Talk:Winston Churchill

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Winston Churchill article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17

Biography GA‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Military history: Maritime / British / European / World War I / World War II GA‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on the project's quality scale. Associated task forces: /  Maritime warfare task force British military history task force European military history task force World War I task force World War II task force

Template:FACfailed is deprecated, and is preserved only for historical reasons. Please see Template:Article history instead.

This article (or a previous version) is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination did not succeed. For older candidates, please check the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations.

Software: Computing Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Template:FAOL

	Spoken Wikipedia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Wikipedia articles

Winston Churchill has been listed as one of the good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: No date specified. To provide a date use: {{GA|insert date in any format here}}.

Archives: 1 | 2

I think there is something wrong here:

"Chamberlain proposed extensive tariff reforms intended to protect the economic pre-eminence of Britain behind tariff barriers. This earned him the detestation of his own supporters — indeed, Conservative backbenchers staged a walkout once while he was speaking. His own constituency effectively deselected him, although he continued to sit for Oldham until the next general election.

In 1904 Churchill's dissatisfaction with the Conservatives and the appeal of the Liberals had grown so strong that on returning from the Whitsun recess he crossed the floor to sit as a member of the Liberal Party. As a liberal he continued to campaign for free trade."

How can he "propose tarriffs" and "campaign for free trade" at the same time? I think this needs reworking. Did he "oppose" extensive tarriff reforms intended.... or "propose" extensive tarriff reforms to "eliminate" tarriffs intended to protect.... I wish people who write things would read it afterward before saving.

the article which i posted on Bangalore club is real and i also have the reference to it: [ http://www.wetware.blogspot.com/2003_12_01_wetware_archive.html Churchill in Bangalore ] So check it out,it is funny.It is also on display in the bangalore club,the photo of which i will paste it soon.

Churchill was originally elected to the House of Commons in 1900 as a Conservative from Oldham. In 1904 he crossed over to the Liberal party and then in 1906 was elected to the House of Commons from North-West Manchester. Please correct your article on Sir Winston Churchill to reflect this.151.203.108.167 23:47, 29 October 2005 (UTC)Scott Enos[reply]

Looking at the article now I can't believe we've missed this, infact a lot of his early career is just glossed over. I'll check one of his biographies tonight to try to fill in some details, of course151.203.108.167 you could note the changes yourself, Wikipedia is open to anyone to edit. AllanHainey 12:53, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to Churchill's postnominals letters - I have added the PC for the Queen's Privy Council for Canada after his british postnoms since foreign honours are supposed to be placed after British ones (Churchill was sworn into the Canadian council during the war.) - Shouldn't the British "PC" also be in his name somewhere ? Dowew 16:00, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, if Rt Hon appears before the name then PC doesn't appear after it (as with the prenominal title of Dr and the postnominal degrees of PhD etc, which should not be used together). It's an either/or situation. This is often ignored, however. -- Necrothesp 14:09, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not all that often (I don't think I've ever seen it used with a British commoner outside Wikipedia, in fact). Also, Churchill couldn't have used plain "PC" as a member of the Canadian Privy Council whilst in Britain, as in Britain it only applies to British Privy Counsellors — he'd have to have used "PC(Can)" or some such (cf. "PC(NI)" for members of the Northern Irish Privy Council). Proteus (Talk) 17:56, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If he's a member of both Privy Councils, though, wouldn't it be prudent to have a Rt Hon before the name (Rt Hon is only for the UK), and a PC at the very end of his post-nominals, signifying it as canadian? Thesocialistesq 04:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember that Churchill was perfectly entitled to use Hon. before his name as the son of a younger son of a Duke. In this circumstance it is perfectly acceptable to use Rt Hon before his name and PC and PC(can) after.

He wasn't the younger son of a Duke. His father was the younger son of a Duke. And younger sons of Dukes have "The Lord" before their names, not "The Hon." (like Churchill's father, obviously). Proteus (Talk) 22:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In this article it said that Churchill spoke out against the policy of appeasement and was one of the first to voice dissent against Hitler, and I don't doubt those claims, but I was reading The Memory Hole and it claimed that Churchill wrote a letter to Hitler saying, "Were England to suffer a national disaster comparable to that of Germany in 1918, I should pray God to send us a man of your strength of mind and will.” Does anybody know if that's a real quote of Churchill's? If so, perhaps something should be mentioned to the effect that Churchill wasn't always negative in his opinion of Hitler, it was only after a certain point that he changed his mind. This would increase the neutrality of the article I feel. Revan fett 22:21, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This phrase appears on Google 13 times (mostly just copies of each other). Unfortunately no more information can be extracted from those sources than it was apparently written in an open letter to Hitler published in the Times sometime in 1938. Now, Churchill's odium for Hitler at that time is well-known, but that doesn't preclude the possibility that this phrase is in the letter - context is all. However I have done a JSTOR search across a wide set of history journals for various portions of the phrase and got zero hits. The next step would be to do a nexis-lexis search in the Times in 1938 for the phrase. If it doesn't appear there either it is probably a hoax. Unfortunately I don't have appropriate access to do the search.... anyone? Pcb21| Pete 10:22, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not once in this entire article is Churchill's famous relationship with the bottle mentioned. Just wanted to point that out. ZacharyS 00:30, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I add a sentence in the trivia section (about Pol Roger and Special Brew). Does he also have a brandy named for him? Pcb21| Pete 10:20, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I'm not sure if that was quite what was meant. Nevertheless, it would certainly be most appropriate to name a type of brandy after him, I'm sure....

