Talk:Winston Churchill

Winston Churchill was a painter? I'd really never heard that. Any sources?

An event in this article is a April 5 selected anniversary (may be in HTML comment).

Archive: Talk:Winston Churchill/Archive1

General discussion

The folowing piece was put to talk: "One of these settlements was the boundary between the future East Germany and Poland at the Oder-Neisse line, which was rationalized as compensation for Soviet gains in Ukraine. As part of the settlement was an agreement to continue the expulsion of ethnic Germans from the area, which arguably had begun as a program after 1920 when Poland had been given the Polish Corridor by Britain and France. The exact numbers and movement of ethnic populations over the Polish-German and Polish-USSR borders in the period between the end of World War I and the end of World War II is vastly difficult to determine. "

After WWI under the provisions of the Treaty in Versailles, Former citizens of Germany had the right to option, where they wanted to leave. There were no forced expulsions. In addition Poland had to sign speciall treaty that guaranteed the rights of minorities in Poland.

If his father was lord, then why was he only "Sir"? JeanneB

His father, as the younger son of a duke, bore the courtesy style of "Lord" before his name. He was not, however, a peer himself. Churchill, as the son of the younger son of a peer, had no title, and was a mere commoner. He received the "Sir" through being created a Knight of the Garter after the 2nd World War. john 01:36, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The following statement was inserted, but 'mysteriously disappeared' from the Winston Churchill article, therefore a copy is placed here in Discussion: A Quote from the 1946 Winston Churchill Iron Curtain Speech in Fulton, Missouri : "From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, an iron curtain has descended across the Continent. Behind that line lie all the capitals of the ancient states of Central and Eastern Europe. Warsaw, Berlin, Prague, Vienna, Budapest, Belgrade, Bucharest and Sofia, all these famous cities and the populations around them lie in what I must call the Soviet sphere, and all are subject in one form or another, not only to Soviet influence but to a very high and, in many cases, increasing measure of control from Moscow. Athens alone-Greece with its immortal glories-is free to decide its future at an election under British, American and French observation. The Russian-dominated Polish Government has been encouraged to make enormous and wrongful inroads upon Germany, and mass expulsions of millions of Germans on a scale grievous and undreamed-of are now taking place. The Communist parties, which were very small in all these Eastern States of Europe, have been raised to pre-eminence and power far beyond their numbers and are seeking everywhere to obtain totalitarian control. Police governments are prevailing in nearly every case, and so far, except in Czechoslovakia, there is no true democracy."

This statement by Churchill is in contrast to above Wikipedia entries. While Churchill addressed the wrongful inroads upon Germany by the Russian-dominated Polish Goverment and the mass expulsions, the current texts of nearly all Wikipedia articles dealing with eastern Germany and its people, are trying to portrait historical events differently from the factual happenings. For the full speech by Churchill please see External Link below. http://wikiquote.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill go to full speech by W.C. on W.C. website. The referrence by Churchill to: The Russian-dominated Polish Government has been encouraged to make enormous and wrongful inroads upon Germany, and mass expulsions of millions of Germans on a scale grievous and undreamed-of are now taking place. is directly referring to Germany east of the Oder-Neisse line, which was overrun by Soviet-Russian and Polish forces, who were before and after the end of WW II expelling all Germans in what is today referred to as 'Western Poland" or 'Regained Territory".

I agree with the above. According to his own writings Churchill opposed the imposition of the Soviet-backed government of Poland, and the settlements were mostly imposed by the US and Soviets. Also I'm not even sure that he was responsible for the final settlements; weren't they finalised after he had lost the election? DJ Clayworth 20:33, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

They were never actually finalised. There was supposed to be, according to Potsdam Agreement a peace treaty, which due to the Cold War never happened. There were only military conquest realities, which international law states, can only be temporary military occupation. Keeping conquered land, removing populations and replacing them with others, is by international law, illegal. As we witness, time and time again, international law is often disregarded

I removed an entire paragraph:

One of these settlements was the boundary between the future East Germany and Poland at the Oder-Neisse line, which was rationalized as compensation for Soviet gains in Ukraine. As part of the settlement was an agreement to continue the expulsion of ethnic Germans from the area. The exact numbers and movement of ethnic populations over the Polish-German and Polish-USSR borders in the period at the end of World War II is vastly difficult to determine. This is not least because, under the Nazi regime, many Poles were replaced in their homes by the conquering Germans in an attempt to consolidate Nazi power. In the case of the post-WWII settlement, Churchill was convinced that the only way to alleviate tensions between the two populations was the expulsion of the Germans, despite the fact that many of these Germans had lived in these areas since the middle ages and had absorbed the native population, which lived there before. As Churchill expounded in the House of Commons in 1944, "Expulsion is the method which, in so far as we have been able to see, will be the most satisfactory and lasting. There will be no mixture of populations to cause endless trouble...A clean sweep will be made. I am not alarmed by these transferences, which are more possible in modern conditions..." Even though made in "modern conditions" some 500,000 to 1,500.000 people died in these "transferences". Today these transferences would be named "ethnic cleansing".

