office 26 October 1951 – 6 April 1955
Monarchs	George VI Elizabeth II
Deputy	Anthony Eden
Preceded by	Clement Attlee
Succeeded by	Anthony Eden
In office 10 May 1940 – 26 July 1945
Monarch	George VI
Deputy	Clement Attlee
Preceded by	Neville Chamberlain
Succeeded by	Clement Attlee
Leadership positions Leader of the Opposition In office 26 July 1945 – 26 October 1951 Monarch George VI Prime Minister Clement Attlee Preceded by Clement Attlee Succeeded by Clement Attlee Leader of the Conservative Party In office 9 November 1940 – 6 April 1955 Preceded by Neville Chamberlain Succeeded by Anthony Eden
Ministerial offices 1939-52 Minister of Defence In office 28 October 1951 – 1 March 1952 Preceded by Manny Shinwell Succeeded by Harold Alexander, 1st Earl Alexander of Tunis In office 10 May 1940 – 26 July 1945 Preceded by Ernle Chatfield, 1st Baron Chatfield (Coordination of Defence) Succeeded by Clement Attlee First Lord of the Admiralty In office 3 September 1939 – 11 May 1940 Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain Preceded by James Stanhope, 7th Earl Stanhope Succeeded by A. V. Alexander, 1st Earl Alexander of Hillsborough
Ministerial offices 1908-29 Chancellor of the Exchequer In office 6 November 1924 – 4 June 1929 Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin Preceded by Philip Snowden Succeeded by Philip Snowden Secretary of State for the Colonies In office 13 February 1921 – 19 October 1922 Prime Minister David Lloyd George Preceded by Alfred Milner, 1st Viscount Milner Succeeded by Victor Cavendish, 9th Duke of Devonshire Secretary of State for Air In office 10 January 1919 – 13 February 1921 Prime Minister David Lloyd George Preceded by William Weir, 1st Viscount Weir Succeeded by Freddie Guest Secretary of State for War In office 10 January 1919 – 13 February 1921 Prime Minister David Lloyd George Preceded by Alfred Milner, 1st Viscount Milner Succeeded by Laming Worthington-Evans Minister of Munitions In office 17 July 1917 – 10 January 1919 Prime Minister David Lloyd George Preceded by Christopher Addison Succeeded by Andrew Weir, 1st Baron Inverforth Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster In office 25 May 1915 – 25 November 1915 Prime Minister H. H. Asquith Preceded by Edwin Montagu Succeeded by Herbert Samuel First Lord of the Admiralty In office 24 October 1911 – 25 May 1915 Prime Minister H. H. Asquith Preceded by Reginald McKenna Succeeded by Arthur Balfour Home Secretary In office 19 February 1910 – 24 October 1911 Prime Minister H. H. Asquith Preceded by Herbert Gladstone Succeeded by Reginald McKenna President of the Board of Trade In office 12 April 1908 – 14 February 1910 Prime Minister H. H. Asquith Preceded by David Lloyd George Succeeded by Sydney Buxton
Constituencies represented Member of Parliament for Woodford In office 5 July 1945 – 15 October 1964 Preceded by Constituency established Succeeded by Constituency abolished Member of Parliament for Epping In office 29 October 1924 – 5 July 1945 Preceded by Leonard Lyle Succeeded by Leah Manning Member of Parliament for Dundee In office 24 April 1908 – 15 November 1922 Preceded by Edmund Robertson Succeeded by Edwin Scrymgeour Member of Parliament for Manchester North West In office 8 February 1906 – 24 April 1908 Preceded by William Houldsworth Succeeded by William Joynson-Hicks Member of Parliament for Oldham In office 24 October 1900 – 12 January 1906 Preceded by Walter Runciman Succeeded by John Bright
Personal details
Born	Winston Leonard Spencer-Churchill (1874-11-30)30 November 1874 Woodstock, Oxfordshire, UK
Died	24 January 1965(1965-01-24) (aged 90) Kensington, Co. London, UK
Cause of death	Stroke
Resting place	St Martin's Church, Bladon
Political party	Conservative (Before 1904; 1924–1964) Liberal (1904–1924)
Spouse	Clementine Hozier ​ (m. 1908)​
Children	Diana Randolph Sarah Marigold Mary
Parents	Randolph Churchill Jennie Jerome
Alma mater	Royal Military College, Sandhurst
Signature	File:Sir Winston Churchill signature.svg
Military service
Allegiance	United Kingdom
Branch/service	British Army Territorial Army
Years of service	1895–1900 1916–1918
Rank	Lieutenant Colonel
Battles/wars	Mahdist War Second Boer War World War I