Nothing is mentioned about Churchill's racism and many of his more negative quotes especially about Indians. Nokhodi 00:33, 06 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We've talked about this a good deal. The general concensus appears to be that Churchill was not more noticably racist than anyone else of his day. While many of the things that he said would not be acceptable today, that's true of pretty much all people of his time. DJ Clayworth 13:35, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It still doesn't excuse it. If he really was an exception figure in world history he would have been against racist ideology. Just because everyone was doing it, does not make it right. As a public figure all information about him should be readily available especially in a online encyclopedia like Wikipedia. Nokhodi 18:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well thats too bad. Enough of the moral perverts! Yeah, he was the man back in the day....PERIOD! (Romanyankee78 18:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]

We shouldn't strike fashionable attitudes about historical figures because it always generates more heat than light. In a similar way, many esteemed contemporary figures live immoral lives and hold immoral attitudes in the light of the values of the past, but those type of issues shouldn't be mentioned either. CalJW 06:27, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln made comments that would nowadays be seen as racist. So did Lloyd George, and practically every British early 20th century politician. Churchill was certainly pro-empire and (therefore) hostile to Indian Nationalism, and was therefore even in the 1930s seen as imperialist and reactionary. But I'm not sure even his enemies characterised him as racialist (which was the equivalent term).Exile 20:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Presentism is a mode of historical analysis in which present-day ideas and perspectives are anachronistically introduced into depictions or interpretations of the past. Most modern historians seek to avoid presentism in their work because they believe it creates a distorted understanding of their subject matter.

My wife was not aware of Chuchill's, "famous relationship with the bottle", and challenged me to find a reference. Can anyone help steer me to a historical accounting of what I know to be his legendary fondness for the ,"demon rum".

Not a totally neutral source perhaps, but http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=99 gives quite an interesting account, and lots of references to the literature. Pcb21| Pete 09:13, 13 October 2005 (UTC)..[reply]

I'd heard a rumour he had to siesta in the afternoons during the war because of his alcohol intake? true or scurrilous myth?

I'm trying to perform disambiguation link repair on the Russian Revolution page and there's one on this page I can't fix because it's protected. If any admins could change the link in the 9th paragraph under Churchill as historian from Russian Revolution to Russian Revolution of 1917 it would be much appreciated. --Polotet 05:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done (not by me..) DJ Clayworth 16:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Once, in 1886, he is reported to have proclaimed "My daddy is Chancellor of the Exchequer and one day that's what I'm going to be."" Is there a source for this as I've never heard this quote before & can't find it in any of the biogs I have. AllanHainey 12:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

'Unfortunately, towards the end of the war, Churchill was inebriated a great deal of the time and many terrible decisions were made. At one point, while making a speech in the House of Commons, he had to be led away from the lectern as he became confused and disorientated.'

What 'terrible decisions', and where's the reference for the HOC episode, preferably one confirming that it was drink related? I don't dispute its potential accuracy, but it's an allegation that needs to be substantiated imo. This does not seem to me to be a neutral and disinterested point of view.

After much tracking down, I've determined that this was inserted on 8 November by anonymous editor 203.10.121.81, which is an address used by the Queensland Department of Education Library, which has accumulated an impressive number of vandalism warnings and blocks. Since it's POV and highly doubtful (apart from anything wlse, the House of Commons doesn't have a lectern) I have removed it in its entirety. -- Arwel (talk) 22:15, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A new "Quotes" section was added recently:

• "There is a forgotten, nay almost forbidden word, which means more to me than any other. That word is England." Winston Churchill
• "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." Winston Churchill

It was cut today, but I have restored it. Yes, I know that this article is way too long, but I do not think that that is a reason to chop out some tasty meat, when there is flab --Mais oui! 13:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to suggest we cut this again. The main reason is that we already have Wikiquotes, with an extensive Churchill section. Everyone has their favourite Churchill quotes, and it's hard to see how a section like this could avoid growing to a size we are trying to avoid. Can we seriously have a quotes section without blood, toil, tears and sweat, without the Few, without fight them on the beaches, without Iron Curtain? And those were just the ones I came up with immediately. Why waste valuable space duplicating something already win Wikiquotes? DJ Clayworth 14:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Remove I agree with DJ Clayworth - I cut the quotes section earlier for precisely this reason. Wikiquote is a more appropriate place for quotes than wikipedia (& we already have a direct link to the wikiquote WSC page) & it is inevitable that any quotes section would grow & grow. AllanHainey 14:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If the Quotes section is retained, I suggest it contains a smallish number of well-known or notable quotes. The current selection is poor and unrepresentative. Ben Finn 15:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article is very, very long. This is highly counter-productive, and really puts readers off (the recommended max is 32 kilobytes). I strongly suggest that we create some sub-articles, and link to them using the {{main|new sub-article name}} template. The principal sections are as follows:

1. Early life
2. The Army
3. Parliament
4. Ministerial office
5. Return to power
6. Career between the wars
7. Role as wartime Prime Minister
8. After World War II
9. Second term
10. Honours for Churchill
11. Family
12. Last days
13. Churchill as historian

Which are the best candidates for spin-off articles, so that we can transfer some significant quantities of material out of the main article? Perhaps every single one of them deserves its own article? Suggested titles could be:

1. Early life of Winston Churchill
2. Army career of Winston Churchill
3. Parliamentary career of Winston Churchill
4. Ministerial offices held by Winston Churchill
5. Return to power of Winston Churchill
6. Winston Churchill's career between the wars
7. Winston Churchill's role as wartime Prime Minister
8. Winston Churchill after World War II
9. Second term of Winston Churchill
10. Honours of Winston Churchill
11. Family of Winston Churchill
12. Last days of Winston Churchill
13. Winston Churchill as historian

May I also suggest that it is high time for the initiation of Category:Winston Churchill?--Mais oui! 16:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The recommended limit of 32kb is a largely historical limitation imposed for the sake of some old browsers, which very few people now have. It isn't, to my knowledge, intended to limit the size of any article to 32Kb regardless of its content or subject simply because of some decision that all must be below 32Kb (I can't see any such decision or justification for this).