which is a word-for-word copy (except for the last sentence) from here. DJ Clayworth 22:26, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Erm, beware of assuming that everything else has been there longer than Wikipedia: "[This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License and uses material adapted in whole or in part from the Wikipedia article on Sir Winston Churchill]". It's just an out of date mirror of this very page! - IMSoP 22:48, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Oops. Sorry. DJ Clayworth 15:58, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Incidentally, does anyone know what Churchill was talking about when he made the speech quoted above? Could he have been talking about repatriating Germans from countries they had occupied? DJ Clayworth 22:32, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC) He was talking about the germans who had been living in parts of poland and russia for more than three centuries Regarding the above paragraph, can anybody shed light on this sentence: "In the case of the post-WWII settlement, Churchill was convinced that the only way to alleviate tensions between the two populations was the expulsion of the Germans, despite the fact that many of these Germans had lived in these areas since the middle ages and had absorbed the native population, which lived there before.". Is it talking about post-WWII settlement, or settlement since the middle ages? DJ Clayworth 15:58, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I think what's confusing you is that there are two distinct meanings of settlement, which are both relevant: settlement as in a treaty, contract, etc - the Treaty of Versailles was part of the "post-WWII settlement" in this sense; and settlement as in the sense of people setting up their homes somewhere - in which case "post-WWII settlement" would mean something altogether different. I agree that the paragraph needs some serious work, though - it's full of grammatical errors for a start; I'm afraid I haven't really got time to go through it at the moment. - IMSoP 16:30, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Just to throw another spanner in the works, Versailles was WWI, you mean Potsdam or Yalta or ... Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 16:44, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

D'oh! Right you are! Shows how much I was concentrating, doesn't it? - IMSoP 16:54, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'm beginning to have real trouble with this paragraph. It seems to be trying to implicate Churchill in the deaths of ethnic Germans without actually coming out and saying to. If it is trying to do that, then I think whoever wrote it needs to answer some questions:

Was Churchill advocating expulsion of all ethnic Germans, or just those that had moved there since the conquest by the Nazis?
Given that Hitler used the presence of ethnic Germans in Sudentenland as an excuse for some of his conquests, isn't it reasonable to view such a presence as a dangerous flashpoint? It may sound horrible to our ears to forcibly move a few hundred thousand people, but if you've just finished fighting a war in which fifty million people died, it sounds a lot less horrible if that's what it takes to prevent a recurrence.
Even if Churchill advocated these moves, he is not responsible for the manner in which they were carried out. It would certainly have been possible, even in the immediate postwar, to make these moves without loss of life or serious suffering. That it was not done needs to be laid at the feet of those controlling the area.
Churchill argued strenuously that the Polish government in exile should return to Poland, rather than the Soviet backed regime that did eventually take control. Had his wishes been followed this problem might not have occurred.
Churchill was only one of the leaders trying to agree on these points. And the practicalities of the situation was that whatever the Soviets said, in the territory they controlled, was what was going to happen, short of starting another war.

DJ Clayworth 21:41, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Can someone please reverse my edit re the tables? I'm not able to. Thanks Andylehrer 19:01, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I see you managed it :-)

James F. (talk) 20:49, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This is an odd paragraph. Need more information about this if it is to stay.

(It has been suggested that some of Churchill's radio speeches, including "We shall fight on the beaches." were actually spoken by soundalike actors because Churchill was too busy to make them himself, but this has not been conclusively proven.)

Roadrunner 05:52, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

See here, or Google - Nunh-huh 05:59, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

The first is an article in 2000 saying that there is a recording that is soon to be verified, and it's 2004. Also the article quoted heavily David Irving whose credibility leaves something to be desired.

