The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

Buy the Book

Essential Company

This is a long book, and rightly so.

Churchill by Himself: The Definitive Collection of Quotations
Edited by Richard Langworth
(Public Affairs, 656 pages, $29.95)


Reviewed by Sir Martin Gilbert

I HAVE KNOWN RICHARD LANGWORTH, initially by reputation and then personally, for 40 years. In the late 1960s, when I was a research assistant to Churchill’s son, Randolph, Langworth wrote to my boss about the work he was doing in the United States in assembling and publicizing the many postage stamps that had been issued to commemorate Churchill’s death in 1965. Langworth went on to establish the International Churchill Society (now the Churchill Centre), to edit the society’s journal, Finest Hour, and to supervise the publication of several important monographs about Churchill. Year in and year out he was vigilant in combating innumerable misrepresentations of the Great Man. In this magisterial volume, Langworth—the consummate editor—puts all those interested in Winston Churchill in his debt. This book is a marvelous compendium of Churchill’s written and spoken words, a true encyclopedia of wit and wisdom, and by far the most comprehensive yet published. It is an essential companion for writers, teachers, and students alike, as well as for anyone in any walk of life who wants to gain a real sense of Churchill in his own words: who Churchill was and what he stood for. 

Churchill saw far into the future. In an article published in both Britain and the United States in 1924 he asked: “Might not a bomb no bigger than an orange be found to possess a secret power to destroy a whole block of buildings—nay to concentrate the force of a thousand tons of cordite and blast a township at a stroke? Could not explosives even of the existing type be guided automatically in flying machines by wireless or other rays, without a human pilot, in ceaseless procession upon a hostile city, arsenal, camp, or dockyard?” It is clear from the material Langworth has assembled that Churchill not only knew war at first hand, but understood it. In his book The River War, first published in 1899, he wrote: “I may have written in these pages something of vengeance and of the paying of a debt. It may be that vengeance is sweet, and that the gods forbade vengeance to men because they reserved for themselves so delicious and intoxicating a drink. But no one should drain the cup to the bottom. The dregs are often filthy-tasting.” In his book London to Ladysmith via Pretoria, first published in 1900, is the sentence: “Ah, horrible war, amazing medley of the glorious and the squalid, the pitiful and the sublime, if modern men of light and leading saw your face closer, simple folk would see it hardly ever.” On May 13, 1901, within three months of entering the House of Commons, Churchill told his fellow members of Parliament: “We do not know what war is. Even in miniature it is hideous and appalling.” 

It did not take the First World War to determine Churchill’s attitude. To his wife, Clementine, in a letter written on September 15, 1909—a year after their marriage—while a guest of the Kaiser at German Army maneuvers, Churchill confided: “Much as war attracts me & fascinates my mind with its tremendous situations—I feel more deeply every year—& can measure the feeling here in the midst of arms— what vile & wicked folly & barbarism it all is.” To his brother, Jack, then serving at the Dardanelles, he wrote on June 19, 1915: “The war is terrible: the carnage grows apace.…The youth of Europe—almost a whole generation—will be shorn away.” To the House of Commons, a year later, having himself served five months in the trenches of the Western Front, Churchill declared: “I say to myself every day, What is going on while we sit here, while we go away to dinner or home to bed? Nearly a thousand men, Britishers, men of our own race, are knocked into bundles of bloody rags every twenty four hours, and carried away to hasty graves or field ambulances.” 

Commenting, in 1920, on the reluctance of the British public to become embroiled in the war being fought between Poland and Soviet Russia, Churchill wrote of his fellow Britons: “They are thoroughly tired of war. They have learnt during five bitter years too much of its iron slavery, its squalour, its mocking disappointments, its ever-dwelling sense of loss.” Peace was the underlying theme of one of Churchill’s finest speeches. In November 1940, after the death of Neville Chamberlain, who had kept him out of political office and whose appeasement policy he had denounced with vigor, Churchill told the House of Commons. “It fell to Neville Chamber lain, in one of the supreme crises of the world, to be contradicted by events, to be disappointed in his hopes, and to be deceived and cheated by a wicked man. But what were these hopes in which he was disappointed? What were these wishes in which he was frustrated? What was that faith that was abused? They were surely among the most noble and benevolent instincts of the human heart—the love of peace, the toil for peace, the strife for peace, the pursuit of peace, even at great peril, and certainly to the utter disdain of popularity or clamour.” 