WSC is an unusal subject due to the breadth of his life & involvements & his importance in a number of key events in recent history (for which there is always more info available than for older history) and as such will tend to have a longer article than most other individuals. This can't really be helped if we want to provide a quality, comprehensive article. I don't think that it would be either a good idea or consistant with the encyclopedia structure to split aspects of his life up into seperate articles. Personally I think that the main sections we have are fine & allows a new user to find what he is looking for easily without being overwhelmed (though it is possible as it is an overwhelming life). I don't feel that any of the individual new pages you propose really needs a page of its own, & in a lot of cases I'm doubtful if it would be able to justify/fill individual pages. In any event it would break up the flow of the article & wouldn't give those looking for a WSC biog a comprehensive view of his life, which I consider the purpose of an encyclopedia biog.

As to a WSC category I don't know what the policy is on categories for individuals, I've generally been against them as they'd tend to be either too narrow in focus or (in this case) include just about everything occurring during that individuals life. I feel if we don't go with seperate pages then a WSC category isn't really necessary. I'm sure that this issue has been brought up before so it may be worth asking the helpdesk, etc if there is no consensus. For now I'd say wait to see what other comments folk have. AllanHainey 14:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'd agree that an article like this should be shortened. It's far too long. It's too intimidating. I'd say that this article is long enough to be a published biography. I think we should take the very important details and leave out the obscure details which would overwhelm or distract the reader. Scorpionman 14:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. With appropriate sections I find this perfectly readable. DJ Clayworth 15:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection there is one way that we could reduce the size. The details of Churchill's cabinet members could reasonably be moved to their own article. DJ Clayworth 21:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's already an effort underway to do that with all British Prime Ministers, see List of British ministries, and any of the articles listed therein. I'll see if I can't do Churchill's three in the next day or two. Mackensen (talk) 21:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While holding a seat in the British Cabinet, Churchill expressed his admiration for Mussolini and Italian Fascism two years after the murder of Giacomo Matteotti, when the character of the Fascist regime was well established. Here is the account of that pilgrimage which appeared in the London Times on 21st January, 1927:

“‘Mr. Churchill On Fascism. “‘Antidote to Soviet Poison.’ “(From Our Own Correspondent)“Rome, Jan 20

“‘Before leaving for London by the mid-day train to-day, Mr. Churchill received representatives of the Italian and foreign Press. Mr. Churchill informed his audience that he had prepared what he, an ex-journalist, considered the questions and answers most likely to help them in their work, and that a typed copy of this would be given to whomsoever desired one. The following are extracts in his own words from the impressions made upon him by a week’s visit to Italy.

“‘You will naturally ask me about the interviews I have had with Italian statesmen and in particular with Signor Mussolini and Count Volpe. Those interviews were purely formal and of a general character. It is a good thing in modern Europe for public men in different countries to meet on a friendly and social basis and form personal impressions of one another. It is one of the ways in which international suspicion may be diminished and frank and confident relations maintained.

“‘I could not help being charmed, like so many other people have been, by Signor Mussolini’s gentle and simple bearing and by his calm detached poise in spite of so many burdens and dangers. Secondly, anyone could see that he thought of nothing but the lasting good, as he understands it, of the Italian people, and that no lesser interest was of the slightest consequence to him.

“‘I am sure that I am violating no confidence when I say that a large part of my conversation with Signor Mussolini and with Count Volpe turned on the economic position of the Italian wage earner… I was very glad to have it proved to me by facts and figures that there is a definite improvement month by month over the preceding year…

“‘I have heard a great deal about your new law of corporations which, I am told, directly associates twenty millions of active citizens with the State and obliges the State to undertake very direct responsibilities in regard to these dependents. Such a movement is of the deepest interest, and its results will be watched in every country. It will certainly require the utmost good will and cooperation of all the people, as well as the wise and clear guidance of the State. But at any rate, in the face of such a system, ardently accepted, it is quite absurd to suggest that the Italian Government does not rest upon popular bases or that it is not upheld by the active and practical assent of the great masses.

“‘If I had been an Italian I am sure that I should have been wholeheartedly with you from the start to finish in your triumphant struggle against the bestial appetites and passions of Leninism. But in England we have not had to fight this danger in the same deadly form. We have our way of doing things. But that we should succeed in grappling with Communism and choking the life out of it-of that I am absolutely sure.

“‘I will, however, say a word on the international aspect of Fascismo. Externally, your movement has rendered a service to the whole world. The great fear which has always beset every democratic leader or working-class leader has been that of being undermined or overbid by someone more extreme than he: It seems that a continued progression to the Left, a sort of inevitable landslide into the abyss was characteristic of all revolutions. Italy has shown that there is a way of fighting the subversive forces which can rally the mass of the people, properly led, to value and wish to defend the honour and stability of civilised society. She has provided the necessary antidote to the Russian poison. Hereafter, no great nation will be unprovided with the ultimate means of protection against cancerous growths, and every responsible labour leader in every country ought to feel his feet more firmly planted in resisting levelling and reckless doctrines. The great mass of people love their country and are proud of its flag and history. They do not regard these as incompatible with a progressive advance towards social justice and economic betterment.’” (The Times, 21st January, 1927.)

Republished here from The Reason For Irish Neutrality, by Brendan Clifford, included in the publication of Elizabeth Bowen’s Notes On Eire, Aubane Historical Society 1999.