Robin S. Taylor (talk) 20:40, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

26 May 1940

It should be mentioned that Churchill and the cabinet seriously considered ending the war on that day. They were going to ask the still-neutral Mussolini to broker a negotiated end to the war. (2A00:23C4:638F:5000:28EF:52B:CC6E:81A6 (talk) 12:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC))

What sources support that? Kablammo (talk) 00:19, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

There are many sources online and it is covered in detail in the Cabinet papers and in Jenkins' biography of Churchill. They even did a play about it called "Three Days in May" in 2011: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/theatre/theatre-features/8848954/Three-Days-in-May-When-Winston-Churchill-wobbled.html (86.144.87.179 (talk) 15:08, 27 February 2017 (UTC))

The basic story is well-known, but tends to grow somewhat in the (popularising) re-telling, especially when 'they' 'do a play about it'. Vol VI ('Finest Hour') of Martin Gilbert's multi-volume biography covers (pp 402 - 422) the period and has little in it to support any 'when Churchill wobbled' interpretation (granted, it is probably the last place one would look for that interpretation). It has

• on 26 May 1940 at a War Cabinet meeting (0900 onwards) Halifax reporting that the Italian Ambassador "had asked for an interview in order to put forward 'fresh proposals' for peace"
• a discussion by 'an informal group of Ministers' at the Admiralty in the afternoon of 26 May on whether to take up the Italian offer
• a War Cabinet meeting on 27 May 1940 (1630 onwards) "dominated by Halifax's support for an Anglo-French approach to Italy, with a view to persuading Mussolini to act as a mediator, at least for a 'general discussion' " Those noted as opposing by Gilbert are: Sinclair, Attlee, Chamberlain, Churchill. (Sinclair attended meetings, but wasn't a member: Arthur Greenwood (a member) must have been present and opposing: Gilbert quotes Halifax (contemplating resignation) complaining in his diary that Winston had talked the most frightful rot, and Greenwood had been just as bad) However, Chamberlain then backtracked slightly; he didn't think approaching Mussolini would serve any useful purpose, but perhaps "we ought to go a little further with it, in order to keep the French in a good temper"
• on 28 May (after the Belgian surrender, and Churchill's warning to the Commons that it should 'prepare itself for hard and heavy tidings' about the BEF) a War Cabinet meeting was held (1600) in Churchill's room in the House of Commons to discuss the repeated Italian request to act as an intermediary. Churchill was against, Halifax for, and Chamberlain did not see 'what we should lose if we said openly that, while we would fight to the end to preserve our independence, we were ready to consider decent terms if such were offered to us'. Attlee and Greenwood did, warning of the grave danger to morale if negotiations were embarked upon. The War Cabinet then adjourned.
• on 28 May, immediately after the War Cabinet had adjourned, the more junior Ministers gathered in Churchill's room and were addressed by him. Gilbert quotes a long passage from Hugh Dalton's diary, of which this is the nub:

  And then he said: I have thought carefully in these last days whether it was part of my duty to consider entering into negotiations with That Man.' But it was idle to think that, if we tried to make peace now, we should get better terms than if we fought it out. The Germans would demand our fleet - that would be called 'disarmament' - our naval bases, and much else. We should become a slave state, though a British Government which would be Hitler's puppet would be set up - 'under Mosley or some such person'. And where should we be at the end of all that? On the other hand, we had immense reserves and advantages. 'And I am convinced,' he concluded, 'that every man of you would rise up and tear me from my place if I were for one moment to contemplate parley or surrender. If this long island story of ours is to end at last, let it end only when each one of us lies choking in his own blood upon the ground.' There were loud cries of approval all round the table.... Not much more was said. No one expressed even the briefest flicker of dissent.

