Re: [ChurchillChat] Churchill Quotation Question

['Dave Turrell' via ChurchillChat]

 "The most common counterfeit" according to Langworth.
https://richardlangworth.com/quotes-churchill-never-said-2

On Thursday, July 28, 2022, 05:59:36 PM CDT, Sandy Finlayson 
 wrote:  
 
 Does anyone here know the accuracy of the quote sometimes attributed to 
Churchill? The phrase in question is "If you are going through hell, keep 
going".
Thanks
Sandy



Mr. Sandy Finlayson
Director of Library Services &
Professor of Theological Bibliography
Westminster Theological Seminary
Philadelphia, PA

 Scottish Church History Resources:

Chief Scottish Man: The Life and Ministry of Thomas Chalmers.  

Also available from WTSBooks.

Unity and Diversity: The Founders of the Free Church of Scotland. 

"Google can bring back a hundred thousand answers. A librarian can bring you 
back the right one." ~ Neil Gaiman


-- 
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 churchillchat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/churchillchat/CAB6-JBFfK%2BK0zZEJyQNO-mQen0%3DQcbCmkCMLAjijLNd-W425UA%40mail.gmail.com.
  

-- 
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 churchillchat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/churchillchat/750536700.3711903.1659066954757%40mail.yahoo.com.

[ChurchillChat] "I cannot pretend to feel impartial about the colours..."

['Dave Turrell' via ChurchillChat]

Let us all take a moment today to raise a glass in fond memory of the old boy - 
and let us hope that, fifty-six years into his first million years of painting, 
he is reveling in covering his canvas with colours whose brightness and depth 
we can never imagine.

"When final honours are bestowed
 And last accounts are done,
 Then shall we know how much was owed
 By all the world to one."

Viscount Norwich

-- 
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 churchillchat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/churchillchat/004f01d6f218%24ce080fa0%246a182ee0%24%40verizon.net.

RE: [ChurchillChat] portrait of Lady Churchill by John Napper (1954)

['Dave Turrell' via ChurchillChat]

Wilfred,

 

The Weimar Woke – I love it. That will definitely be the name of my next rock 
band.

 

Your point is well taken regarding the portrait.  It would, indeed, have been 
nice to give the old boy something he liked and wanted.  My reaction was to 
classifying the painting as a daub – it wasn’t.  I believe that Sutherland, 
like all great portrait painters, saw through to the man underneath and gave us 
a glimpse of that.  I do not believe that Churchill was in any way exuberant in 
1954, or in 1955 when he made his last major speech to the House of Commons – a 
speech of somber realism, where he spoke, as a surviving member of Victoria’s 
last parliament, of living in an era which would be shared with atomic weapons. 
The peroration may have been intended to be inspirational, but it wasn’t the 
sunlit uplands.

 

“The day may dawn when fair play, love for one’s fellow-men, respect for 
justice and freedom, will enable tormented generations to march forth serene 
and triumphant from the hideous epoch in which we have to dwell. Meanwhile, 
never flinch, never weary, never despair”.

 

That is the Churchill I see in the Sutherland portrait.  

 

Dave  

 

From: churchillchat@googlegroups.com [mailto:churchillchat@googlegroups.com] On 
Behalf Of Wilfred Attenborough
Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2020 10:22 AM
To: churchillchat@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [ChurchillChat] portrait of Lady Churchill by John Napper (1954)

 

Dave, 

 

I agree with your final comment. 'The new normal' is, I fear, the new Weimar. 

 

As for the Sutherland portrait, I continue to believe there is a time and place 
for a representation as you characterize it, but surely Parliament's retirement 
gift should have celebrated the exuberant Churchill. This Churchill was still 
around at that period, and must have put in an appearance on some at least of 
his sittings for Sutherland  -  an evidence-based assertion: for example, see 
the film record of the presentation ceremony, when Churchill's performance 
completely belied the image and the message of Sutherland's work.

 

Wilfred

 

On Sat, 27 Jun 2020 at 22:32, 'Dave Turrell' via ChurchillChat 
mailto:churchillchat@googlegroups.com> > wrote:

Whatever one’s personal opinion of the merits of the Sutherland portrait, I 
cannot help but feel that to dismiss it as a ‘daub’ betrays a certain artistic 
tin ear.

 

Personally I find it to be a powerful study of a real, old, and righteously 
tired, man – much better than an idealized soviet-style heroic depiction.  
While realizing the absolute right of the Churchills to do as they wished with 
their personal property, I regret its destruction.  But, better burned at the 
hands of Lady Churchill (via Grace Hamlin) than torn down and destroyed by the 
Woke.

 

Dave 

 

From:  <mailto:churchillchat@googlegroups.com> churchillchat@googlegroups.com 
[mailto: <mailto:churchillchat@googlegroups.com> 
churchillchat@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Wilfred Attenborough
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2020 4:40 AM
To:  <mailto:churchillchat@googlegroups.com> churchillchat@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [ChurchillChat] portrait of Lady Churchill by John Napper (1954)

 

Dear Professor Capet,

 

The Fishman book referenced by Barbara Langworth casts further doubt on the 
notion that the fate of the Napper portrait was comparable to that of the 
infamous Sutherland daub. Colonel Barlow Wheeler, WSC's constituency agent (one 
of Fishman's informants: see p xiii of the 1963 edition of My Darling 
Clementine) made clear that both Winston and Clementine were delighted by 
Napper's work: "... Clementine was obviously as happy as Winston with the gift, 
and [at the presentation ceremony] they inspected the portrait hand in hand 
It was perhaps unfortunate that the presentation of Clementine's portrait 
should have coincided with the presentation ... of the ... Sutherland portrait 
.. It is no secret that both Clementine and Winston regard the latter with less 
than temperate enthusiasm. And, because of that sad fact, Clementine's picture 
has never been hung in public view." Wheeler fleshed out this last point by 
imagining that people viewing the Napper portrait would have been prompted by 
it to ask WSC what had become of the Parliamentary gift. (Fishman, 1963, pp 
383-4.)

 

Wilfred Attenborough

Author: Churchill and the 'Black Dog' of Depression (Palgrave, 2014); 
Diagnosing Churchill: Bipolar or 'Prey to Nerves'? (McFarland, 2019). 

 

On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 at 22:26, Barbara Langworth mailto:barbara...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Dear Antoine, 

Here is one reference I found.

 

Jack Fishman “My Darling Clementine.” page 353. 

 



 

B. Langworth

 

 

On Jun 25, 2020, at 4:16 PM, 'Antoine Capet' via ChurchillChat 
mailto:churchillchat@googlegroups.com> > wrote:

 

Dear Richard,

Many thanks for your trrouble. And of course many thanks to Katherine Carter 
for immediately providing this rare and extr

RE: [ChurchillChat] portrait of Lady Churchill by John Napper (1954)

['Dave Turrell' via ChurchillChat]

Whatever one’s personal opinion of the merits of the Sutherland portrait, I 
cannot help but feel that to dismiss it as a ‘daub’ betrays a certain artistic 
tin ear.

 

Personally I find it to be a powerful study of a real, old, and righteously 
tired, man – much better than an idealized soviet-style heroic depiction.  
While realizing the absolute right of the Churchills to do as they wished with 
their personal property, I regret its destruction.  But, better burned at the 
hands of Lady Churchill (via Grace Hamlin) than torn down and destroyed by the 
Woke.

 

Dave 

 

From: churchillchat@googlegroups.com [mailto:churchillchat@googlegroups.com] On 
Behalf Of Wilfred Attenborough
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2020 4:40 AM
To: churchillchat@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [ChurchillChat] portrait of Lady Churchill by John Napper (1954)

 

Dear Professor Capet,

 

The Fishman book referenced by Barbara Langworth casts further doubt on the 
notion that the fate of the Napper portrait was comparable to that of the 
infamous Sutherland daub. Colonel Barlow Wheeler, WSC's constituency agent (one 
of Fishman's informants: see p xiii of the 1963 edition of My Darling 
Clementine) made clear that both Winston and Clementine were delighted by 
Napper's work: "... Clementine was obviously as happy as Winston with the gift, 
and [at the presentation ceremony] they inspected the portrait hand in hand 
It was perhaps unfortunate that the presentation of Clementine's portrait 
should have coincided with the presentation ... of the ... Sutherland portrait 
... It is no secret that both Clementine and Winston regard the latter with 
less than temperate enthusiasm. And, because of that sad fact, Clementine's 
picture has never been hung in public view." Wheeler fleshed out this last 
point by imagining that people viewing the Napper portrait would have been 
prompted by it to ask WSC what had become of the Parliamentary gift. (Fishman, 
1963, pp 383-4.)

 

Wilfred Attenborough

Author: Churchill and the 'Black Dog' of Depression (Palgrave, 2014); 
Diagnosing Churchill: Bipolar or 'Prey to Nerves'? (McFarland, 2019). 

 

On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 at 22:26, Barbara Langworth mailto:barbara...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Dear Antoine, 

Here is one reference I found.

 

Jack Fishman “My Darling Clementine.” page 353. 

 



 

B. Langworth

 

 

On Jun 25, 2020, at 4:16 PM, 'Antoine Capet' via ChurchillChat 
mailto:churchillchat@googlegroups.com> > wrote:

 

Dear Richard,

Many thanks for your trrouble. And of course many thanks to Katherine Carter 
for immediately providing this rare and extremely informative link.

I looked at the video, naturally (I seemed to recognise Diana on the left of 
the platform).

It seems incredible that the location of the portrait should remain unknown 
today, and also that none of the major Churchill books except David A. Thomas's 
 Churchill : The Member for Woodford should mention it except as in an allusive 
manner.

OB VIII only says 'On November 23 Churchill spoke at Woodford at the 
presentation of a portrait of his wife.' (p.1070).

It is also odd that there should be no image of it, however reduced or 
re-framed, on Google. All the more puzzling since, as you say "I think it was 
much too good to meet the fate of the dreadful Sutherland".

Is there something which cannot be said or shown about this portrait, I wonder 
? Mary's silence in her magnificent biography of her mother would suggest 
something like that. Unfortunately, we can no longer ask her . . .

Any clue welcome !