--GwydionM 18:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your point, presumably, is that Churchill did not have superhuman prescience to know ahead of time what Italian Fascism would turn into. Could you, or anyone else, guarantee to be able to meet a person and guarantee to know whether they were going to turn out good or bad? DJ Clayworth 15:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't that point apply also to Chamberlains's lack of prescience in dealing with Hitler?--shtove 18:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

churchill also praised hitler in 1935

If he once quoted a statement critical to Islam, it doesn't make him fit for Category:Critics of Islam. Oriana Fallaci, Daniel Pipes and many others are dedicated critics and are fit for the category. If it only for a random statement than it is inappropriate. Keep the statement and make it brief if possible but please don't categorize as per the reasons given above. Cheers -- Szvest 01:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}[reply]

"In October 1922, Churchill underwent an operation to remove his appendix. Upon his return, he learned that the government had fallen and a General Election was looming." This seems odd, where on earth did he go to have his appendix out and for how long! I'm not sure what this is intended to mean so I'll leave it to those more knowledgable to edit. --Tatty 22:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's meant to mean that he was in surgery on the day of the Carlton Club meeting and that like so many other ministers he assumed Conservative MPs would vote to stay in the Coalition. Upon coming round from the anasthetic he was told that the PM had resigned and there was an election in the offing - events were quite fast at the time. Timrollpickering 13:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, he was suffering from acute appendicitis during the election campaign itself. Most of the Dundee campaign had to be done by his wife on his behalf, while he was in hospital. The removal of an appendix was still a serious operation in 1922, so he was in bed until the last few days, when he struggled up to address two public meetings, from a curious angled bed /chair which was mounted on the stage. Naturally, this didn't help much, either, as it looked like he was at death's door. He was around for the election results, but still in bed, and so not at the count. Deebonairchap 03:07, 10 January 2006

The talkpage archive 2 has a discussion on whether or not to include the hyphen in "Spencer Churchill", where the conclusion (though it doesn't quite reach consensus) is not to use it. The name appears universally nowadays without the hyphen, and almost universally during Churchill's lifetime without it (the only major source that uses it seems to the be the London Gazette). I can't find a single biography of Churchill that uses the hyphen, and certainly whenever Churchill himself used the name Spencer or the initial S., he treated it as a middle name rather than a surname. I'm therefore going to remove it from the article again, and I encourage anyone who wishes to dispute its removal to bring their reasoning here. That reasoning needs to be better than simply calling its removal "incorrect" in an edit summary reverting the change. Binabik80 00:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The conclusion is not to use it? I really don't see you could possibly establish that. Even ignoring the lack of conclusion to that discussion at all, the London Gazette is the official newspaper of the British Government, and is about an authoritative source as you can get. Biographies and modern usage are by no stretch of the imagination authoritative (I've seen biographies of James FitzGerald, 1st Duke of Leinster that spell his surname "Fitzgerald", and that's just wrong). Unless you can provide an authoritative source that can contradict the London Gazette (good luck), you can't place the burden of proof on anyone else. Proteus (Talk) 10:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The conclusion was rather "only the London Gazette" uses it. Churchill's own works give his full name as "Winston Spencer Churchill" - e.g. the introduction The Second World War and that branch of the family does. Plus an artistocratic family is likely to not have the hyphen there. Timrollpickering 13:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only the most authoritative source uses it? Good God, let's remove it at once. And saying it's "likely" not to be there is just wrong. Far more aristocratic families use hyphens in double-barrelled surnames than don't. (And using a name is by no means the same as saying "this is my full name". If he did think that, then no doubt he would have stopped the official Government newspaper from using what he saw as a mistake. Strange that he didn't, unless he recognised that "name in use" and "full legal name" are by no means the same thing, a fact which seems to be lost to most Wikipedians...) Proteus (Talk) 20:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Churchill holds the record of having stood as a candidate in the most UK parliamentary elections, at 21, beating William Ewart Gladstone at 16.

Surely Screaming Lord Sutch or a similar regular by-election candidate can beat this? Timrollpickering 14:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The source for this is the Roy Jenkins biography, he means holds the record of being the MP who has stood as a candidate most. AllanHainey 11:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Page for Lord Sutch says that he stood for over 40 election pretty much doubling Churchills does he not count because he was simply a joke or is this a case of a poorly researched statistic?

'Lord Such' was never an MP, as stated above (& I believe in the article) Churchills record is of being the MP who stood as a candidate most. AllanHainey 09:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On a technical point all MP's have to resign when a general election is called, which means that all candidates are in fact members of the public. (Anon)

No mention of Churchill racism and hatred for hinduism. No mention of Churchill desire to see Gandi dead.--tequendamia 07:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We've talked about this already above. By the standards of his day Churchill was not a racist. You'll have to provide a credible source for him wanting Gandhi dead, and prove that it was meant earnestly. Even if Churchill really wanted to see Gandhi dead it is very unlikely to be because he was a Hindu or an Indian, but because he wanted Indian independence, which Churchill strongly opposed. DJ Clayworth 21:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion going on here whether or not the first sentence of a biographical article should contain the full name of the individual and include any post nominal initials (eg. VC, KCB, OBE) or whether these should be relegated to later in the article. I have tried to point out that this is standard style and part of their full titles but there are “readability” concerns. This arose because of the Richard O’Connor featured article and one possible solution, a biobox, is now in place on that page. Please make your opinions known.Dabbler 12:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No discussion of C's relgious beliefs. I've read that he was a catholic and that he was an atheist. Anybody know?

He was a baptised member of the Church of England. In his first election in Oldham he was the only even nominal Anglican and so bore the brunt of the burden of the uproar over the tithes bill.