'the effect of their demonstration was considerable on Churchill's own resolve' says Gilbert

• on 28 May (1900) the War Cabinet reconvened. Churchill reported to it the mood of the meeting of junior Ministers. Chamberlain now took a firmer line: the French (who had indicated to the British that they intended to accept the Italian offer) should be persuaded that it was worth their while to go on fighting. The War Cabinet decided against negotiations (and also against any appeal to the United States)
• on 28 May 1940 (2340) Churchill telephoned to the British Ambassador in Paris a message for Reynaud (the French PM), rejecting the Italian offer and urging the French to do the same; this they promptly did.

Interpretations of all of that may of course vary. The most obvious one to me is that Attlee was right to say (post-Norway Debate) that Labour would not enter a coalition government under Halifax. But seems to be pushing it a bit to take the above to support anything as black and white as 'the cabinet seriously considered ending the war on that day'. Rjccumbria (talk) 20:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I trust you mean that Attlee and Labour refused to serve under Chamberlain a fortnight earlier. They were more than willing to serve under Halifax, who effectively declined the job of PM as it would have left him a figurehead with Churchill running the war, just as Lloyd George had wanted Asquith to be in December 1916; the idea that Labour insisted Churchill be PM is later Labour mythology.

But on the specific issue, you are quite right that Churchill did not want to sue for peace, and he himself pointed out, somewhat disingenuously, the matter was never officially discussed by the Cabinet. Beyond that, interpretations do vary a bit, not least as to the degree to which Churchill was merely humouring Halifax and playing for time in the early meetings when he was, or appeared to be, open to the idea of peace talks later in the year after Britain had put up a bit more fight. He also seems to have had, at this time, a somewhat inflated idea of how long France would carry on fighting and how quickly the USA would come in. Halifax, by contrast, thought that we were more likely to be able to get the BEF home under an armistice than otherwise, and that such an armistice might be obtained by offering the Italians some bases in East Africa etc. It's also worth bearing in mind that Churchill was as guilty as any other politician of packing meetings with naiive people whose heads he had filled with nonsense, demonising his opponents and creating false dichotomies - telling the new Labour ministers that peace would mean naval disarmament, and then telling the public that the alternative to his policies was "surrender", when Halifax had quite emphatically not been urging any such course of action.

There is an article on the May 1940 War Cabinet Crisis, on which I've done some work in the past, based on Andrew Roberts' biography of Halifax. But there are quite a number of books which cover it, not just heavyweight biographies like Jenkins and Charmley, but more recent books like Robin Prior's book on the Battle of Britain or Hermiston's book on the wartime coalition. They will all need to be ploughed through at some stage.Paulturtle (talk) 03:24, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Gilbert (vol VI p 303) has Boothby reporting to Churchill (9 May) Clement Davis telling him that Attlee and Greenwood were not prepared to serve under Halifax (somewhat devalued as evidence by being hearsay, and both B and C D wanting to think it true !) and that is what I was thinking of. Opinion had generally hardened against Halifax by the time (10 May) Labour replied to Chamberlain, so their formula that they would not serve under Chamberlain but would participate fully in a "new Government, under a new Prime Minister, which would command the confidence of the nation" is (at least in British English) a bit Delphic.Rjccumbria (talk) 19:38, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

It seems quite clear from this that Churchill did not himself seriously consider "ending the war" that day, and that any arguments over nuance are best dealt with in the May 1940 War Cabinet Crisis mentioned by Paulturtle. Kablammo (talk) 21:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but arguments would probably be futile; even-handed discussion in the article is what's called for, and I can't see that that could legitimately go much beyond 'various interpretations are possible' ; victory has many fathers, defeat is an orphan. As a general and distinct point, the article could probably do with better linkage to that and any other such 'more nuanced' articles covering episodes in Churchill's war premiership; otherwise in another six months or so, somebody else will come along and want to insert a distinctly non-nuanced sentence covering some such episode.Rjccumbria (talk) 00:10, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I have notes kicking around for articles about Churchill and Strategic Bombing, and Churchill and India (not just the 1930s but the events of WW2 including the Quit India Rising and the Bengal Famine, not to mention his sympathy for Jinnah). Both of those topics are perennials on this talk page. But they are not going to be finished any time soon.Paulturtle (talk) 06:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