Best wishes to all,

A.C.
===


Gilbert, Martin. Winston S. Churchill: Never Despair, 1945–1965 (Volume VIII) 
(Churchill Biography Book 8) (p. ). RosettaBooks. Édition du Kindle.
should

From: ric...@langworth.name  
Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2020 9:34 PM
To: ChurchillChat
Subject: [ChurchillChat] Re: portrait of Lady Churchill by John Napper (1954)

Antoine,
I asked Katherine Carter at Chartwell writes:
"Yes I know the portrait - it's the one that features in this video 
https://www.britishpathe.com/video/woodfords-gift-to-the-premier
Sadly I do not know where it can be found today, it is not one of the portraits 
of Lady Churchill that we have at Chartwell."

I think it was much too good to meet the fate of the dreadful Sutherland
RL.



On Thursday, June 25, 2020 at 11:22:33 AM UTC-4 antcapet wrote:
Dear All,

Some of you know that I am preparing a much enlarged English version of my
Dictionnaire Churchill.

In the course of the spadework for it, I came across a reference to a
portrait of Lady Churchill by John Napper (1954).

The main allusion to it is in David A. Thomas, Churchill : The Member for
Woodford. Ilford: Frank Cass, 1995 (Abingdon: Routledge, 2004), p. 170.

His obituary in the Daily Telegraph says :

"During the 1950s, he painted the Queen and Lady Churchill."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/1327101/John-Napper.html 

RE: [ChurchillChat] Getting silly now...!

['Dave Turrell' via ChurchillChat]

I'll be interested to see how long it takes to haul down all the statues of 
Washington and Jefferson - not to mention dumping the Washington Monument into 
the Potomac.

Dave

-Original Message-
From: churchillchat@googlegroups.com [mailto:churchillchat@googlegroups.com] On 
Behalf Of David Riddle
Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2020 9:12 AM
To: churchillchat@googlegroups.com
Subject: [ChurchillChat] Getting silly now...!

Arghh Whatever next? All those Roman Emperors weren’t very nice either were 
they... 

Churchill statue 'may have to be put in museum', says granddaughter 
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53033550

David Riddle
Mobile: 07966 472340
Sent from my iPhone

-- 
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 churchillchat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/churchillchat/722BD595-A289-4123-B4D9-1AEA4A395ADE%40gmail.com.

-- 
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 churchillchat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/churchillchat/002c01d641fa%24dc8017e0%24958047a0%24%40verizon.net.

RE: [ChurchillChat] Clop / Klop / Kloppe

['Dave Turrell' via ChurchillChat]

I suspect we may be overthinking this.  Whether 'Klip' or 'Clop', I doubt 
Churchill was thinking of the sound of horses' hooves.  He was probably 
thinking of the sound a hole punch makes.

Given that what we are dealing with is an idiosyncratic onomatopoeic 
representation of an inanimate object, unless the record shows Churchill 
spelling it one way or the other, then I would respectfully suggest that there 
is no 'correct' spelling.  I would, however, not personally go for 'Kloppe', as 
it might lead to in insufficiently klipped pronunciation. 

Merry Christmas to one and all!

Dave

-Original Message-
From: churchillchat@googlegroups.com [mailto:churchillchat@googlegroups.com] On 
Behalf Of David Riddle
Sent: Tuesday, December 24, 2019 5:36 AM
To: churchillchat@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [ChurchillChat] Clop / Klop / Kloppe

I don’t think so! 

As a an ex-Chartwell volunteer and ‘story’ researcher, we always spelt it 
‘klop’. There are many references to Churchill and klop on Google, whereas none 
relating to ‘clop’. Neither word has a dictionary definition in this context, 
but the definition of ‘clop’ gives a hint to Churchill’s usage of the word, 
being the noise made by a horse’s hoof, and that this might be considered 
similar to the noise made by a hole punch.

Just IMHO.

David Riddle
Mobile: 07966 472340
Sent from my iPhone

> On 23 Dec 2019, at 23:14, Cita Stelzer  wrote:
> 
> Are we agreed then that it is clop and not klop?
> Cita Stelzer
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: 'Antoine Capet' via ChurchillChat 
> 
> Sent: Monday, December 23, 2019 2:21 PM
> To: churchillchat@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: [ChurchillChat] Clop / Klop / Kloppe
> 
> RE: [ChurchillChat] Re: Mysterious young man in _Darkest Hour_ 
> filmDear Dave,
> 
> Many thanks for this correct identification of the young man in the 
> film
> 
> You mention "Clop" : if you have Elizabeth Nel (née Layton)'s memoirs, there 
> is a marvellous anecdote about it :
> 
> The confusion between the contraption and Kloppe's "fifteen volumes" (p. 14 
> of the 2007 reprint).
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> A.C.
> ===
> 
> From: 'Dave Turrell' via ChurchillChat
> Sent: Monday, December 23, 2019 7:53 PM
> To: churchillchat@googlegroups.com
> Subject: RE: [ChurchillChat] Re: Mysterious young man in _Darkest 
> Hour_ film
> 
> 
> Dear Antoine,
> 
> You can find the script for the film at 
> https://www.scriptslug.com/assets/uploads/scripts/darkest-hour-2017.pd
> f
> 
> 
> 
> A quick search seems to indicate that the character in question is 
> John Evans - Churchill's private secretary.  (Not sure if that's a 'real'
> character - I bet Richard knows :-).  Played by Joe Armstrong.
> 
> the TRAY passes by - WINSTON’s PRIVATE SECRETARY, JOHN EVANS (35), as 
> he schools the NEW YOUNG SECRETARY, ELIZABETH LAYTON. Evans, an 
> immaculately-groomed rake, snobbishly thinks himself infinitely 
> superior to the Elizabeth Laytons of the world.
> 
> JOHN EVANS(to ELIZABETH)...and if he stretches out his hand and says, 
> “Gimme”, you need to anticipate what he wants -  black pen, red pen, 
> paper, or “Clop”, that’s his hole punch.
> 
> 
> 
> Best,
> 
> Dave
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: 'Antoine Capet' via ChurchillChat 
> [mailto:churchillchat@googlegroups.com]
> Sent: Monday, December 23, 2019 5:59 AM
> To: churchillchat@googlegroups.com
> Subject: [ChurchillChat] Re: Mysterious young man in _Darkest Hour_ 
> film
> 
> Dear All,
> 
> I am preparing an article on _Darkest Hour_ for a French publication 
> and I am puzzled by a character in the film.
> 
> There is a young man who is often seen near Churchill, and he 
> initially shows Miss Layton round the 'War Rooms', but he is not named 
> – I thought he was Jock Colville. But then, there is no ‘Jock Colville’ in 
> the cast.
> 
> On the other hand, there is a ‘Tom Leonard’ in the cast whose name 
> does not suggest anything to me. ‘Tom Leonard’ is played by Eric 
> MacLennan – but his photographs on Google do not look like the young 
> man I mistook for Jock Colville.
> 
> https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4555426/fullcredits
> 
> All very puzzling! I wonder who that young man is supposed to be!
> 
> Enlightenment most welcome.
> 
> With best wishes to all,
> 
> Antoine CAPET, FRHistS
> 
> Professor emeritus of British Studies
> 
> University of Rouen
> 
> 76821 Mont-Saint-Aignan
> 
> France
> 
> antoine.ca...@univ-rouen.fr
> 
> 'Britain since 1914' Section Editor
> 
> Royal Historical Society Bibliography
> 
> Reviews Editor of CERCLES
> 
> http://www.cercles.com/review/reviews.html
> 
&

RE: [ChurchillChat] Re: Mysterious young man in _Darkest Hour_ film : thanks

['Dave Turrell' via ChurchillChat]

Dear Antoine,

Tom Leonard is either the driver of Winston's car, or a member of his security 
team, on the occasion when Winston jumps out and disappears on his infamous 
Underground trip.  It is his one and only mention in the script. 

WIDE SHOT of - WINSTON’s CAR, moving slowly through the rainy street. WINSTON, 
in the back seat, looks out the window at the human traffic - seems like he’s 
in a gold-fish bowl, disconnected. He watches as -  MEN IN BOWLER HATS and 
YOUNG WOMEN in SUMMER DRESSES walk to work. As they rush through the rain 
shielding themselves with umbrellas and newspapers. WINSTON, with an UNLIT 
CIGAR in his mouth, searches his pockets for a MATCH. But he can’t find his 
matches.  

When the CAR stops at a RED LIGHT - 

- TOM LEONARD hears the car door slam. He turns, looks back, WINSTON has jumped 
out of his car. Tom Leonard opens his door and stands looking around for 
Winston, as crowds rush past in the pouring rain.

I agree with you that John Evan was probably John Martin under a different 
name.  Given the way his attitude towards Miss Layton is described I'm not 
really surprised they would change it.  It could also be simply an attempt to 
provide a generic picture of a member of Churchill's private office - which, as 
I recall, comprised many more than just Martin.

Best,

Dave




-Original Message-
From: 'Antoine Capet' via ChurchillChat [mailto:churchillchat@googlegroups.com] 
Sent: Monday, December 23, 2019 4:07 PM
To: churchillchat@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [ChurchillChat] Re: Mysterious young man in _Darkest Hour_ film : 
thanks

Dear All,

Many thanks for your most helpful answers.

Yes - the cast identifies the young man as "John Evans".

A fictitious name, as Richard points out : John Martin in real life ?

There may be legal reasons why the producers did not use his real name (though 
they do not hesitate to give that of 'real' politicians).

Who 'Tom Leonard' is in the film will have to remain clouded in mystery for the 
time being.

All very puzzling, as I said initially.

As for what Richard writes : "The subway/underground scene and the private 
visit of the King to WSC are pure fiction, but so beautifully done you can 
forgive them", they form (especially the underground scene) the core of my 
discussion in the article, entitled (in French) 'What do the "invented scenes" 
in _Darkest Hour_ tell us ?'

And I duly refer to Gary Oldman's interview and the Hillsdale review in it.

Thanks again,

A. Capet
==

From: Richard Langworth
Sent: Monday, December 23, 2019 9:47 PM
To: ChurchillChat
Subject: Re: [ChurchillChat] Re: Mysterious young man in _Darkest Hour_ film

Dave- Good grub on the filmscript. I cannot find a "John Evans" in the 
literature, including Colville's and Martin's memoirs, but "John Evans'" 
instructions about WSC's requests are on the money. They show how carefully the 
film was scripted. (The subway/underground scene and the private visit of the 
King to WSC are pure fiction, but so beautifully done you can forgive
them.)