Churchill often described himself as being "more of a buttress than a pillar" of support of the Church. He was not a regular attender of church but appears to have been a believer in God. I'd have to check but I think he made a speech in the 1927 Prayer Book debate which may give some clear indication as to his doctrinal views. He certainly wasn't noticable for brining his religion in politics, unlike, say, Stafford Cripps. Timrollpickering

I do remember a few remarks and anecdotes in The Second World War that seemed to indicate a pretty standard belief in the Christian God and afterlife. I don't think there's much worth noting. Albrecht 02:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Mary S. Lovell's biography of the Mitford sisters it is claimed, more than once, that it was an open secret among the upper classes that Esmond Romilly was Churchill's biological son- his mother being Clementine Churchill's sister. She also makes numorous references to Churchill being a serial philanderer. Is this relevant information for what it already a large entry, or is the source strong enough? I have included a reference to this in Romilly's stub.

I would doubt that claim, certainly none of the biographies I've read corroborate, or even mention, it. I don't think that there is any evidence that he was a "serial philanderer": something which given the depth to which WSC's life has been gone into (by those critical of & admiring of him) I would have expected to have heard of if there was any substance to it. Unless there is some evidence or the claims have been commented on by a specific biographer of WSC (or a historian with some knowledge of the level of reliability of Mary Lovell, bias in the sources she used, etc) I would leave it out of this article.

AllanHainey 09:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the book- linked above- I believe she quotes one of Jessica's sisters referring to this rumour when Jessica enquired about mental illness passing to her child through the Romilly line (Esmond's brother killed himself, I think); she was told not to worry, as everyone knew Esmond wasn't a Romilly. She also brings this up in her first reference to Esmond- there may be a footnote; I haven't the book to hand.

Bold textCan you tell me how to cite this article?Bold text

See Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia. DJ Clayworth 18:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For instance WC was informed of the realities of German re-armament by intelligence officials throughout. EffK 23:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are probably right, a little more would be desirable in this area. Feel free to add. However this is already a very long article. Please add nor more than a carefull-chosen sentence or two. DJ Clayworth 21:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I visit in an advisory capacity. I was shocked by links to garbage and comments of garbage the last time I was here a year ago, looking, but I am glad to see improvement. I have found length and forking and such issues are very contentiously used to corner source into the trash-can. So, I am really at a loss as to how an encyclopedia which costs per word what this one does, has to limit its information when it is clearly needed. I am the whipping boy around the place anyway, and I will spare you further trouble. I await Arbcom, and promised I would make no edits in the Article space whatever, if you are not aware. A pity, but there you are. One thing I mentioned some time ago at Spain articles, was how I should very much like someone to source that which was revealed circa 5 years ago through Government docs: WC payment of 5 million in gold to a small group of Spanish Generals and Admirals, to ensure the Neutrality. I know that when I mentioned this to a contact there, that this was unknown and would have been the most explosive news to Spain today. I cannot second the chosen sentence or two, but realise you are within the guidelines. If I last here, one day I may understand how this info problem is solved. Churchill info is measured in yards of shelf-space, as you know. I recently had recourse to Gilbert , to check on Pius XI, and very interesting it was. A proper little story of the bulldog protestant heretical Brit and how famously they got on, once the problem of WC's entry to the chamber had been overcome. I think a bow was made from the door. Their warm agreement rested entirely upon the iniquities and dangers from the Bolsheviks. Thankyou for your civility.EffK 14:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I should explain about sourcing. From what I read above it looks as though you believe that WC paid 5 million (pounds?) in Gold to keep Spain neutral in WW2. Logically if you believe this you must be the one who knows where the sources are to show this is true. I certainly don't. If you can indicate where these are then we could add something about it. (That doesn't necessarily mean it belongs here of course; it might be better in one of the WW@ history articles). DJ Clayworth 21:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi- it was one of those BBC updates on Govt secrets released after x years/rule. 60 years perhaps? They have different sets of rules for retention of Cabinet docs. I presume he made the deal in 1939/40 whilst in Admiralty so it would have been 60 yr and come out in 1999/2000. I imagine it 's available,and simply ignored and thats why I can't identify it better. belief is a word that I don't really find appropriate , to me at any rate. The fact, if one can believe the BBC report, or believe the cabinet records, or see the debit of 5 million, might have been included in recent studies. The revelation that he was fed Cabinet military Intelligence, purely the military Intelligence, was BBC as well as Brit newspapers. I think that came out c 1 year later than Spanish deal. No, that wouldnt come in here as you say- it's just a fascinating example of stuff still coming out. I am very amused that at top, that we see an offer to improve this aticle from the deutsch WP. I'm glad you are here, and presume those commercial and scurrilous links to bookshops aren't. Do guys like Martin Gilbert enter the WP space-he'd certainly have continued abreast of everything, surely. EffK 22:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The information under War Crimes is bordering on slander (that is, if it's not well over the line). The section also seemed, for the most part, to have been written by someone with limited English abilities. It had one saving grace line, but that alone was not sufficient to warrant keeping the section. I have deleted all of it. Bobby1011 13:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly the right thing to do. What was written was entirely without credible support. DJ Clayworth 15:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like it's back, but I'm not familiar enough with Wikipedia to see exactly who added it back. Also, is there some easy way to reply to these comments without putting in all the formatting by hand? DanielT 13:15, 31 January 2006 (CST)

It was User:Jus-tice. The only way to find out is to go the the history tab and then click on the 'diff' of likely looking changes until you find the right one. You can use the 'compare these versions' feature to narrow it down a little. I'm reverting now.