9-10 May 1940

charmley pp394-5; Gilbert Vol 6 pp300-3, 312; I don’t have copies of Jenkins on Churchill or Roberts on Halifax immediately to hand

On 9 May, while Chamberlain was ringing round the Labour leaders and being told that they would not serve under him and that they wanted Hoare and Simon out as well, Churchill lunched with Eden and Kingsley Wood, who, to Eden’s surprise, told Churchill that he and not Halifax must be PM. There is no contemporary evidence to back up later tales by Bracken and Beaverbrook that they advised Churchill to keep silent when asked to serve under Halifax.

That afternoon Chamberlain called the famous meeting with Halifax and Churchill. He also briefly saw Attlee and Greenwood, and got the impression they were willing to serve under Halifax, who was also Chamberlain’s own preferred successor. According to Churchill’s later account, after a silence, Halifax spoke, declining to be PM as it would not be feasible to do so from the Lords [NB – the King favoured Halifax, and later pointed out that an ad hoc Act could have been passed to allow Halifax to sit in the Commons, whilst the previous autumn Chamberlain, who was seventy and in failing health, had taken legal advice to confirm that the Commons could simply pass a resolution allowing Halifax to sit in it until they voted otherwise]. According to Halifax’s contemporary account, Chamberlain urged him to be PM and Halifax said openly it would not work as he would not be running the war. Halifax had also been told by Margesson (Chief Whip) that opinion (we are not told whether this was just Tory opinion or Labour as well) was moving towards Churchill. Later, Chamberlain heard that Labour opinion was moving towards Churchill.

Chamberlain’s letter to his sister Ida (11 May) and Halifax’s account noted down by Alec Cadogan that day are more or less consistent with one another, except that Halifax has the Labour leaders turning up at the end of the meeting rather than the start. Churchill misdates all this to 10 May in his “Second World War”. That evening (9 May) Boothby wrote to Churchill, saying opinion (he does not specifically say Labour opinion) was hardening against Halifax and mentioned a clique of usual suspects like Harold Macmillan – an eccentric backbench perennial rebel at the time - who wanted Churchill as PM. Clement Davies said Labour did not want Halifax.

Charmley says Chamberlain actually did resign that evening, although Gilbert does not include this and Chips Channon wrote at 8pm that Chamberlain was still in power. That night the German attack began, and Chamberlain tried to use this as an excuse to rescind his resignation. Some Tory MPs were angered by this when rumour got out, and before 10am Kingsley Wood told him he must go [he is hardly the only PM to behave like this, in fairness – Churchill wanted to meet the new House after the 1945 Labour landslide, and Eden had to talk sense into him and tell him to resign].

Chamberlain received Labour’s formal answer (Attlee and Greenwood had had to clear it with their conference, then in session) during the War Cabinet meeting at 430pm on 10 May. As discussed above, they expressed no formal preference between Churchill and Halifax. Chamberlain resigned thereafter.