On a visit to Hillsdale College, Gary Oldman explained how he noticed ridges 
worn into the arms of the chair in the War Rooms, where WSC constantly drummed 
his fingernails, and how he tried to work that into his own portrayal--which 
was masterful.

The video of Oldman's talk at Hillsdale is at: 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyenAuy7wgg
Our review of the film is at: http://bit.ly/2FMlryZ




On Monday, December 23, 2019 at 12:08:10 PM UTC-8, Dave Turrell wrote:

You can find the script for the film at 
https://www.scriptslug.com/assets/uploads/scripts/darkest-hour-2017.pdf



A quick search seems to indicate that the character in question is John 
Evans - Churchill's private secretary.  (Not sure if that's a 'real' 
character - I bet Richard knows :-).  Played by Joe Armstrong.

the TRAY passes by - WINSTON’s PRIVATE SECRETARY, JOHN EVANS (35), as he 
schools the NEW YOUNG SECRETARY, ELIZABETH LAYTON. Evans, an 
immaculately-groomed rake, snobbishly thinks himself infinitely superior to 
the Elizabeth Laytons of the world.

JOHN EVANS(to ELIZABETH)...and if he stretches out his hand and says, 
 “Gimme”, you need to anticipate what he wants -  black pen, red pen, paper, 
or “Clop”, that’s his hole punch.












-- 
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 churchillchat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
<mailto:churchillchat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com> .
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/churchillchat/d9454a5c-982e-45a9-9b67-7b4da96d5a01%40googlegroups.com.
 

-- 
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 
t

RE: [ChurchillChat] Re: Mysterious young man in _Darkest Hour_ film

['Dave Turrell' via ChurchillChat]

Dear Antoine,

You can find the script for the film at 
https://www.scriptslug.com/assets/uploads/scripts/darkest-hour-2017.pdf

A quick search seems to indicate that the character in question is John Evans - 
Churchill's private secretary.  (Not sure if that's a 'real' character - I bet 
Richard knows :-).  Played by Joe Armstrong.

the TRAY passes by - WINSTON’s PRIVATE SECRETARY, JOHN EVANS (35), as he 
schools the NEW YOUNG SECRETARY, ELIZABETH LAYTON. Evans, an 
immaculately-groomed rake, snobbishly thinks himself infinitely superior to the 
Elizabeth Laytons of the world. 

JOHN EVANS(to ELIZABETH)...and if he stretches out his hand and says, “Gimme”, 
you need to anticipate what he wants -  black pen, red pen, paper, or “Clop”, 
that’s his hole punch.

Best,

Dave


-Original Message-
From: 'Antoine Capet' via ChurchillChat [mailto:churchillchat@googlegroups.com] 
Sent: Monday, December 23, 2019 5:59 AM
To: churchillchat@googlegroups.com
Subject: [ChurchillChat] Re: Mysterious young man in _Darkest Hour_ film

Dear All,

I am preparing an article on _Darkest Hour_ for a French publication and I am 
puzzled by a character in the film.

There is a young man who is often seen near Churchill, and he initially shows 
Miss Layton round the 'War Rooms', but he is not named – I thought he was Jock 
Colville. But then, there is no ‘Jock Colville’ in the cast.

On the other hand, there is a ‘Tom Leonard’ in the cast whose name does not 
suggest anything to me. ‘Tom Leonard’ is played by Eric MacLennan – but his 
photographs on Google do not look like the young man I mistook for Jock 
Colville.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4555426/fullcredits

All very puzzling! I wonder who that young man is supposed to be!

Enlightenment most welcome.

With best wishes to all,

Antoine CAPET, FRHistS
Professor emeritus of British Studies
University of Rouen
76821 Mont-Saint-Aignan
France
antoine.ca...@univ-rouen.fr  

'Britain since 1914' Section Editor
Royal Historical Society Bibliography

Reviews Editor of CERCLES
http://www.cercles.com/review/reviews.html
== 

--
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 churchillchat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
 .
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/churchillchat/7F5BAFE093074E698B07679A6D40EF6F%40PCAntoine.

-- 
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 churchillchat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/churchillchat/007b01d5b9c2%24360440a0%24a20cc1e0%24%40verizon.net.

[ChurchillChat] The St. Augustine River War Chimera

['Dave Turrell' via ChurchillChat]

Peter,

 

Since nobody else has picked up on your question, I’ll take a shot at it, 
having been an erstwhile troublemaker on this topic.

 

In the last communication I had with Bruce Fingerhut of the St. Augustine 
Press, on 10/24/2016,  I said:

 

“I note that your website still shows a publication date of September 2016 for 
Jim Muller’s annotated edition of Churchill’s ‘The River War’...  While I 
realise that you will keep putting out nonsense publication dates, do you think 
you could at least have the decency to stop referring to Lady Soames as 
‘Churchill’s only surviving child”. She has been dead for well over two years. 
Perhaps you were not aware of this”.

 

I received the following response:

 

“I am well aware of Lady Soames’s death two years ago, though not aware that 
“only surviving child” was mentioned on our website. We have been working on 
this project for over ten years, and it is almost complete. In the next two or 
three weeks, I will know exactly when it will finally appear . . . most 
certainly not until sometime in early 2017”.

 

In checking the St. Augustine website today, I note that the publication date 
is now given as January 2018.  And that Lady Soames is still referred to as 
“Churchill’s only surviving child”.

 

https://www.staugustine.net/our-books/books/the-river-war/

 

In all honesty, Peter, I think we have to give up on the appearance of this 
edition.  It seems clear that St. Augustine have already done so.

 

Perhaps Hillsdale could be persuaded to wrest the content from St. Augustine 
and continue their magnificent service in presenting Churchill to the world.  
They, at least, are honest in their communications.

 

Dave

 

From: 'Peter D. Wrobel' via ChurchillChat 
[mailto:churchillchat@googlegroups.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2019 2:32 PM
To: churchillchat@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [ChurchillChat] The Churchill Documents and Future Projects

 

Speaking of long term projects, does anyone have an update on when the new 
edition of The River War is expected?  Thanks. 

 

Peter Wrobel. 

Sent from my iPhone XS Max





-- 
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 churchillchat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to churchillchat@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/churchillchat.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/churchillchat/007e01d52ed7%24d4d31fb0%247e795f10%24%40verizon.net.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

RE: [ChurchillChat] Hollywood Rewards Mass Murderer - Read All About It!!!

[Dave Turrell]

Chris,

I subscribed to the Wapo for about 10 years, after moving out east in the 
mid-90's - but then could no longer stand to pay for what was happening to the 
paper.  I dropped the sub and since then have read it only online.

I do agree with your point about the fact that they carry periodic guest 
columns from those who do not correctly toe the party line.  It may be the 
cynic in me, but I believe many of them are placed in there as good red meat 
just to get the righteous riled up and the twitterati reaching for their 
keyboard pitchforks.  Ed Rodgers is a good example.  Clickbait, after all, 
helps pay the bills.

However, I am curious as to how you come to the conclusion that this article 
does not 'accurately reflect the Post's editorial position'.  Based on prior 
output, what is their editorial position on WSC? The article seems to me to fit 
right in with what has been a generally sympathetic attitude to items such as 
the tearing down of statues and 'decolonialisation' (whatever the heck that 
is). 

On the positive side, I used to love the Post's comics page - until they shrunk 
it beyond readability.  And did away with the Book World section. :-)

Cheers,

Dave

-Original Message-
From: churchillchat@googlegroups.com [mailto:churchillchat@googlegroups.com] On 
Behalf Of Chris Dunford
Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2018 4:25 PM
To: churchillchat@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: [ChurchillChat] Hollywood Rewards Mass Murderer - Read All About 
It!!!

Sorry, but I've subscribed to the Post for more than forty years, and I assure 
you that it routinely publishes op-eds that are diametrically opposed to the 
its own editorial position. 

George Will's column, for example, has been based at the Post since 1974 and is 
distributed to 450 other newspapers. Aside from baseball and a mutual distaste 
for the current President, it's hard to think of anything he and the Post agree 
on.

Obviously, I disagree vehemently with this particular piece. But it was not 
written by the Post, nor does it accurately reflect the Post's editorial 
position--just as George Will's periodic columns about global warming are the 
polar opposite of the Post's position on that subject.

-Original Message-
From: 'Antoine Capet' via ChurchillChat <churchillchat@googlegroups.com> 
Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2018 4:06 PM
To: churchillchat@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [ChurchillChat] Hollywood Rewards Mass Murderer - Read All About 
It!!!


Sorry, but I cannot imagine even a "liberal" newspaper publishing "opinion 
pieces that are not in accord with its own editorial positions".

This Indian official's text is venomous - and the paper knew it and 
deliberately published it regardless.

"They hate us", your President correctly said of other people in another 
context - this fully applies to this Indian official : "he hates Churchill" - 
full stop.

No educated editor (as one may expect of a publication with a claim to
seriousness) could miss the fact - and the paper did not publish a paragraph 
distancing itself from the offensive opinion proffered. So it endorses it by 
default.

With all best wishes,

Antoine CAPET, FRHistS
Professor emeritus of British Studies
University of Rouen
76821 Mont-Saint-Aignan
France
antoine.ca...@univ-rouen.fr

'Britain since 1914' Section Editor
Royal Historical Society Bibliography

https://www.lisez.com/livre-grand-format/churchill/9782262065355
==


From: Chris Dunford
Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2018 7:37 PM
To: churchillchat@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: [ChurchillChat] Hollywood Rewards Mass Murderer - Read All About 
It!!!


That is not a Washington Post opinion. It is a guest op-ed. The Post 
routinely publishes opinion pieces that are not in accord with its own 
editorial positions.





From: churchillchat@googlegroups.com <churchillchat@googlegroups.com> On 
Behalf Of Dave Turrell
Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2018 1:14 PM
To: churchillchat@googlegroups.com
Subject: [ChurchillChat] Hollywood Rewards Mass Murderer - Read All About 
It!!!