Churchill saw clearly—as Richard Langworth’s comprehensive selection shows—that the future could be cursed by the behavior of governments and their leaders, and sought to avert the worst outcomes. 

“There is not much comfort,” he wrote to Joseph Stalin nine days before the end of the war in Europe, “in looking into a future where you and the countries you dominate, plus the Communist parties in many other States, are all drawn up on one side, and those who rally to the English-speaking nations and their associates or Dominions are on the other. It is quite obvious that their quarrel would tear the world to pieces and that all of us leading men on either side who had anything to do with that would be shamed before history. Even embarking on a long period of suspicions, of abuse and counter-abuse and of opposing policies would be a disaster hampering the great developments of world prosperity for the masses.” Wise words and accurate forebodings, but Stalin had other plans. 

WHAT WILL STRIKE ALL READERS about this book is the relevance of Churchill’s words to our lives today. As Americans contemplate a possible meeting between their leaders and the leaders of Iran, they might well ponder—whether they agree or disagree—on Churchill’s remarks at Edinburgh in 1950, when the Cold War was at its height. This is what he said: “I cannot help coming back to this idea of another talk with Soviet Russia upon the highest level. The idea appeals to me of a supreme effort to bridge the gulf between the two worlds, so that each can lead their life, if not in friendship at least without the hatreds of the cold war.…It is not easy to see how things could be worsened by a parley at the summit.” 

With this speech, the use of the word “summit” to mean a meeting of world leaders came into being. Two years earlier, in 1948, Churchill had declared with passion, in a speech at The Hague at the inaugural meeting of the Council of Europe, that all governments must work toward an age in which, as he expressed it, “all the little children who are now growing up in this tormented world may find themselves not the victors nor the vanquished in the fleeting triumphs of one country over another in the bloody turmoil of destructive war, but the heirs of all the treasures of the past, and the masters of all the science, the abundance and the glories of the future.” To compile this book, a work of many years, Richard Langworth has read each of Churchill’s 50 books, and has supplemented these with an Aladdin’s cave of material: most importantly from Churchill’s collected speeches edited by Robert Rhodes James, from the Official Churchill Biography, the first two volumes of which were written by Churchill’s son, Randolph, and the following six volumes by myself. The Official Biography also includes the comprehensive “companion” volumes of documents: the letters, telegrams, documents, and memoranda edited first by Randolph and after Randolph’s death in 1968, by me, a project that has now reached 1,942 pages, and is being published by Hillsdale College, Michigan. 

As Langworth’s thirty-four chapter categories show, there is no area of life and thought about which Churchill did not have something to say. From terse phrases to sustained thought pieces, there is a remarkable diversity and wisdom to be found in this book. One example is the questions that, in 1944, Churchill wanted to be the test of the Italian system of government after the fall of Mussolini. They could equally well apply after the fall of the Taliban, Saddam Hussein, Pervez Musharraf, or ________ (let each reader fill in the blank according to the situation in the world today, tomorrow, and in the years ahead). Here are Churchill’s questions: 

Is there the right to free expression of opinion and of opposition and criticism of the Government of the day? Have the people the right to turn out a Government of which they disapprove, and are constitutional means provided by which they can make their will apparent? Are their courts of justice free from violence by the Executive and from threats of mob violence, and free of all association with particular political parties? Will these courts administer open and well-established laws which are associated in the human mind with the broad principles of decency and justice? Will there be fair play for poor as well as for rich, for private persons as well as Government officials? Will the rights of the individual, subject to his duties to the State, be maintained and asserted and exalted? Is the ordinary peasant or workman who is earning a living by daily toil and striving to bring up a family free from the fear that some grim police organisation under the control of a single party, like the Gestapo, started by the Nazi and Fascist parties, will tap him on the shoulder and pack him off without fair or open trial to bondage or ill-treatment? 

“These simple, practical tests,” Churchill had commented in 1944, “are some of the title-deeds on which a new Italy could be founded.” They are as valid today as they ever were. Reading aloud the extracts in this book, as Randolph Churchill so relished doing when he was writing about his father, these pages can stir the blood, warm the soul, amuse the heart, and enlighten the mind. 