Roadrunner 06:07, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Those are references about the assertion, rather than references that will decisively decide the truth. The assertion that some of Churchill's important radio speeches had been spoken by an actor can be attributed to actor Norman Shelley, and "historian" David Irving... The more-or-less official Churchill site can be quoted as denying it and calling it a popular myth. - Nunh-huh 06:44, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Chart Rendered Incorrectly

The first section of the article renders really awkwardly. Is this happening to anyone else? It looks fine in the preview, but it messes up when you actually look at it. I think this is caused by the new "Category" thing on the right side. cryptfiend64 20:51, May 30, 2004 (UTC)

Nearly a quarter of the section on Churchill in the War is devoted to the question of Polish borders. This strikes me as being way too much. I believe we should cut this down and move a more detailed description elsewhere. Even if this is an important decision it's not one Churchill was personally closely involved with, more than Roosevelt or Stalin. DJ Clayworth 12:41, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Timeline

"Churchill stood for the Liberals again in the 1923 general election, but over the next twelve months he moved towards the Conservative Party, though initially using the labels "Anti-Socialist" and "Constitutionalist". Two years later in the General Election of 1924 he was elected to represent Epping (where there is now a statue of him) as a "Constitutionalist" with Conservative backing. The following year he formally rejoined the Conservative Party, commenting that, "Anyone can rat [change parties], but it takes a certain ingenuity to rerat." He was appointed Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1924..."

Something wrong here? Rich Farmbrough 16:48, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean, but a reference to the 1924 Westminster Abbey by-election (where he stood as an Anti-Socialist) could be added. Appointing a non-party member to a senior Government post does seem surprising, but it did happen (and raise eyebrows at the time). Timrollpickering 11:10, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, the above is all correct. Churchill had been a Liberal MP for 18 years when he lost his Dundee seat in the general election of 1922. In the general election of 1923, he stood again as a Liberal, to no avail, then later that year stood in the Westminster Abbey byelection as an "Independent Anti-Socialist". For the 1924 general election (Britain underwent a lot of upheaval at the time, ergo the 3 general elections in 3 years), he stood as a 'Constitutionalist' in Epping, where the local Conservative association agreed not to oppose him. Winning the seat, he was as surprised as anyone else to be offeref the Chancellorship by Baldwin, even though not a Conservative. This is not as strange a move as it may seem. After the three elections, Baldwin wanted a stable majority. Churchill still had a great deal of sway among Liberals, many of whom had long tipped him as a future Liberal leader. In bringing Churchill into the Conservative government, Baldwin more importantly secured the defection or support of an extra 30 or so Churchillian Liberals for his government. The ploy worked, the Baldwin government continued until 1929, and Churchill remained Chancellor throughout. And yes, he didn't actually rejoin the Conservatives until 1929. 14:09, 20 Oct 2004

Infobox on main article (please comment)

I'd like to get ideas about the infobox on the main page. It's concept is under discussion, so your input as biography editors is invaluable. Thanks! -- Netoholic @ 04:57, 2004 Sep 13 (UTC)

Is a single quote a NPOV problem?

Does the inclusion of a single quote line (not the quote itself) conflict with the Neutral point of view policy such that it should be removed? Please comment, one per line.

These votes are from regular editors of the page

These votes are from people which are already involved in the bigger discussion

Yes - If you do keep the infobox, then a single quote is POV because the quote will be chosen and the editor's POV is sure to influence the choice. Vincent 09:52, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Yes (obviously). James F. (talk) 07:24, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Yes - the current one on Winston Churchill portrays him as somewhat heroic, contrary to some people's opinion. I challenge you to choose a quote in an NPOV manner. ed g2s • talk 16:05, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
No - The NPOV policy relates to articles, not sections. If anyone feels the quote is POV, balance it in the main article text. Inevitably, some sections of articles are POV, it is impossible to write every sentence which balances all POV's. -- Netoholic @ 03:04, 2004 Sep 16 (UTC)

Comments

My thoughts have been expressed on the template's talk page, but I wanted the editors of this page to judge the quote's impact. In short, the NPOV policy directs that articles be of a neutral stance - section of an article are inherently POV, to meet that larger requirement. I find that the quote give the page a "professional" appearance, and so long as the editors have agreement on which quote to use, there should be no problem. (Note, I did some minor refactoring to separate the discussion with the simple straw poll.) -- Netoholic @ 16:14, 2004 Sep 14 (UTC)

However, do we need it? I would vote for deleting the infobox altogether. My comments are on the template's talk page. Vincent 09:52, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Having an infobox on the pages of British Prime Ministers is absolutely standard, and has been so for years. This is an alternative, and IMO, much neater presentation of the same box in a different light.

I agree about having a quote, though.