I note that the Washington Post, spiritual home of Trump Derangement 
Syndrome, continues its descent into the world of tabloid drivel.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/global-opinions/wp/2018/03/10/in-winston-churchill-hollywood-rewards-a-mass-murderer/?utm_term=.4c8ea73c9a3a



Dave

-- 
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 churchillchat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to churchillchat@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/churchillchat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"ChurchillChat" group.
To unsubscribe from this 

[ChurchillChat] Hollywood Rewards Mass Murderer - Read All About It!!!

[Dave Turrell]

I note that the Washington Post, spiritual home of Trump Derangement
Syndrome, continues its descent into the world of tabloid drivel.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/global-opinions/wp/2018/03/10/in-winston
-churchill-hollywood-rewards-a-mass-murderer/?utm_term=.4c8ea73c9a3a

 

Dave

-- 
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 churchillchat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to churchillchat@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/churchillchat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

RE: [ChurchillChat] @Darkest Hour Reviews

[Dave Turrell]

I have to admit to being something of a movephobe.  I see about two a year. 
This year one of them was ‘Darkest Hour’, at the vehement urging of my wife.  
She knows about my interest in Churchill ever since the 1,500 related books in 
the basement became noticeable.

 

In my opinion, the Oscar for Gary Oldman as best actor was absolutely 
appropriate.  Like Richard Langworth, I have always taken the late  Roberts 
Hardy’s performances as being the gold standard.  But to see Oldman as he 
really is, in his acceptance speech, and to see him in character – superb!  
That to me is what the Oscar is for – the ability to convincingly  be someone 
else.

 

But to lose best picture – that was also appropriate.  Darkest Hour was 
undoubtedly a good movie, but it was too obviously Hollywood.  It needed a Hero 
and a Villain. Churchill was surely the hero, but was it really necessary to 
cast Halifax in such a satanic light?  And while I understand that the 
underground scene was a dramatic contrivance to resolve Winston’s doubts, it 
jars far too much with anything that we know about the old boy. 

 

Wonderful casting and acting, but if we’re going to tell the story, let’s tell 
it right.  Leave it to Marvel to inspire with myth and legend.

 

Dave

 

From: 'Marcus Frost' via ChurchillChat [mailto:churchillchat@googlegroups.com] 
Sent: Sunday, March 4, 2018 7:47 PM
To: churchillchat@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [ChurchillChat] @Darkest Hour Reviews

 

I’m pulling for Gary O. Saw it again for the second time yesterday. I still 
wept again at the force of the re- creation of the speeches. I think people 
around me thought me weird, but they don’t know the depth of our study of this 
great man and how he stood. People will never know or appreciate what he did 
for the world.

Marcus

Sent from my iPhone


On Mar 2, 2018, at 9:57 AM, Richard Langworth  > wrote:

"And how can man die better
Than facing fearful odds..." 
@DarkestHour reviewed by the Hillsdale College Churchill Project.

 

Richard Langworth:  

 
https://winstonchurchill.hillsdale.marketing/spake-brave-horatius-review-darkest-hour/

 

Dr. Larry Arnn:   http://bit.ly/2GAgs3R

 

-- 
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 churchillchat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
 .
To post to this group, send email to churchillchat@googlegroups.com 
 .
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/churchillchat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
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 churchillchat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
 .
To post to this group, send email to churchillchat@googlegroups.com 
 .
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/churchillchat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
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 churchillchat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to churchillchat@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/churchillchat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

RE: [ChurchillChat] Castlerosse Affair

[Dave Turrell]

I seem to recall that Richard Toye is in the habit of almost falling out of his 
chair, so perhaps he is not the most stable of sources.  To your point, 
Richard, perhaps he’s just trying to give momentum to a new #himtoo hashtag.

 

Time was, I would have commented that in the colour photo she’s a bit of 
alright (get in there Winston), but these days I am old and woke and shall 
refrain accordingly.

 

Dave

 

From: churchillchat@googlegroups.com [mailto:churchillchat@googlegroups.com] On 
Behalf Of Richard Langworth
Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2018 2:02 PM
To: ChurchillChat 
Subject: [ChurchillChat] Castlerosse Affair

 


https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/feb/25/winston-churchill-secret-affair-socialite?CMP=fb_gu
 

This is pure rubbish. Both Andrew Roberts, in his upcoming Churchill biography, 
and I, via Hillsdale.Churchill, will be writing about this in more detail, from 
our own research and interviews. For the nonce, this should suffice:

 

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/02/churchill-did-not-have-an-affair-so-dont-fall-for-channel-4s-spin/

 

One may rightly ask, in the age of Harvey Weinstein: who cares? Is this really 
newsworthy? Well, to wax philosophic:  It's really just the old "Feet of Clay 
School." Some people simply can't accept the concept of a superior individual, 
of world-changing accomplishment. So they set out to prove they're just 
ordinary folk, like the rest of us.

-- 
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 churchillchat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
 .
To post to this group, send email to churchillchat@googlegroups.com 
 .
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/churchillchat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
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 churchillchat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to churchillchat@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/churchillchat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

RE: [ChurchillChat] Approaching Another Milestone

[Dave Turrell]

Peter,

 

As has been noted elsewhere, this delay has very little to do with Prof. 
Mueller who, I understand, completed his work a significant time ago.  Since we 
have established that WSC is not involved in the project (sorry Stan :)) it’s 
all down to the publishers.

 

The last time I was in touch with Bruce Fingerhut of St Augustine’s (Oct 24th 
2016), he assured me that he would know the publication date for sure by the 
end of November.  He also assured me he was aware of the death of Lady Soames, 
referred to on their website as “Churchill’s only surviving child”.  That 
reference is still there.

 

If you want to try getting latest status from Bruce, he is at 
br...@staugustine.net <mailto:br...@staugustine.net> 

 

Dave

 

From: 'Peter D. Wrobel' via ChurchillChat 
[mailto:churchillchat@googlegroups.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2017 2:01 AM
To: churchillchat@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [ChurchillChat] Approaching Another Milestone

 

OK.  Am I missing something here?  James Muller - explain yourself.  

 

On Monday, September 11, 2017, 1:04:51 PM PDT, Peter Wrobel < 
<mailto:pdwrob...@yahoo.com> pdwrob...@yahoo.com> wrote: 

 

 

Ok.  This is just wrong.  We have been promised something   We paid money for 
something that really should not take 10 or 20 years to do. There is no excuse 
for something like this to happen.  

Sent from my iPhone 6+


On Sep 11, 2017, at 12:47 PM, Sandy Finlayson < <mailto:bbcradio...@gmail.com> 
bbcradio...@gmail.com> wrote:

I wouldn't let this fiasco discourage you about all scholarly publication. 
There are rays of light.  For example Hillsdale's republication of Sir Martin 
Gilbert's wonderful biography and the ongoing accompanying volumes, has been a 
real pleasure to watch and enjoy.

 

SF

 

On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 2:55 PM, Stan A. Orchard < 
<mailto:bullfrogcont...@shaw.ca> bullfrogcont...@shaw.ca> wrote:

c

Thanks Dave for that information.  I was totally unaware of this fact since 
there is no clarification on the St. Augustine website.  Apologies to all for 
my ignorance and flippancy.

Stan

 

On 2017-09-11 11:11 AM, Dave Turrell wrote:

In all fairness, you should keep in mind that the “fearful fatalistic apathy by 
the author” may be due to the fact that he’s dead.

 

Dave

 

From:  <mailto:churchillchat@googlegroups.com> churchillchat@googlegroups.com [ 
<mailto:churchillchat@googlegroups.com> mailto:churchillchat@ googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of Stan A. Orchard
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 2:00 PM
To:  <mailto:churchillchat@googlegroups.com> churchillchat@googlegroups.com
Subject: [ChurchillChat] Approaching Another Milestone

 

How dreadful are the curses which The River War (St. Augustine Press) lays on 
its prospective readers!  Besides the fanatical frenzy to purchase this bloody 
book, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this 
fearful fatalistic apathy by the author and publisher.  The ultimate effects of 
this enterprise are forever forthcoming.  The implication of impotent writing 
habits, slovenly systems of manuscript editing, sluggish methods of book 
binding, and randomly selected or expired publication dates are manifest 
wherever the followers of the St. Augustine Press website access their 
internet.  A degrading sense of hopelessness and abandonment envelops Churchill 
fans deprived of this book’s much heralded grace and refinement; along with an 
ever-diminishing faith in the dignity of scholarly publications and the 
sanctity of truth in advertising.  

On this coming September 20th will Professor Mueller once again emerge from his 
Alaskan burrow, manuscript in hand, only to be repelled by sight of his own 
shadow?   

Stan

-- 
** *
BullfrogControl.com <http://BullfrogControl.com>  Inc.
69A Burnside Road West 
<https://maps.google.com/?q=69A+Burnside+Road+West%0D+Victoria,+British+Columbia%0D+CANADA%C2%A0+V9A+1B6=gmail=g>
 
Victoria, British Columbia 
<https://maps.google.com/?q=69A+Burnside+Road+West%0D+Victoria,+British+Columbia%0D+CANADA%C2%A0+V9A+1B6=gmail=g>
 
CANADA 
<https://maps.google.com/?q=69A+Burnside+Road+West%0D+Victoria,+British+Columbia%0D+CANADA%C2%A0+V9A+1B6=gmail=g>
   V9A 1B6
 
250-858-3764 (FROG)
bullfrogcont...@shaw.ca <mailto:bullfrogcont...@shaw.ca> 
www.bullfrogcontrol.com <http://www.bullfrogcontrol.com> 

-- 
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  <mailto:churchillchat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com> 
churchillchat+unsubscribe@ googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to  <mailto:churchillchat@googlegroups.com> 
churchillchat@googlegroups.com .
Visit this group at  <https://groups.google.com/group/churchillchat> 
https://groups.google.

RE: Re: [ChurchillChat] Approaching Another Milestone

[Dave Turrell]

Agreed.  Hillsdale is a stellar example of getting it right.  St. Augustine is 
a stellar example of something else altogether.

 

From: churchillchat@googlegroups.com [mailto:churchillchat@googlegroups.com] On 
Behalf Of Sandy Finlayson
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 3:47 PM
To: churchillchat@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Re: [ChurchillChat] Approaching Another Milestone

 

I wouldn't let this fiasco discourage you about all scholarly publication. 
There are rays of light.  For example Hillsdale's republication of Sir Martin 
Gilbert's wonderful biography and the ongoing accompanying volumes, has been a 
real pleasure to watch and enjoy.

