Is it true?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2826980/Winston-Churchill-s-bid-nuke-Russia-win-Cold-War-uncovered-secret-FBI-files.html

Dave Turrell is right. It is true in that Churchill made such a suggestion 
several times in private conversation in 1946-47. It is not true that he 
"bid" to "nuke" Russia. *Really....*

The *Daily Mail* came to me with this "discovery" over a month ago. See: 
http://richardlangworth.com/nukesoviets

I said Churchill often voiced apocalyptic or off-the-wall notions to 
visitors or staff so as to see their reaction. It has been known for 50 
years that one of these was the Americans nuking the Soviets before Stalin 
could get the bomb. But this is NOT news. Lord Moran mentioned it in his 
"diaries" in 1966. Thomas Maier's book, *The Churchills and the Kennedys*, 
merely confirms Churchill's remark through another source.

I thought then that Maier just dispassionately reported the incident—but 
that was before I read his book, in which I now see (among an amazing 
number of basic factual errors and schoolboy howlers) the baldfaced 
assertion: "Little did they [WSC's son Randolph and Russian officlas] know 
his father would drop the bomb if he could." (456)

Baloney. Churchill never made such a proposal to any plenary authority, 
officially or otherwise. Indeed, as Graham Farmelo wrote in *Churchill's 
Bomb:* "This was the zenith of Churchill’s nuclear bel­li­cos­ity. He soon 
soft­ened his line. In the House of Com­mons he went no fur­ther than the 
words he used after British rela­tions with the Soviet Union 
dete­ri­o­rated again, in Jan­u­ary 1948: the best chance of avoid­ing war 
was 'to bring mat­ters to a head with the Soviet Government…to arrive at a 
last­ing settlement.'" (Only six months after the remark reported by Mr. 
Maier.)

Another quote I gave the Mail which they didn't bother to use was from 
William Manchester: 

"Churchill, how­ever, always had sec­ond and third thoughts, and they 
usu­ally improved as he went along. It was part of his pat­tern of response 
to any polit­i­cal issue that while his early reac­tions were often 
emo­tional, and even unwor­thy of him, they were usu­ally suc­ceeded by 
rea­son and generosity."

The facts never suit the populist press, so the *Daily Mail* ran the 
accusation anyway....which was properly greeted, so far as I can tell, by a 
chorus of deserved zzzz's.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"ChurchillChat" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/churchillchat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to