Also no there isn't any way of replying to comments pre-formatted. You'll get used to putting the appropriate number of colons in and won't be even noticing you do it in a few weeks. DJ Clayworth 20:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The image appears to have been deleted, so we need to find another one to put in the template on the right. I liked that picture as well... - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 22:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It strikes me that his long battle with depression (which he called his black dog) deserves a mention somewhere, perhaps linked to over-use of alcohol, or to other medical problems. I don't have proper sources to refer to. BrainyBabe 14:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is reference to this in the Family section (I think); it ought also to refer to the affect drinking had upon him - I recall reading that some heavy decisions were taken by him while in his cups.--shtove 18:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This section is largely copied from the Guardian article that it cites as its source. It is also not in a style one would expect from an encyclopedia. The "lively terror" quote should probably be in the article but it badly needs rewriting. Jon.baldwin 11:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A friend showed me something from the article. I was surprised to see it. "During the General Strike of 1926, Churchill was reported to have suggested that machine guns be used on the striking miners. Churchill edited the Government's newspaper, the British Gazette, and during the dispute he argued that "either the country will break the General Strike, or the General Strike will break the country."" I have not heard of any machine gun claims and I even googled the quote and found very little. Is the footnote at the end supposed to be the footnote for the entire paragraph? Again, this is just a check. If not, I feel in order to leave this comment in, there needs to be proof that Churchill did, in fact, do this (regarding the guns) or say this (regarding the quote). Thanks! Zouf 04:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that this section is way too long - it's half the length of the World War 2 section. While the stuff there is useful, it's mostly about the dispute, not about Churchill. Is there an existing article we could move most of this to? DJ Clayworth 20:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that everything is too long. 82 kB is just unbelievable!. IMO, everything should be made into subpages or drastically reduced. It's just too text heavy.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 08:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did so. The text I cut has gone to Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. DJ Clayworth 21:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is incorrect to say that Churchill inspired the Cold War. He was merely denouncing breaches of the Yalta Treaty. To protest against a treaty being broken is not usually the cause of a war; this one had already started. Churchill was pointing out that it had. Stalin was upset because it had been noticed.

The Wiki articles on the Cold War and the Origins of the Cold War, which are fairly authoritive these days, do not cite Churchill as the cause. The Iron Curtain article states that it reinforced Stalin's (ie existing) belief that war with the West was inevitable. I would therefore prefer to state that the Fulton speech brought the phrase "Iron Curtain" into popular usage to describe what was already going on. JMcC 12:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, but the fact that the Fulton Speech inspired the Cold War is well-established. The article on the Cold War needs editing if it does not say this.--Nixer 12:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the origin of the Cold War will be a matter of opinion rather than fact and I have removed from the article on Churchill until you can quote sources to support your assertion that Churchill started it. As I said before, he was alerting the world to breaches of the Yalta Treaty. It is true that from this point people recognised that there was a conflict, but there had been previous events. For example, Stalin's speech in Feb 1946 had been seen by the US Government as a direct threat. JMcC 23:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Truman library contains oral history interviews with a lot of government characters that were deeply involved at the time. Fascinating reading. For instance: http://www.trumanlibrary.org/oralhist/kindbrgr.htm

The U.K. National archives have a lot to offer. The full war cabinet meetings documents (along with a lot... of other documents) are available as pdf, a bit hard to read though, as they are in shorthand, exactly as the secretary wrote down the conversations. This page gives the gist of a conversation about russia. http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/releases/2006/january/january1/review.htm

At the Cabinet meeting in April 1945 the PM welcomed representatives of the Dominions to the meeting during which they reviewed the world situation. The PM and Jan Smuts, the South African Prime Minister, made some interesting comments on how they saw the world at the time:

• P.M.

R. relations have deteriorated since Yalta…Hope we shall get through: but only by unity. New balance (or lack of balance) of power in Europe. These are the dominating world facts. How can we match them? Only by our superior statecraft & experience & above all by our Unity… Smuts. …World needs our maturity & experience. Danger of power suddenly acquired w´out experience & mature responsibility – exemplified by Germany & Japan. Hope won´t be true of U.S. & Russia. We have renounced Imperialism. But what of the economic imperialism of U.S.A. & the ideological imperialism of U.S.S.R. Eire is a warning tht. we may easily break up, as did Roman Empire.

W.M.(45)39th Meeting held on 3 April 1945.

At the meeting of the caretaker Cabinet in June 1945 the PM gave his views of de Gaulle and the Russian advance into the heart of central Europe. The latter is almost a forerunner of his Iron Curtain speech:

• P.M.

But no hope of trustworthy relations with France until we are rid of de Gaulle. This advance of R. into heart of central Europe will be one of most terrible events in history. Don´t believe they will willingly go back at least in this generation. 10 European capitals fall into R. hands.

W.M.(45)7th Meeting held on 11 June 1945.

---

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/cab_195_1_transcript.pdf

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/cab_195_2_transcript.pdf

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/cab_195_3_transcript.pdf

C.M. 7(45). 11th June, 1945.

3. Reparations.

• P.M.

R. will demand v. large figure – if only as excuse for not w’drawing labour. Wd. also prevent Fr. & Dutch from bidding too high

• O.L.

Above G. pre-war exports by £1 m. p.a. from occupation Zone.

• J.A.

Rpt. drafted under War Cab. Directive annexed. Dom. Govts. not yet informed – shd. have summary.

• P.M.

S.G. shd. go out, with genl. indicn of our views, & hear what they have to say. The G. will be relieved fr. maintaining mil. power: & can deny themselves too.

• Ch.

a) Only reparations worth havg = G. export markets. Directive takes a/c of that, but shd. state it specifically.

b) Also wd. like to omit last sentence in para 15.