 

SF

 

On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 2:55 PM, Stan A. Orchard <bullfrogcont...@shaw.ca 
<mailto:bullfrogcont...@shaw.ca> > wrote:

c

Thanks Dave for that information.  I was totally unaware of this fact since 
there is no clarification on the St. Augustine website.  Apologies to all for 
my ignorance and flippancy.

Stan

 

On 2017-09-11 11:11 AM, Dave Turrell wrote:

In all fairness, you should keep in mind that the “fearful fatalistic apathy by 
the author” may be due to the fact that he’s dead.

 

Dave

 

From: churchillchat@googlegroups.com <mailto:churchillchat@googlegroups.com>  
[mailto:churchillchat@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Stan A. Orchard
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 2:00 PM
To: churchillchat@googlegroups.com <mailto:churchillchat@googlegroups.com> 
Subject: [ChurchillChat] Approaching Another Milestone

 

How dreadful are the curses which The River War (St. Augustine Press) lays on 
its prospective readers!  Besides the fanatical frenzy to purchase this bloody 
book, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this 
fearful fatalistic apathy by the author and publisher.  The ultimate effects of 
this enterprise are forever forthcoming.  The implication of impotent writing 
habits, slovenly systems of manuscript editing, sluggish methods of book 
binding, and randomly selected or expired publication dates are manifest 
wherever the followers of the St. Augustine Press website access their 
internet.  A degrading sense of hopelessness and abandonment envelops Churchill 
fans deprived of this book’s much heralded grace and refinement; along with an 
ever-diminishing faith in the dignity of scholarly publications and the 
sanctity of truth in advertising.  

On this coming September 20th will Professor Mueller once again emerge from his 
Alaskan burrow, manuscript in hand, only to be repelled by sight of his own 
shadow?   

Stan

-- 
***
BullfrogControl.com Inc.
69A Burnside Road West 
<https://maps.google.com/?q=69A+Burnside+Road+West%0D+Victoria,+British+Columbia%0D+CANADA%C2%A0+V9A+1B6=gmail=g>
 
Victoria, British Columbia 
<https://maps.google.com/?q=69A+Burnside+Road+West%0D+Victoria,+British+Columbia%0D+CANADA%C2%A0+V9A+1B6=gmail=g>
 
CANADA 
<https://maps.google.com/?q=69A+Burnside+Road+West%0D+Victoria,+British+Columbia%0D+CANADA%C2%A0+V9A+1B6=gmail=g>
   V9A 1B6
 
250-858-3764 <tel:(250)%20858-3764>  (FROG)
bullfrogcont...@shaw.ca <mailto:bullfrogcont...@shaw.ca> 
www.bullfrogcontrol.com <http://www.bullfrogcontrol.com> 

-- 
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 churchillchat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
<mailto:churchillchat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com> .
To post to this group, send email to churchillchat@googlegroups.com 
<mailto:churchillchat@googlegroups.com> .
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/churchillchat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
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 churchillchat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
<mailto:churchillchat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com> .
To post to this group, send email to churchillchat@googlegroups.com 
<mailto:churchillchat@googlegroups.com> .
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/churchillchat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.





-- 
***
BullfrogControl.com Inc.
69A Burnside Road West
Victoria, British Columbia
CANADA  V9A 1B6
 
250-858-3764 <tel:(250)%20858-3764>  (FROG)
bullfrogcont...@shaw.ca <mailto:bullfrogcont...@shaw.ca> 
www.bullfrogcontrol.com <http://www.bullfrogcontrol.com> 

-- 
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 churchillchat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
<mailto:churchillchat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com> .
To post to this group, s

RE: [ChurchillChat] Approaching Another Milestone

[Dave Turrell]

In all fairness, you should keep in mind that the “fearful fatalistic apathy by 
the author” may be due to the fact that he’s dead.

 

Dave

 

From: churchillchat@googlegroups.com [mailto:churchillchat@googlegroups.com] On 
Behalf Of Stan A. Orchard
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 2:00 PM
To: churchillchat@googlegroups.com
Subject: [ChurchillChat] Approaching Another Milestone

 

How dreadful are the curses which The River War (St. Augustine Press) lays on 
its prospective readers!  Besides the fanatical frenzy to purchase this bloody 
book, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this 
fearful fatalistic apathy by the author and publisher.  The ultimate effects of 
this enterprise are forever forthcoming.  The implication of impotent writing 
habits, slovenly systems of manuscript editing, sluggish methods of book 
binding, and randomly selected or expired publication dates are manifest 
wherever the followers of the St. Augustine Press website access their 
internet.  A degrading sense of hopelessness and abandonment envelops Churchill 
fans deprived of this book’s much heralded grace and refinement; along with an 
ever-diminishing faith in the dignity of scholarly publications and the 
sanctity of truth in advertising.  



On this coming September 20th will Professor Mueller once again emerge from his 
Alaskan burrow, manuscript in hand, only to be repelled by sight of his own 
shadow?   



Stan

-- 
***
BullfrogControl.com Inc.
69A Burnside Road West
Victoria, British Columbia
CANADA  V9A 1B6
 
250-858-3764 (FROG)
bullfrogcont...@shaw.ca  
www.bullfrogcontrol.com  

-- 
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 churchillchat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
 .
To post to this group, send email to churchillchat@googlegroups.com 
 .
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/churchillchat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
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 churchillchat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to churchillchat@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/churchillchat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

RE: [ChurchillChat] query re books

[Dave Turrell]

If you scroll through the listings on the following link you will find 
descriptions of both volumes.

 

https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?bi=0 

 
=off_sp=SearchF-_-Advtab1-_-Results=30=all=17=t=ungentlemanly+warfare

 

There is also a third volume, by Ian Hall, with a similar title -  

 Churchill's Secret Armies: War Without Rules: Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare

 

Dave

 

From: churchillchat@googlegroups.com [mailto:churchillchat@googlegroups.com] On 
Behalf Of Cita Stelzer
Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2017 1:17 PM
To: ChurchillChat@googlegroups.com
Subject: [ChurchillChat] query re books

 

Can someone please explain to me the difference between The Ministry of 
Ungentlemanly Warfare by Damien Lewis (2015)and The Ministry of Ungentlemanly 
Warfare by Giles Milton (2016). They have different subtitles.

 

 

Cita Stelzer

 

Please note new email address:

c...@irwinstelzer.com  

 

-- 
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 churchillchat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
 .
To post to this group, send email to churchillchat@googlegroups.com 
 .
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/churchillchat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
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 churchillchat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to churchillchat@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/churchillchat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

RE: [ChurchillChat] Cox as Churchill on Charlie Rose

[Dave Turrell]

I’d be interested to know how one would set about defining and enforcing that.

 

Dave

 

From: Brett Weiss [mailto:interl...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Brett Weiss
Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2017 3:09 PM
To: churchillchat@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [ChurchillChat] Cox as Churchill on Charlie Rose

 

Agreed. 

 

It is even more vital, in this era of false news and social media, to ensure 
that actors, directors and producers do not put made up versions of history 
that are not true to actual events.

 

Take care. 

Brett Weiss

 

From:  > 
on behalf of Richard Langworth  >
Reply-To:  >
Date: Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 1:47 PM
To: ChurchillChat  >
Subject: [ChurchillChat] Cox as Churchill on Charlie Rose

 

It is depressing and disheartening to find history told by actors, with reality 
turned on its head under guise of entertainment. Invented dialogue and 
scenarios are of course necessary for dramatic effect. Robert Hardy's 
scrupulously accurate portrayal of  

 #Churchill's "Wilderness Years" has these, yet doesn't deviate an iota from 
fact or believability. And was at least as dramatic as this latest dose of Fake 
History. https://richardlangworth.com/cox-churchill-interview-charlie-rose

 

 

-- 
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 churchillchat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
 .
To post to this group, send email to churchillchat@googlegroups.com 
 .
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/churchillchat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
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 churchillchat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
 .
To post to this group, send email to churchillchat@googlegroups.com 
 .
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/churchillchat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
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 churchillchat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to churchillchat@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/churchillchat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

RE: [ChurchillChat] Sir Winston Churchill coin/medal

[Dave Turrell]

Ely,

 

Your medal is by Constantino Affer and was issued by Sirom of Milan in 1965.

 

There are five sizes, all of which are .900 fine.  50, 40, 34, 27, and 20 mm.  
The 50mm are numbered (1000 struck).  Quantities not available for the smaller 
sizes.  It seems trial strikes in silver gilt exist in the 40mm size, although 
at 16.5 grams they are little more than half the weight of their gold 
counterparts.

 

Source:  J. Eric Engstrom.  The Medallic Portraits of Sir Winston Churchill.  
Page 24, Item 34.

 

Hope this helps.

 

Dave

 

From: churchillchat@googlegroups.com   
[mailto:churchillchat@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Ely Wein
Sent: Saturday, March 4, 2017 4:14 PM
To: ChurchillChat  >
Subject: [ChurchillChat] Sir Winston Churchill coin/medal

 

Dear Sirs

 

I have a golden coin/medal with a sir Winston Churchill bust making the “V” 
sign on one side.
On the reverse side, the Houses of Parliament, around the whole edge of the 
coin the marks of a clock  and the inscription  “1940 THE FINEST HOUR”
I found nothing about that on the internet.
Could anyone provide information regarding manufacturer, material composition, 
fineness, etc?
Find pictures of both sides at 
https://www.facebook.com/pg/Winston-Churchill-1652264381735544/photos/?tab=album
 

 _id=1652265685068747
Best regards
Ely 

-- 
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 churchillchat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
 .
To post to this group, send email to churchillchat@googlegroups.com 
 .
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/churchillchat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
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 churchillchat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to churchillchat@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/churchillchat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

RE: [ChurchillChat] Churchill’s treatment at the hands of ‘Churchill Scholars’

[Dave Turrell]

Maybe it’s my generation, but I am having a huge problem getting past the 
mental image of Jimmy Page standing on the beaches at Gallipoli and ripping off 
one of his trademark solos.

 

In general, I tend to be cautious when it comes to “Super-hero thwarted by 
dullards” historical narratives.  It’s rarely that simple.  The Dardanelles 
campaign has been debated endlessly in the past century, and I do not believe 
that the decisive blow has ever been struck by either side.