So the Clement Davies hearsay is the only real bit of evidence that Labour did not want Halifax. Chamberlain was trying to shoehorn Halifax in as his successor so he may have overestimated Labour’s willingness to serve under him, but officially, they would have gone along with a Halifax Government and I think this is the line historians tend to take.Paulturtle (talk) 08:23, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Having had a chance to think about Charmley's claim that Chamberlain resigned on the evening of 9 May, it occurs to me that Chamberlain might have rung the Palace to inform them of what had happened and to book an audience with the King so he could resign in person the next day, or whatever. If that is confirmed by any book about Neville Chamberlain it might explain the apparent discrepancy/error. Everyone seems to agree that after the German attack on the West began that night he tried to cancel his impending resignation the next morning (Archibald Sinclair actually announced as much to the press) until Kingsley Wood told him that this just wasn't going to wash.Paulturtle (talk) 06:45, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Hermiston's recent book on the Churchill coalition mentions a letter of A.L.Rowse, then a Labour candidate, to the papers a few days earlier, recommending a Halifax premiership - it should be remembered that Halifax was then seen as a morally upright Christian figure, as well as having been a reforming Viceroy. Dalton clamed that Labour inclined towards Halifax a few days earlier, but had swung towards Churchill by the time he was appointed, but the source for this is Dalton's memoirs rather than his contemporary diaries. Once I've had a chance to check Roy Jenkins and some books by or about Dalton next week, I should be in a position to sharpen up the coverage of this episode a bit, both here and in the biogs of Chamberlain and Halifax.Paulturtle (talk) 06:45, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Conscious that we are really trespassing on the WSC page, so I will try to wrap up briefly. What A&G phoned through to No 10 was the result of an NEC vote, and it is not clear to me that Attlee would have sought anything other than a doctor's mandate from the NEC. Hence I don't know that much can be read into the formal response. However: Googling around last night, I found a couple of Attlee biogs on Google Books. One seemed significantly divergent from what I understand to be the standard narrative of events ( asserting that A&G knew Halifax was a non-runner before they left for Bournemouth) but it does give multiple instances of Halifax being thought PM material by Labour politicians in previous months. The other ({{cite book|last=Thomas-Symonds|first=Nicklaus|title=Attlee: A Life in Politics|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=GqT3AgAAQBAJ&pg=PT95|date=1 March 2012|publisher=I.B.Tauris|isbn=978-0-85773-074-9|pages=94–95}}) gives an extract from Dalton's diary for 9 May (presumably Dalton's diary is genuinely contemporaneous ?) reporting (after a conversation with Attlee) "He agrees with my preference for Halifax over Churchill, but we both think either would be tolerable" so I fear we are now in agreement that I was wrong. I have added a reference to the Dalton diary entry to the Norway Debate article; it might be a useful addition elsewhere. Rjccumbria (talk) 19:13, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

26 May

(Gilbert pp410-25, Charmley pp400-08)

I think we are in agreement. The separate article needs to discuss the available interpretations - I may get round to it one day, and if anyone else wants to do it they can be my guest. And this article needs to have a neutral sentence or two directing people to said article.Paulturtle (talk) 08:23, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Paragraph makes no sense

There has been debate over Churchill's alleged culpability in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Indians during the Bengal famine of 1943.[145][146][147][148] While some commentators point to the disruption of the traditional marketing system and maladministration at the provincial level,[149] Grusl2017 (talk) 14:00, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I have tweaked it slightly. MilborneOne (talk) 14:14, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Artist?

Sorry, but is there any reason to believe that WC was other than an amateur artist? Therefore should this word not be added to the 'artist' section and the word 'artist' removed from the lead, as no one would claim that he was in any sense known as an artist, unlike his writing and political achievements. Pincrete (talk) 21:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Answer, from 50.183.186.98 (talk) 14:39, 22 March 2017 (UTC) Tara Smith: Winston Churchill has paintings hanging in several famous galleries and museums internationally. When his paintings sell, they sell for a lot of money. Famous people even collect his paintings. I think that qualifies as an artist, beyond just a hobby. Even if it was "just a hobby" for him, great art came from it, which is also famous art. So, he had many talents, achievements and ambitions but he was still an "artist" among them. Also, it is not mentioned in the article about Sir John Lavery, and his wife Lady Hazel Lavery. They were very influential in him first becoming a painter. Hazel is actually the first person who got Winston painting. This is is verified in several books and documents on Sir John, Lady Hazel and even books written about General Michael Collins. Churchill himself credits Lady Lavery for first teaching him. (More details below in new topic) They all mention and give credit to Hazel for being the first to teach Winston to paint. This needs to be added or corrected. Please consider the edit.

Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2017

I requested to the information gathered in the Book The Inglorious Empire by Shashi Tharoor Gaurav ry (talk) 13:18, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

'Winston Churchill has blood on his hands and I'm appalled by the willingness of the British to completely overlook his disgraceful record. 'Essentially, the British have to realise that they are praising a man simply because of five-years' of inspiration speech-making in the Second World War, a war he won in the end only because the Americans came in on his side. 'People should read the assessments of Churchill in the British newspapers of the 1930s - he was not taken seriously or regarded very well. 'As he rather cynically put it, 'history will look kindly on me because I will write it' and he proceeded to do just that, which put him up on the pedestal he now occupies in the British popular imagination. 'It is extremely difficult to excuse his conduct in India. 'The overt racism of many of this statements - I spoke to the historian Roy Jenkins (author of Churchill: A Biography) and gave him many examples he said that, yes Churchill was 'racialist', but those were the times. 'But I disagree. There were plenty of decent, non racialist people around back then. It's not like people in 1930s Britain were incapable of thinking humanely about people of other colours and races. 'But people like Churchill and Rudyard Kipling were incapable, and the fact that they have now been deified in this country does not speak well of Britain despite his odious racism and deeply unpleasant language about India, Indians and Hindus. 'It was his decision that grain would be exported from Bengal during the famine, it was his decision that Australian ships laden with wheat calling on the port of Calcutta would not be allowed to disembark their goods but would sail on to England. 'And when conscious stricken officials in India wrote to London pointing out to Churchill that his decisions were costing a huge number of human lives, all Churchill could do was write peevishly in the margin - why hasn't Gandhi died yet. 'This is the man we're expected to applaud as the saviour of freedom and democracy?'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/indiahome/indianews/article-4304630/Indian-MP-Shashi-Tharoor-Empire-moral-atonement.html#ixzz4b7Jixt6b Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Tharoor isn't a professional historian and doesn't present any new information about Churchill. However, he is a distinguished diplomat and his view is relevant, if attributed. I would have thought a sentence or two, not a whole quote like the above. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:34, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm against this edit. It sounds like one more spiteful, emotional outbust of an Indian MP against India's former rulers. It has already been made quite clear in the article that WC was against Indian independence, and possibly prejudiced against the Indians themselves, and that his action might have contributed to the famine, etc.--Lubiesque (talk) 16:07, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

He is more than just an Indian MP and this book is going to be discussed very widely. I'm sure not everyone will agree with it. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:46, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Responsability for the Bengal Famine is a separate question from his general opposition to Independence and Gandhi, and should be dealt with in the section on 1940-1945, rather than the current section. It should be written by reference to facts with places and dates rather than introduced by the idea that there are different interpretations. Of course any disagreement between historians about the facts should be covered. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:57, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Is that all taken verbatim from the new 2017 book by Shashi Tharoor (published by Hurst, and available from Amazon at £17) or from the topical Daily Mail?? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:22, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I certainly hope no-one's proposing the Daily Mail as a source! Itsmejudith (talk) 17:31, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

The Daily Mail used to do very respectable hard backs, I'll have you know, long before they put poor old Winnie close to Trump. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:36, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

1. We don't need polemics from any source, and one's standing as a parliamentarian is not a good reason to include his/her opinions.

2. We should not use extensive excerpts like the quote above. WP:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches is still useful reading. Kablammo (talk) 22:46, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Completely agreed that extensive excerpts would be no good at all. Tharoor is not just a parliamentarian, but a runner up for Secretary General of the UN. His view is significant whether you agree with it or not. Some things are polemical; we have to live with that. Churchill was an able polemicist for sure. When I've read the whole book I will have a go at putting in a short statement. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:58, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

USA, there are many schools here that are named after Churchill, the one near my cousins has as a mascot a bull dog. Where would a good place to include these?

The Winston Churchill page covers much including portrays in popular media. There are many schools (built in the the post WW2 boom) named after Winston. I think that as an American tributes to a British leader would be a respectful inclusion to his record. Where would be a good place to include these ??

":Welcome - Churchill School - Home of the Bulldogs - Homewood il" http://www.hsd153.org/

There are many schools here in America like this. I think to include these is just as, if not far more important than some movie portrayal. A school where thousands of children got their education is important. That these are schools named after Winston needs to be noted.

Thank you. Haddon