If we count against R. claim the labour they take, we cd. get the total figure up to $20 billion. $16.000 m. value cd. be assigned for 4 m. slave labour.

• P.M.

At Yalta R. made it clear tht. their claim was exclusive of labour.

• Ch.

Try to get it in. It wd. be to our advantage because we don’t want for labour.

---

Trend of U.S. opinion - away fr. isolation. My contacts confirmed view of Pres. etc. Welles hoped Senate wd. pass resoln soon givg. Pres. more latitude in pursuit of his policy. Pres. thinks this is best development - avoid Wilson’s separation fr. Senate until faced with Treaty. Bringing Congressme etc., into Conferences. Eve of my departure I was shown by 2 members of F.A. Cttee of Congress draft of such a resoln.

Basis of U.S. co-opn. World-wide basis essential - also China wd. have to come in:

a) U.S. hatred of Japan (not same feeling v. Hitler):

b) fears of China lapsing into chaos.

c) China as counterpoise to R. in Far East. (Pro-China feeling helps him to bring on opinion favouring war v. Hitler) Elaborn of organ. cannot be left wholly to U.K. & U.S. This leads Pres. to play up U.N. on every occasion. Form. (1) Genl. Assembly, covering all, mtg once or twice a year = Assembly of L/N. (2) Adv. Council - 4 Govt. Powers (incl. China) & 6 or 8 others to be chosen prob. by Continents. v. near Council of L/N. (3) Executive of 4 Gt. Powers exercising wide powers delegated by (2). Attached to this an offl. like Sec. Genl. of L/N. “Moderator” Authy. to communicate with (3) or (2) on issues requiring their attendce. Talked to Welles re Council of Europe. He thought room for this Sub-Cttee of (2). Subjects to be discussed - wd. they deal with 155

pol. ques: he felt prob. not. See no special diffy. except (3): I believe most will have to be done by (2).

Germany. V. tough attitude. Welles vehemently in favour of dismemberment. They’ve gone into it v. carefully. (P.M. “Liberation of minor components”!) In our mil. occupn we shd. proceed jointly in each area (BA.R.). G. wd. be broken up in mil. occupn into areas approx. to eventual break-down into parts. Pres. agreed, less vehemently. Hull hadn’t made up his mind. I agreed tht. this solution shdn’t be excluded & we wd. consider details. Argument (Welles) - G. bound to have a grievance: therefore give her a good one. “Don’t maltreat your enemy by halves.” (P.M.)

Barvaria: N.Western: Prussia (less E. Prussia etc.): Ruler under internatt. supervision.

Austria sep. at first, tho’ later with Bavaria: Saxony.

• P.M.

Centripetal tendency of G. will be strong. Poss. ??? in time to implement other ideas. E.g. Confedn. of Danube, as central European bloc. If Wurtemburg joined, it wd. be poss. To go easier with G. states wh. close to Vienna via Berlin. Czechs. wd. like to join with Poland, if they made proper arrangement with R. If not, they wd. turn twds. Vienna.

---

Stor stark7 16:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly bizarre I find to have Churchill castigated for causing the Cold War. I recently had to fight with a contributor who wanted to lay the whole blame for Poland's postwar takeover by communism at Churchill's feet and castigated him for not being willing to go to actual war with the Soviets over the subject. DJ Clayworth 01:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a shame that the Churchill's greatest achievement is not at the start of the article. It is a little like writing the intro about Darwin and not mentioning evolution. I hope at least it is preserved in the main body of the text, but it is buried under a lot of other verbiage. Churchill was a deeply flawed character who made many mistakes, but if he had not existed, there was no-one else in the Cabinet who would have stood firm. And I would not have been born. JMcC 12:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Churchill's greatest achievement was that he refused to capitulate when defeat by Germany was a strong possibility and remained a strong opponent of any negotiations with Germany, maintaining the policy of unconditional surrender of the Nazi Germany, which was agreed by the Big Three in the Tehran conference."--Chodorkovskiy 17:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Churchill was human, but it has been said of him that he was the only man to 'write history, predict history and make history'. Sure he made mistakes but they fade to insignificance when compared to what he accomplished. He was the greatest hero of freedom and democracy this world has ever known. Bless you Winnie!!

According to Paramahansa Yogananda, Winston Churchill was Napolean in his last birth. This piece of information was from the book Conversations with Yogananda by Swami Kriyananda. Is anyone aware of this? I do not know how far this is true and whether it is possible to prove this claim. But by analyzing these two different historical figures, one can come to a conclusion about this. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 10:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is utterly impossible to prove (or disprove) this claim, just as it is impossible to verify the existence of reincarnation, as such it has no place in an encyclopedia entry. AllanHainey 12:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What was Churchill's opinion on dropping the A-bomb? I know that eventually he endorsed it, mostly due to pressure from the Cabinet, but what was his personal opinion on tropping the bomb? - AK-17

I read on the tattoo page that Churchill was tattooed. Does anyone know where the tattoo was, and what it was of? Rusty2005 02:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is believed to be his maxim, but did he really say so? I would like to know the source exactly. Would anyone help me please? --1523 06:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This quote is discussed at wikiquote, it is unsourced and believed to be apocryphal. AllanHainey 07:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is rather apocryphal, but I believe the quote refers to Socialism, not Liberalism.