 

I did watch the series in question, several years ago, and recall being 
impressed by it.  I have never been other than impressed by the late Sir 
Martin’s work.

 

Dave 

 

From: churchillchat@googlegroups.com [mailto:churchillchat@googlegroups.com] On 
Behalf Of Grimsdyke
Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2017 9:48 PM
To: ChurchillChat 
Subject: [ChurchillChat] Churchill’s treatment at the hands of ‘Churchill 
Scholars’

 

In general, bone fide Churchill scholars have been fairly consistent in the way 
they handle his record, and what comes down to us is the image of a fiercely 
pugnacious, infinitely creative man of genius, with an incandescently brilliant 
mind who made both mistakes and their decided opposite, but whose motives 
throughout were gallant, noble, magnanimous ……and a host of other adjectives, 
none of which have any truck with mean-spiritedness, littleness, or spite or 
malevolence, or any of those characteristics that belong to lesser men. 
However, I have been puzzled beyond words by the treatment of certain parts of 
his record at the hands of some who had always seemed to be among the most 
discerning of ‘Churchill Scholars’. 

 

A few years ago the BBC put out a 4-episode programme on Churchill which was 
written and presented by Martin Gilbert: it is available on YouTube at 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVQg_ehSu6A

 

>From 21:39 to 24:39 on the first episode, he deals with Winston Churchill's 
>involvement with the Dardanelles campaign. These 3 minutes seemed to me, as 
>I’m sure they would seem to anybody with a sound reading of the intricacies of 
>that episode in World War I, a travesty consisting of half-truths and 
>deliberate omissions of crucial facts to achieve a result that places the 
>blame unfairly and almost slanderously on Churchill. 

 

We all know, of course, that serious researchers from Alan Moorhead to Basil 
Liddell Hart and numerous other biographers have found that Churchill had 
little to do with the failures of the campaign, and in fact had been made the 
scapegoat of a debacle that owed everything to the blunders and mismanagement 
of others (Kitchener and Fisher particularly, and of course Asquith at a 
political level) and little, if at all, to any actual mistakes on Churchill's 
part. In fact the origin of the idea wasn't actually his: it was Hankey's 
first, and then enthusiastically taken up by a host of others – including 
Fisher, Gray, Asquith, and even Kitchener, and later Lloyd George with some 
initial misgivings. Subsequently, Churchill was exonerated by the Dardanelles 
Commission, although that Commission was, “struck by the atmosphere of 
vagueness and want of precision which seems to have characterised the 
proceedings of the War Council”.

 

Thus, Alan Moorehead: “in 1925, when Roger Keyes was in command of the 
Mediterranean fleet, he’s steamed through the Dardanelles and, according to 
Aspinall, who was with him, he could hardly speak for emotion. ‘My God’, he 
said at last, ‘it would have been even easier than I thought; we simply 
couldn’t have failed…… And because we didn’t try, another million lives were 
thrown away and the war went on for another 3 years.’

 

Thus, Clement Attlee: “in the whole of the First World War, there was only one 
great strategic idea, and that was Winston’s”. Attlee had been a soldier at 
Gallipoli.

 

Thus, Alastair Cook (from Keynote Speech, Churchill Society International 
Conference, New Hampshire, 27 August 1988): “Kitchener had seemed an 
Eisenhower-Montgomery-Nimitz, all rolled into one. He wasn’t, but we thought he 
was. We didn’t know then that his power was declining drastically, or that he 
was more than anyone morally responsible for the failure of the Dardanelles: he 
would not support the original expedition – would not produce the manpower or 
the materiel. But as you may have noticed, the deaths of a famous leader, 
especially by assassination, confers a halo. Kitchener was drowned and he got 
the halo. Churchill got the blame.”

 

However, all this (and countless other testimonials to the mistakes and 
blunders made by other men, but not Churchill, and the difficulties ‘on the 
ground’ caused by the fatal delays during that campaign) is seemingly 
completely ignored by the writer and presenter, Martin Gilbert. The icing on 
the cake is Gilbert’s inclusion of statements by AJ Silvester (principal 
private secretary to Lloyd George... as if he would be impartial!) and 
Jimmy 

RE: [ChurchillChat] Churchill's last London home : thanks

[Dave Turrell]

Richard is modest, as always, regarding the enormous contribution he made in 
making this material available to the Churchill community.  I have a copy of 
this reproduction and it is of excellent quality.  Sixteen pages and eleven 
illustrations.  The auction for the freehold was held on 28th October 1965.  A 
quick google yields little on the results.  Does anyone know what the 
properties (27 was bundled in with 28) fetched?  

 

I paid a visit to Hyde Park Gate somewhere around 1997, and got there at a time 
when the property was undergoing extensive renovation.  The front door of 28 
was wide open, with a builder’s van parked outside – and clearly nobody in 
residence.  Alas, I lacked the courage to ask (bribe) the builder for a quick 
peek around.  I would have loved to have been able to look through the window 
where the iconic 90th birthday image was taken – from the inside.

 

Dave 

 

From: churchillchat@googlegroups.com [mailto:churchillchat@googlegroups.com] On 
Behalf Of Richard Langworth
Sent: Thursday, February 9, 2017 9:36 PM
To: ChurchillChat 
Subject: Re: [ChurchillChat] Churchill's last London home : thanks

 

On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 3:07:57 PM UTC-5, Antoine Capet wrote:

 Mary Soames mentions the back garden as one of the features of 
the property which so pleased the family, but I had never seen any 
photographs of it. 

 

Antoine,

Attached garden photo is from the estate agent (Knight, Frank & Rutley) 
brochure when HPG it was put up for sale after WSC's death. 

Years ago I reproduced this very elaborate illustrated document as an ICS 
publication, so copies may be around

Best

R

 

Richard M Langworth 
Senior Fellow, Hillsdale Colleg

​e Churchill Project

​

​​

​

  winstonchurchill.hillsdale.edu/

Eleuthera, Bahamas

-- 
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 churchillchat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
 .
To post to this group, send email to churchillchat@googlegroups.com 
 .
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/churchillchat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
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 churchillchat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to churchillchat@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/churchillchat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

RE: [ChurchillChat] The River War

[Dave Turrell]

eral research by Prof. Muller and others.

 

I hope you will all give favorable consideration to these suggestions.

 

Lee Pollock

Executive Director

The Churchill Centre

Chicago, IL 60603

lpoll...@winstonchurchill.org <mailto:lpoll...@winstonchurchill.org>  

 

 

 

From: churchillchat@googlegroups.com <mailto:churchillchat@googlegroups.com>  
[mailto:churchillchat@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of chateaustegosau...@att.net 
<mailto:chateaustegosau...@att.net> 
Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2016 11:38 AM
To: churchillchat@googlegroups.com <mailto:churchillchat@googlegroups.com> 
Subject: Re: [ChurchillChat] The (mythical) River War

 

I, also, received a notice that the October pub date was off, but they didn't 
give a new one.  I hope Prof. Muller has been well compensated for his work 
'cause there ain't going to be any royalties.

 

Jonathan Hayes

 

  _  

From: Dave Turrell <daturr...@verizon.net <mailto:daturr...@verizon.net> >
To: churchillchat@googlegroups.com <mailto:churchillchat@googlegroups.com>  
Sent: Friday, October 21, 2016 4:40 PM
Subject: [ChurchillChat] The (mythical) River War

 

In doing some desultory web browsing today, I note that the latest date that St 
Augustine Press has been giving for publication of Jim Muller’s ‘River War’ 
(September 2016) has been and gone, like so many of their other proposed 
publication dates over the last 15 years or more.  Checking with Amazon, it 
seems that they were, at least, not taken in by the latest, and still show a 
publication date of November 2013.  While I think that most of us have come to 
accept the prospect of publication of this work as being something of a bizarre 
ongoing joke, I wonder if St. Augustine will get round to not referring to 
their offering as having a foreword by “Churchill’s only surviving child, Lady 
Soames”.  That strikes me as being a little tacky, at best.

 

Cheers,

 

Dave

-- 
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 churchillchat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
<mailto:churchillchat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com> .
To post to this group, send email to churchillchat@googlegroups.com 
<mailto:churchillchat@googlegroups.com> .
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/churchillchat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

 

-- 
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 churchillchat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
<mailto:churchillchat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com> .
To post to this group, send email to churchillchat@googlegroups.com 
<mailto:churchillchat@googlegroups.com> .
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/churchillchat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
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 churchillchat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
<mailto:churchillchat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com> .
To post to this group, send email to churchillchat@googlegroups.com 
<mailto:churchillchat@googlegroups.com> .
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/churchillchat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
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 churchillchat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
<mailto:churchillchat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com> .
To post to this group, send email to churchillchat@googlegroups.com 
<mailto:churchillchat@googlegroups.com> .
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/churchillchat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
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 churchillchat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
<mailto:churchillchat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com> .
To post to this group, send email to churchillchat@googlegroups.com 
<mailto:churchillchat@googlegroups.com> .
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/churchillchat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
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 churchillchat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to churchillchat@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/churchillchat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

RE: [ChurchillChat] The (mythical) River War

[Dave Turrell]

Hi Stan,

 

We’ve been hearing that story for nigh on fifteen years (I’ve personally lost 
count).  A couple of missed dates are understandable.  Persistent lying is not.

 

Cheers,

 

Dave

 

From: churchillchat@googlegroups.com [mailto:churchillchat@googlegroups.com] On 
Behalf Of STAN ORCHARD
Sent: Friday, October 21, 2016 9:25 PM
To: churchillchat@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [ChurchillChat] The (mythical) River War

 

In September I sent an e-mail to St. Augustine Press asking if they could 
confirm that the publication date on their website for The River War was 
accurate.  The reply was that late November was the new target...I assumed they 
meant 2016.