THIS IS A LONG BOOK, AND RIGHTLY SO. Many rewards will accrue to those who read it in its entirety. It can be read in small segments, set aside, and taken up again, read in moments of leisure and at times of reflection. Churchill was consistent in his thought and diverse in his expression. He could take ordinary episodes of history or politics and enliven them with wit and insight. Readers of this book can follow Churchill’s own advice about the books in his library: “Peer into them. Let them fall open where they will. Read on from the first sentence that arrests the eye. Then turn to another. Make a voyage of discovery, taking soundings of uncharted seas.” 

This volume invites just such a voyage. There are few books of which it can truly be said that it is un-put-downable. This book is one of them. It combines in grand measure two unique factors. The first is the reading, knowledge, and enthusiasm of a modern Churchillian, who is also a Commander of the Order of the British Empire for making Churchill’s work better known in the United States and internationally: Richard Langworth. The second is the voice of a master wordsmith and exponent of large causes, who bestrode the international stage in both war and peace: Sir Winston Churchill.

About the Author

Sir Martin Gilbert is Winston Churchill”s official biographer and the author of ten books on the Holocaust. His latest book, Kristallnacht: Prelude to Destruction, was published in June by HarperCollins.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (29) |

Alan Brooks| 2.23.09 @ 8:39AM

i think many of us were too hard on Chamberlain. the year the Munich treaty bought, 10/'38- 9/'39, made a difference in armaments for the UK.

Vaemar| 2.23.09 @ 8:50AM

Alan Brooks is quite right. Without denigrating Churchill's achievement, Chamberlain deserves credit for re-arming as much as he could - just enough, in fact - in the face of huge economic pressures and the furious opposition of pacifist and leftist political forces. The aircraft that saved Britain in 1940 had been produced inder Chamberlain and the undeservedly-forgotten Sir Thomas Inskip. Churchill himself freely acknowledged Chamberlain's contribution to Britain's survival at the time of his death in 1940. The subsequent denigration of Chambertlain has been the work of leftist revisionists such as Michael Foot whose real agenda was to discredit the Conservative Party.

Alan Brooks| 2.23.09 @ 11:13AM

it was exactly 11 months, from when the Munich treaty took effect, oct. 1st, '38;
until the invasion of Poland, sept. 1st, '39

Seth B| 2.23.09 @ 11:27AM

Yes but remember that Chamberlain didnt think that he was buying eleven months. He thought he had "peace in our time." There is much evidence that war in 38 would have been better for the Allies than war in 39. It is hard to concieve how it could have been worse.

Alan Brooks| 2.23.09 @ 11:42AM

no,
the Wehrmacht was seriously overrated by the West in 1938, and even by Hitler.

Vaemar| 2.23.09 @ 11:54AM

War in 1938 would have been better for the allies (apart from the fact they had no modern aircraft and would have been fighting ME109s with biplanes) but politically impossible. Leftist and Pacifist sentiment was too strong in Britain and France. The British Labour Party opposed conscription till 1939.

Nick| 2.23.09 @ 12:41PM

I don't put all the blame on Chamberlain. I also blame MacDonald and Baldwin for not putting the screws to Hitler right from the beginning. And Lebrun, can't forget the French. Feckless leadership only encourages tyrants.

The lesson, not learned apparently, is to confront bullies at the first infraction. Pursuit of peace is admirable and a virtue, but so is justice. Evil must be confronted, not allowed to prosper. President
Reagan understood this truth in his bones.

Stuart Koehl| 2.23.09 @ 7:17PM

Baldwin and Chamberlain deserve credit for providing Britain with the key to its survival in 1940-a modern, integrated air defense system equipped with radar, a command and control system, and just enough modern fighters to fend off the Luftwaffe.

But, in the larger strategic context, the year between Munich and the invasion of Poland worked far more to Hitler's advantage than to that of Britain and France. In 1938, Germany had but a handful of modern tanks, a dearth of motorized transport, relatively few monoplane fighters. It needed a year to absorb the armed forces of Austria and the arsenal of Czechoslovakia, which provided Hitler with hundreds of very useful tanks (Rommel's 7th Panzer Division was equipped entirely with the Czech Pz.38(t)), artillery pieces and small arms. For the duration of World War II, Czech arms factories were important contributers to the German war effort.