Someone has added statements which seem to be largely speculation about Churchill's personal courage. I think the comparisons with the other Allied leaders are little unfair - comparisons with Rooseveldt, who was confined to a wheelchair and for whom even leaving the country was a major issue are not really appropriate. DJ Clayworth 15:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised not to see any details of his 1931 car accident here, as it was a contributor to his "wilderness" years and gave him his signature cane. Not necessarily important geopolitically, but... ka1iban

If you're referring to the time he was hit by a car in New York it didn't really contribute to his 'wilderness years' as that was a product of the domestic British political scene & how he was perceived in it. Nevertheless if you want to add a mention of it please go ahead. AllanHainey 07:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Snopes.com[1] claims this is an exaggeration of the true story, citing several Churchill biograpies. Is this sufficient to warrant removing or altering the claim? --Adzz 04:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I didn't think he was born when his mother was attending a ball as I've just seen is noted in our article. The story I've seen most often is that he was born after his mother fell while riding. I hadn't heard at all that he'd ben born in a bathroom & scopes seems to say it was "ordinary living quarters temporarily pressed into service as a cloakroom". I think its probably sufficient to amend the article, I'll check a biography not listed by Scopes tonight though for verification. AllanHainey 13:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Number 10's official website appears to have bought the story [2]. This is quite confusing. Nadim Scholris 19:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Still held in great affection by the British people Sir Winston Churchill was voted the Greatest-Ever Briton in the 2002 BBC poll the 100 Greatest Britons." Perhaps Churchill is revered in middle-England, tabloids and other areas of the media but to many in Britain he certainly isn't held with great affection but more as a wreckless politician willing to sacrifice any amount of British soldiers in pursuit of victory.

'Divided opinion' would undoubtedly explain why he was voted the Greatest Ever Briton. DJ Clayworth 16:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and George Bush won the election fairly.

Curtikri 14:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. What's all this, then? In my opinion he was one of the greatest statesman the world has, or will ever see. Without his solid convictions and resolve to achieve the "victory" you speak of (which was not in vain) the world would be living under a Nazi dictatorship today. The polls don't lie. I'm astonished such a great figure has been questioned, insofar as I can see he was a great man. Aaрон Кинни (t) 20:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even great men have their flaws, and some people castigate him more for the flaws than appreciate the greatness, especially if the flaws affected someone in a personal way. A lot of ANZACs have never quite forgiven him for Gallipoli. DJ Clayworth 17:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Churchill switched parties during his political career, even twice. From Conservative to Liberal and back. This is mentiond in the box at the top.

But this box is not a box used for every politician but for every prime minister. So when you see the words Conservative and Liberal you think he was PM for both those parties.

My suggestion write liberal like this: (liberal). Confussion ended and we're still honest about his party-history.

So if there isn't any real protest I think we should do this.

User:Allard Netherlands Posted Saturday July 15 2006 21:45 C.E.T.

I don't see any reason to change this. The box said his parties were Liberal and Conservative as they were. I don't think it would be inferred from the parties line & the header PM of the UK that he was PM as both a Liberal and a Conservative (some other info in that box doesn't relate to the Prime Ministership but to Churchill himself). AllanHainey 11:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is too big a section for one incident, especially as it gives no context. To make the context intelligible we would have to explain about irish ports and the agreement to use them. Churchill said a lot of things about a lot of people during WWII, many of them not complimentary. Can I suggest we move this out to another article, or create one if there isn't a suitable place, leaving a sentence or two behind? DJ Clayworth 17:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irish neutrality would seem to be the logical place to put this. DJ Clayworth 18:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly worth mentioning at least rather than completely removing the section.

I see no reason whatever for mentioning it. Why was it important for Churchill?

It was *very* important as Churchill was blatantly attacking the sovereignity of Britain's neighbour. Important enough for Churchill to make a public attack on Irish sovereignity, despite the fact that the British *did* get secret co-operation from the Irish during WWII. Check out Robert Fisk's book 'In time of war' for the details.

I agree that it was important to the subject of Irish neutraility, and my suggestion is that we move it there. To Churchill I doubt it was that important, and probably warrants no more than a sentence. Churchill was managing a huge number of diplomatic causes around the world at that time, and this was no more significant than many. He had many more important things to say on Indian Independence. DJ Clayworth 16:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On October 9, 1944, he and Eden were in Moscow, and that night they met Stalin in the Kremlin, without the Americans. Bargaining went on throughout the night. Churchill wrote on a scrap of paper that Stalin had a 90 percent "interest" in Romania, Britain a 90 percent "interest" in Greece, both Russia and Britain a 50 percent interest in Yugoslavia. When they got to Italy, Stalin ceded that country to Churchill. The crucial questions arose when the Ministers of Foreign Affairs discussed "percentages" in Eastern Europe. Molotov's proposals were that Russia should have a 75 percent interest in Hungary, 75 percent in Bulgaria, and 60 percent in Yugoslavia. This was Stalin's price for ceding Italy and Greece. Eden tried to haggle: Hungary 75/25, Bulgaria 80/20, but Yugoslavia 50/50. After lengthy bargaining they settled on an 80/20 division of interest between Russia and Britain in Bulgaria and Hungary, and a 50/50 division in Yugoslavia. U.S. Ambassador Harriman was informed only after the bargain was struck. This gentleman's agreement was sealed with a handshake.

I guess it is this paper that is refered to: [3] The problem is that it is listed under the teheran conference, which does not fly with the october 1944 date. Has there been a mixupp somewhere? --Stor stark7 ^Talk 11:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does this guy really merit mention in this article? He doesn't even have a proper page here. Can understand that opposing viewpoints are good to have with regard to NPOV but if noone of more consequence has these kinds of views they should perhaps be omitted? 87.52.22.60 20:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charmley is a major historian and people who are looking for a criticism of Churchill in ww2 will find it in Charmley better than anywhere else. The annotation clearly describes his POV. Rjensen 21:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thought people might want to add something about him being a good painter, gives a slightly fuller picture of the man. http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=808