 

Stan

BullfrogControl.com Inc.
69A Burnside Road West
Victoria, British Columbia
CANADA V9A 1B6

bullfrogcont...@shaw.ca <mailto:bullfrogcont...@shaw.ca>  
250-858-FROG (3764)
www.bullfrogcontrol.com <http://www.bullfrogcontrol.com> 

Sent from my BlackBerry® PlayBook™
www.blackberry.com <http://www.blackberry.com> 

 

  _____  

From: "Dave Turrell" <daturr...@verizon.net <mailto:daturr...@verizon.net> >
To: "churchillchat@googlegroups.com <mailto:churchillchat@googlegroups.com> " 
<churchillchat@googlegroups.com <mailto:churchillchat@googlegroups.com> >
Sent: 21 October, 2016 4:40 PM
Subject: [ChurchillChat] The (mythical) River War

 

In doing some desultory web browsing today, I note that the latest date that St 
Augustine Press has been giving for publication of Jim Muller’s ‘River War’ 
(September 2016) has been and gone, like so many of their other proposed 
publication dates over the last 15 years or more.  Checking with Amazon, it 
seems that they were, at least, not taken in by the latest, and still show a 
publication date of November 2013.  While I think that most of us have come to 
accept the prospect of publication of this work as being something of a bizarre 
ongoing joke, I wonder if St. Augustine will get round to not referring to 
their offering as having a foreword by “Churchill’s only surviving child, Lady 
Soames”.  That strikes me as being a little tacky, at best.

 

Cheers,

 

Dave

-- 
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 churchillchat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
<mailto:churchillchat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com> .
To post to this group, send email to churchillchat@googlegroups.com 
<mailto:churchillchat@googlegroups.com> .
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/churchillchat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
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 churchillchat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
<mailto:churchillchat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com> .
To post to this group, send email to churchillchat@googlegroups.com 
<mailto:churchillchat@googlegroups.com> .
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/churchillchat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
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 churchillchat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to churchillchat@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/churchillchat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

RE: [ChurchillChat] Many people not happy!!

[Dave Turrell]

Thanks, Richard.  Sir Nicholas is spot on.

 

Dave

 

From: churchillchat@googlegroups.com [mailto:churchillchat@googlegroups.com] On 
Behalf Of Richard M. Langworth
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 10:53 AM
To: ChurchillChat 
Cc: piper...@att.net
Subject: Re: [ChurchillChat] Many people not happy!!

 

Sir Nicholas Soames. At last, a voice of reason:

 

Speaking to the Guardian on Monday, Soames described the fallout – prompted 
when photos emerged of the Palace draped in Nazi flags – as “a completely 
manufactured row” and “absolutely the most dismal, idiotic story I’ve ever 
read”.

 

http://bit.ly/2dp5m87

 

And by the way, it was never, ever, Winston Churchill's "home."

-- 
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 churchillchat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
 .
To post to this group, send email to churchillchat@googlegroups.com 
 .
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/churchillchat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
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 churchillchat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to churchillchat@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/churchillchat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

RE: [ChurchillChat] Is Churchill Still Relevant?

[Dave Turrell]

A virgin white elephant.  I love it!  Makes me even prouder than ever of my 
homeland, that we can produce such pachydermatous police powers.

 

From: churchillchat@googlegroups.com [mailto:churchillchat@googlegroups.com] On 
Behalf Of chateaustegosau...@att.net
Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2016 2:14 PM
To: churchillchat@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [ChurchillChat] Is Churchill Still Relevant?

 

She was very much of the "velvet glove" school.  Whenever she had suspicions of 
one of her subjects, she would do him the honor of visiting him.  The cost of 
housing, feeding and entertaining Queen Bess and her entourage would drive the 
guy almost to bankruptcy.  After a while, she didn't even have to go visit - 
just the suggestion that she might would be enough to bring the subject into 
line.  Now that's some sophistication in the dictatorship business!

 

Jonathan

 

  _  

From: Dave Turrell <daturr...@verizon.net <mailto:daturr...@verizon.net> >
To: churchillchat@googlegroups.com <mailto:churchillchat@googlegroups.com>  
Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2016 7:34 PM
Subject: RE: [ChurchillChat] Is Churchill Still Relevant?

 

Jonathan,

 

“She ran history's most successful police state.”

 

A strong statement indeed.  I hope ‘Dear Leader’ in NK doesn’t think you are 
denigrating his accomplishments.  Or that the NSA doesn’t feel slighted.  I 
hear Stalin sobbing in his tomb.

 

Cheers :),

 

Dave

 

From: churchillchat@googlegroups.com <mailto:churchillchat@googlegroups.com>  
[mailto:churchillchat@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of chateaustegosau...@att.net 
<mailto:chateaustegosau...@att.net> 
Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2016 5:36 PM
To: churchillchat@googlegroups.com <mailto:churchillchat@googlegroups.com> 
Subject: Re: [ChurchillChat] Is Churchill Still Relevant?

 

I would hope that Elizabeth I would not be relevant.  She ran history's most 
successful police state.  "The spacious days of good Queen Bess" were extremely 
repressive - and she got people to love it.

 

Jonathan Hayes

 

  _  

From: Richard M. Langworth <tcc-...@sneakemail.com 
<mailto:tcc-...@sneakemail.com> >
To: ChurchillChat <churchillchat@googlegroups.com 
<mailto:churchillchat@googlegroups.com> > 
Sent: Friday, September 16, 2016 12:58 AM
Subject: [ChurchillChat] Is Churchill Still Relevant?

 

On Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 11:00:20 PM UTC-4, Dave Turrell wrote:

Would anyone care to explain why WSC will be relevant to someone born in, say, 
2000?  More so than Gladstone, Walpole, or Elizabeth I?

 

A challenging question, Dave. But start with the attached. Somehow I don't see 
Gladstone, Walpole or Bess making the cut. 

-- 
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 churchillchat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
<mailto:churchillchat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com> .
To post to this group, send email to churchillchat@googlegroups.com 
<mailto:churchillchat@googlegroups.com> .
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/churchillchat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

 

-- 
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 churchillchat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
<mailto:churchillchat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com> .
To post to this group, send email to churchillchat@googlegroups.com 
<mailto:churchillchat@googlegroups.com> .
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/churchillchat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
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 churchillchat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
<mailto:churchillchat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com> .
To post to this group, send email to churchillchat@googlegroups.com 
<mailto:churchillchat@googlegroups.com> .
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/churchillchat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

 

-- 
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 churchillchat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
<mailto:churchillchat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com> .
To post to this group, send email to churchillchat@googlegroups.com 
<mailto:churchillchat@googlegroups.com> .
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/churchillchat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to 

RE: [ChurchillChat] Is Churchill Still Relevant?

[Dave Turrell]

Jonathan,

 

“She ran history's most successful police state.”

 

A strong statement indeed.  I hope ‘Dear Leader’ in NK doesn’t think you are 
denigrating his accomplishments.  Or that the NSA doesn’t feel slighted.  I 
hear Stalin sobbing in his tomb.

 

Cheers :),

 

Dave

 

From: churchillchat@googlegroups.com [mailto:churchillchat@googlegroups.com] On 
Behalf Of chateaustegosau...@att.net
Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2016 5:36 PM
To: churchillchat@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [ChurchillChat] Is Churchill Still Relevant?

 

I would hope that Elizabeth I would not be relevant.  She ran history's most 
successful police state.  "The spacious days of good Queen Bess" were extremely 
repressive - and she got people to love it.

 

Jonathan Hayes

 

  _  

From: Richard M. Langworth <tcc-...@sneakemail.com 
<mailto:tcc-...@sneakemail.com> >
To: ChurchillChat <churchillchat@googlegroups.com 
<mailto:churchillchat@googlegroups.com> > 
Sent: Friday, September 16, 2016 12:58 AM
Subject: [ChurchillChat] Is Churchill Still Relevant?

 

On Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 11:00:20 PM UTC-4, Dave Turrell wrote:

Would anyone care to explain why WSC will be relevant to someone born in, say, 
2000?  More so than Gladstone, Walpole, or Elizabeth I?

 

A challenging question, Dave. But start with the attached. Somehow I don't see 
Gladstone, Walpole or Bess making the cut. 

-- 
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 churchillchat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
<mailto:churchillchat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com> .
To post to this group, send email to churchillchat@googlegroups.com 
<mailto:churchillchat@googlegroups.com> .
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/churchillchat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

 

-- 
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 churchillchat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
<mailto:churchillchat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com> .
To post to this group, send email to churchillchat@googlegroups.com 
<mailto:churchillchat@googlegroups.com> .
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/churchillchat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
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 churchillchat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to churchillchat@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/churchillchat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

RE: [ChurchillChat] Churchill on French TV

[Dave Turrell]

"Pour des raisons de droits concédés à France Télévisions, cette vidéo n'est 
pas disponible depuis votre position géographique."

It's a frequent problem with trying to watch another country's re-broadcasts.

Dave

-Original Message-
From: churchillchat@googlegroups.com [mailto:churchillchat@googlegroups.com] On 
Behalf Of Lee Pollock
Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2016 12:16 PM
To: churchillchat@googlegroups.com
Subject: FW: [ChurchillChat] Churchill on French TV

Also does not work in the US. 

Lee Pollock
Executive Director
The Churchill Centre
Chicago, IL

Lee Pollock
The Churchill Centre
(312) 310-4488
> On Sep 6, 2016, at 9:59 AM, Allen Packwood  
> wrote:
> 
> Dear Antoine,
> 
> Many thanks. My system will not let me view it. Does it feature footage of 
> the Churchill Archives Centre?
> 
> Allen
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: 'Antoine Capet' via ChurchillChat 
> [mailto:churchillchat@googlegroups.com]
> Sent: 06 September 2016 13:58
> To: churchillchat@googlegroups.com
> Subject: [ChurchillChat] Churchill on French TV
> 
> List members - whether they understand French or not* - might be 
> interested in this two-hour-long programme broadcast on French TV last 
> week and available free on line :
> 
> http://www.france2.fr/emissions/secrets-d-histoire/videos/churchill_le
> _lion_au_coeur_tendre_23-08-2016_1253309
> 
> *There are many live shots of Blenheim and Chartwell besides old 
> silent newsreel footage which do not require any knowledge of the 
> language to be appreciated.
> 
> With all best wishes,
> 
> Professor Antoine CAPET, FRHistS
> British Studies
> University of Rouen
> 76821 Mont-Saint-Aignan
> France
> antoine.ca...@univ-rouen.fr
> 
> 'Britain since 1914' Section Editor
> Royal Historical Society Bibliography
> 
> Reviews Editor of CERCLES
> http://www.cercles.com/review/reviews.html
> ==
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> L'absence de virus dans ce courrier électronique a été vérifiée par le 
> logiciel antivirus Avast.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> 
> --
> 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 churchillchat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to churchillchat@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/churchillchat.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
> 
> --
> 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 churchillchat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to churchillchat@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/churchillchat.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
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 churchillchat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to churchillchat@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/churchillchat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
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 churchillchat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to churchillchat@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/churchillchat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

RE: [ChurchillChat] Re: in The Independent today : Winston Churchill 'would not become Prime Minister today because his speaking style would be mocked'

[Dave Turrell]

You know, Anthony, I originally toyed with the idea of following that train of 
thought and managed to restrain myself.  In any case, I think that the dead of 
Chicago at least have the grace to elect the living.  But to anticipate your 
next point…. how can you tell?