James F. (talk) 10:03, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You're right. The infobox is useful for office holders (e.g. Prime Ministers) and I've added to mycomments on the infobox page. But I don't think it's useful for individuals. Vincent 03:20, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Quotations are unncessary, and should not be included. The NPOV policy applies to the article, but the quotation is a part of the article, and contributes to the understanding of the subject. This whole infobox, as presently formatted, I also deprecate; the same format employed for other PMs should be employed. -- Emsworth 14:52, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I concur - no reason to use these new infoboxes, the old ones look great.Mackensen 15:10, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The infobox isn't bad, but the long list of categories at the top and the list of offices at the bottom look absolutely awful! --Auximines 23:03, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I notice the article doesn't mention Churchill's decision to use troops against striking miners in Tonypandy while Home Secretary, which is often quoted against him. It ought to be in there somewhere.Dbiv 23:42, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I fixed up the box containing Churchill's biographical facts. It looked really good, but there was no way to fit it in that didn't contain some fatal page design flaws (i.e. pushing the text waaay down the page or breaking it up very strangely). It still looks a little weird with the picture of Young Churchill next to it, but I think it's better. If anyone wants to tackle getting it back to it's original form without messing up the text, or creating an actual box that works with the text that can be placed in all the UK Prime Minster's pages that would be really cool. After a few hours I find myself completely incapable of such a task, so I pass the torch.

Thanks, --TheGrza 23:36, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

I note a similarity between minor suggestive statements and insinuations eg " Alzheimers " which appear to co-incide through a link at the bottom to " The Churchill Centre " and point one towards the 'winstonchurchill.org' where several of these statements are contradicted . I suggest that they could rectify these within wikipedia itself rather than on their apparently non-official website . Flamekeeper 13:31, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

War government - non Cabinet members

Given the small size of the War Cabinet and the importance of ministers outside it, can I suggest adding a section detailing the key ministers not in the War Cabinet, similar to those for David Lloyd George and Neville Chamberlain. I would add it myself but don't have a full list to hand. Timrollpickering 00:44, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Churchill and Eugenics

In response to the reversion. Churchill in 1910 as home secretary drafted a never proposed, law to use forced sterilization on "degenerate" Britons, and was director of a 1912 conference. He also pushed the idea in a well known quote to Asquith. For context the 1911 EB defined Eugenics as "the modern name given to the science which deals with the influences which improve the inborn qualities of a race, but more particularly with those which develop them to the utmost advantage, and which generally serves to disseminate knowledge and encourage action in the direction of perpetuating a higher racial standard." and at the time the movement was about promoting more of the "right" people to breed. It, of course, rapidly degenerated because of the prevalant racial bigotry of the times.

This wave of the eugenics movement (which included AG Bell, T Roosevelt and founders of Britain's Labour Party) died not long there afterward, but the 1910-1914 activities are often used as a way to attack Churchill later. Yes, WSC had some racial attitudes that we would describe as regressive today, however, trying to engage in equivocation by confusing early with late support for the movement is incendiary POV. If the information must be included - and it probably should in some form - correct context as to the meaning ascribed in that time and place to such efforts, as much as we condemn them now - should be in place. Stirling Newberry 21:01, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Query re "Last Days"

It was Churchill's wish that, were de Gaulle to outlive him, his (Churchill's) funeral procession should pass through Waterloo Station

I would like to know the source for this comment. President de Gaulle did indeed attend the service at St.Paul's. The procession afterwards continued down to Tower Pier. From the moment the coffin boarded the barge, the public ceremony ended. The journey along the Thames, to Waterloo and then to Bladon for burial was private. I would question it for two reasons: first de Gaulle (and all the other dignitaries) were miles away; second the boarding of the train at Waterloo was not part of the public ceremony.

First state funeral for a commoner since Lord Roberts

Re:Funeral comment "first state funeral for a commoner since that of Field Marshal Lord Roberts of Kandahar" is surely wrong. Lord Roberts was a peer, therefore a noble. The last Commoner was I think Gladstone. Wiki's own definition of Commoner supports my contention. I won't edit for a bit to give someone time to come back re Gladstone.Alci12 18:28, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I suspect that what was meant was "first state funeral for a non-royal". --Auximines 21:27, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps but that wouldn't make much sense either. Roberts, Gladstone, Wellington & Nelson were all non-royal and all had state funerals. I'm happy to edit if we agree it's wrong as it stands 81.156.58.185 12:58, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What I meant was, "first state funeral for a non-royal since Roberts". Anyway, the article is wrong as it stands, so go ahead and change it! --Auximines 18:54, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Surname

I *think* his full surname was Spencer Churchill not Spencer-Churchill - the hyphen does make a difference. It was Winston's father who dropped the Spencer (claiming that double barrelled surnames were an impediment - this wasn't all he got wrong!) and Winston generally only used it for his books as a way of distinguishing himself from the American writer. I don't think we can say he treated "Spencer" like a second name in the modern context - at the time there was rather more fluidity about some names (witness the way people are often still confused about exactly where the division between first name and surname comes for Andrew Bonar Law) and it was actually relatively common for people to have longer surnames than they used. Timrollpickering 00:02, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)