By 1939, though there were still localized shortages of equipment, the Wehrmacht was much more combat ready than it was right after Munich. On the other hand, as far as the ability to confront the Wehrmacht on the ground, the British and French had done relatively little; in fact, they wasted most of the time between Munich and the invasion of France and the Low Countries in May 1940.

In that light, war in 1938 would have been preferable to war in 1939.

Dan| 2.23.09 @ 8:31PM

"Tolle lege, tolle lege...." "Take up and read, take up and read!"

Those were the words that triggered the conversion of Saint Augustine, Doctor of the Roman Catholic Church, light of the West.

Those same words serve today for all of humanity, who need more than ever the wisdom, the hard won wisdom of a Churchill.

The fingers of mohammedanism are already around our throat, ------------- and their grip is tightening.

Christopher Holland| 2.23.09 @ 11:02PM

Munich came at a horrible cost - selling the Czechs downs the river was a supreme act of bastardry, no matter how much time it bought Britain. After that, defence pacts written on English paper were garbage and any prospect of forming an alliance against Germany disappeared completely. The Russians got the message and signed the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact - after that, war was inevitable. It is impossible to argue by any standard that the Munich Agreement was a net benefit to anybody except Hitler - he took Chamberlain to the cleaners, stole his pants, ate his lunch and pissed in his beer. Munich was a disaster and it is astonishing that after all this time, people still do not understand how bad and misguided it was.

Vaemar| 2.24.09 @ 3:52AM

Yes, Chamberlain was horribly wrong at Munich, but the Left were worse. Right up ti the outbreak of war - and in some cases beyond - they were attacking him not for appeasement but for war-mongering because Britain was re-arming. Even George Orwell as late as about July 1939 was saying manufacture of Bren-guns was some sort of Capitalist plot.

Given that Munich was a disastrous blunder - and I agree it was - Chamberlain was treading a terribly difficult tight-rope financially: the more Britain rearmed, the faster it would go broke. Churchill had the same problem when he became PM - Britain could just manage to build up a 55-division Army to match Germany's 200-plus divisions in 1940, but would be bankrupt by about the end of 1941. Unlike Germany, Britain also had to maintain a very large Navy to protect its supply-lines and trade routes. The modernisation of the Air Force was another huge gamble - modernise too early, and it would be left with a lot of obsolete aircraft and no money to replace them.

In a parallel situation Poland had had to make a big investment in defence against against Russia in the 1920s and by 1939 was left with obsolete equipment it couldn't afford to replace.

None of which detracts from the fact that Churchill was right about the big things.

Vaemar| 2.24.09 @ 3:56AM

My comment immediately above does not emphasise one thing enough: Churchill was not only right, he was heroic. He saved Western civilization, and the deepest shame be on anyone who seeks to denigrate that achievement!

Ammo Guy| 2.24.09 @ 9:34AM

When I look at the decisions I have to make on a daily basis and compare them to those that confronted Sir Winston during his life, my ego doth suffer greatly. For example, he had to decide how much of the Royal Air Force to commit to the Battle of France in 1940, knowing full well that these precious assets would be needed in the coming Battle of Britain. The French demanded that he throw all of his Spitfires and Hurricanes into their fray, thereby denuding the air defense of the British Isles should France fall...which, of course, did happen - the latter, not the former. An amazing...and complex man - when will we see the likes of him again?

Davod| 3.1.09 @ 2:34PM

Many forget that Winston Churchill was Prime Minister, not president.

He had to work within a Parliamentary system. Although he had great powers , probably more than a peace time Prime Minister, he could be, and probably was, overulled by those working in his war cabinet.

jhgjh| 11.25.09 @ 9:01PM

MOV Converter Mac,
MOV Converter Mac

More Articles by Sir Martin Gilbert

More Articles From Buy the Book

http://spectator.org/archives/2009/02/23/essential-company

ADVERTISEMENT

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

Most Popular Articles

Time to Go for the Kill

Peter Ferrara | 5.22.13

Obama and the IRS: The Smoking Gun?

Jeffrey Lord | 5.20.13

Damage Control for Dummies

Matt Purple | 5.22.13

The Inoperative Jay Carney

Jeffrey Lord | 5.23.13

Obama’s Assault on the First Amendment

George Neumayr | 5.22.13

Holding AWOL Obama Accountable

Betsy McCaughey | 5.23.13

Obama's Imbroglios

R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. | 5.23.13

ADVERTISEMENT