 

From: churchillchat@googlegroups.com [mailto:churchillchat@googlegroups.com] On 
Behalf Of Anthony Calabrese
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 5:18 PM
To: List Churchill 
Subject: RE: [ChurchillChat] Re: in The Independent today : Winston Churchill 
'would not become Prime Minister today because his speaking style would be 
mocked'

 


"dead people tend to be a demographic that does not do well in elections."

 

I live in Chicago so I disagree with that statement.  

  _  

From: daturr...@verizon.net  
To: churchillchat@googlegroups.com  
Subject: RE: [ChurchillChat] Re: in The Independent today : Winston Churchill 
'would not become Prime Minister today because his speaking style would be 
mocked'
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2016 16:04:46 -0500

Unfortunately, this is simply a variation on the "What Would Churchill Do?" 
game that irritated the late Lady Soames so much. And it's a game that can be 
played in both directions.  Personally, I contend that the reason Barack Obama 
would not have been elected President of the United States in 1860 is because 
the teleprompter had not yet been invented. A contention that is painfully 
facile and which misses the point by a breathtaking margin.

 

Churchill would not become Prime Minister today not because of the way he 
spoke, not because of the way he dressed, not because of the company he kept, 
not because of the opinions he held, but because he is dead - and dead people 
tend to be a demographic that does not do well in elections.

 

Dave

 

From: churchillchat@googlegroups.com   
[mailto:churchillchat@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Cita Stelzer
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 3:02 PM
To: churchillchat@googlegroups.com  
Subject: RE: [ChurchillChat] Re: in The Independent today : Winston Churchill 
'would not become Prime Minister today because his speaking style would be 
mocked'

 

Does this statement come from an actress? Perhaps she studied history a bit.

Cita

 

From: churchillchat@googlegroups.com   
[mailto:churchillchat@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Anthony Calabrese
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 12:30 PM
To: List Churchill  >
Subject: RE: [ChurchillChat] Re: in The Independent today : Winston Churchill 
'would not become Prime Minister today because his speaking style would be 
mocked'

 

Would they?  Boris Johnson does not seem to suffer from his eccentric speaking 
style.  
 

> From: churchillchat@googlegroups.com  
> To: churchillchat@googlegroups.com  
> Subject: [ChurchillChat] Re: in The Independent today : Winston Churchill 
> 'would not become Prime Minister today because his speaking style would be 
> mocked'
> Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2016 11:41:06 +0100
> 
> Winston Churchill 'would not become Prime Minister today because his 
> speaking style would be mocked'
> Romola Garai, who stars in new ITV drama about the politician, says his 
> eccentricities would rule him out in the modern era
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/winston-churchill-would-not-become-prime-minister-today-because-his-speaking-style-would-be-mocked-a6882066.html
>  
> 
> 
> ---
> L'absence de virus dans ce courrier électronique a été vérifiée par le 
> logiciel antivirus Avast.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> 
> -- 
> 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 churchillchat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
>  .
> To post to this group, send email to churchillchat@googlegroups.com 
>  .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/churchillchat.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
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 churchillchat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
 .
To post to this group, send email to churchillchat@googlegroups.com 
 .
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/churchillchat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the 

RE: [ChurchillChat] Re: in The Independent today : Winston Churchill 'would not become Prime Minister today because his speaking style would be mocked'

[Dave Turrell]

Unfortunately, this is simply a variation on the "What Would Churchill Do?" 
game that irritated the late Lady Soames so much. And it's a game that can be 
played in both directions.  Personally, I contend that the reason Barack Obama 
would not have been elected President of the United States in 1860 is because 
the teleprompter had not yet been invented. A contention that is painfully 
facile and which misses the point by a breathtaking margin.

 

Churchill would not become Prime Minister today not because of the way he 
spoke, not because of the way he dressed, not because of the company he kept, 
not because of the opinions he held, but because he is dead - and dead people 
tend to be a demographic that does not do well in elections.

 

Dave

 

From: churchillchat@googlegroups.com [mailto:churchillchat@googlegroups.com] On 
Behalf Of Cita Stelzer
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 3:02 PM
To: churchillchat@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: [ChurchillChat] Re: in The Independent today : Winston Churchill 
'would not become Prime Minister today because his speaking style would be 
mocked'

 

Does this statement come from an actress? Perhaps she studied history a bit.

Cita

 

From: churchillchat@googlegroups.com   
[mailto:churchillchat@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Anthony Calabrese
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 12:30 PM
To: List Churchill  >
Subject: RE: [ChurchillChat] Re: in The Independent today : Winston Churchill 
'would not become Prime Minister today because his speaking style would be 
mocked'

 

Would they?  Boris Johnson does not seem to suffer from his eccentric speaking 
style.  
 

> From: churchillchat@googlegroups.com  
> To: churchillchat@googlegroups.com  
> Subject: [ChurchillChat] Re: in The Independent today : Winston Churchill 
> 'would not become Prime Minister today because his speaking style would be 
> mocked'
> Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2016 11:41:06 +0100
> 
> Winston Churchill 'would not become Prime Minister today because his 
> speaking style would be mocked'
> Romola Garai, who stars in new ITV drama about the politician, says his 
> eccentricities would rule him out in the modern era
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/winston-churchill-would-not-become-prime-minister-today-because-his-speaking-style-would-be-mocked-a6882066.html
>  
> 
> 
> ---
> L'absence de virus dans ce courrier électronique a été vérifiée par le 
> logiciel antivirus Avast.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> 
> -- 
> 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 churchillchat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
>  .
> To post to this group, send email to churchillchat@googlegroups.com 
>  .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/churchillchat.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
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 churchillchat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
 .
To post to this group, send email to churchillchat@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/churchillchat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
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 churchillchat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
 .
To post to this group, send email to churchillchat@googlegroups.com 
 .
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/churchillchat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
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 churchillchat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to churchillchat@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/churchillchat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

RE: [ChurchillChat] River War Publication

[Dave Turrell]

Mark,

 

Generally speaking I might agree with you.  Folio have done some lovely work, 
especially in their Travel and Adventure series, and I proudly give shelf space 
to several of their offerings. 

 

However, having just received my Folio catalogue in the mail and seen the 
following abomination, my confidence is shaken.  I have spent a couple of hours 
resting my eyes and soaking my contacts, but the horror remains.  What were 
they thinking?

 

http://www.foliosociety.com/book/GTC/great-contemporaries

 

Cheers,

 

Dave

 

From: churchillchat@googlegroups.com [mailto:churchillchat@googlegroups.com] 
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2015 11:20 AM
To: churchillchat@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [ChurchillChat] River War Publication

 

Folio would do such a nice job on the entire production. It would probably look 
almost like the original with slipcover to boot.

 

 

-Original Message-
From: chateaustegosaurus <chateaustegosau...@att.net 
<mailto:chateaustegosau...@att.net> >
To: churchillchat <churchillchat@googlegroups.com 
<mailto:churchillchat@googlegroups.com> >
Sent: Mon, Oct 19, 2015 10:12 am
Subject: Re: [ChurchillChat] River War Publication

Not sure about British copyright laws but anything published in the US prior to 
1923 is out of copyright and in the public domain.

 

Hillsdale College has been reprinting a lot of the official biography companion 
volumes.  Wonder if they'd be interested?

 

Jonathan Hayes

 

  _  

From: 'Mark Lowrey' via ChurchillChat <churchillchat@googlegroups.com 
<mailto:churchillchat@googlegroups.com> >
To: churchillchat@googlegroups.com <mailto:churchillchat@googlegroups.com>  
Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2015 5:16 PM
Subject: Re: [ChurchillChat] River War Publication

 

Even a Taiwan bootleg edition  would suffice.

 

 

 

-----Original Message-
From: Dave Turrell <daturr...@verizon.net <mailto:daturr...@verizon.net> >
To: churchillchat <churchillchat@googlegroups.com 
<mailto:churchillchat@googlegroups.com> >
Sent: Sun, Oct 18, 2015 7:01 pm
Subject: RE: [ChurchillChat] River War Publication

It’s been going on for at least 11 years to my personal knowledge.  As the 
Texans might say, this would appear to be a publisher that is all hat and no 
cattle… or, as we Brits might prefer it, all mouth and trousers.

 

Their lesser known publication of Savrola remains equally ethereal.

 

My guess would be if Prof. Muller was paid to do the editing and annotation 
work then St. Augustine’s is pretty much bullet-proof in their choice as to 
when or if to publish it. 

 

I see no reason, however, that the vanilla text of The River War should not be 
republished as is – I cannot imagine that St. Augustine’s bought the copyright 
to that.  If it can be done then it would be a great service to Churchill 
bibliography – the full text has not been published since the first edition of 
1899/1900.

 

Dave

   

From: churchillchat@googlegroups.com <mailto:churchillchat@googlegroups.com>  
[mailto:churchillchat@googlegroups.com <mailto:churchillchat@googlegroups.com?> 
] On Behalf Of chateaustegosau...@att.net <mailto:chateaustegosau...@att.net> 
Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2015 5:38 PM
To: ChurchillChat@googlegroups.com <mailto:ChurchillChat@googlegroups.com> 
Subject: [ChurchillChat] River War Publication

 

St. Augustine's Press still has The River War under "Forthcoming Books", yet 
still no publication date.  This has been going on for a donkey's years  -  has 
Prof. Muller considered dropping these people and going with some publisher 
who's actually willing to publish?  It would seem that if he has a contract 
that St. Augustine's Press' lack of performance would be sufficient reason to 
abandon ship.

 

Just a thought.

 

Jonathan Hayes

-- 
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 churchillchat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
<mailto:churchillchat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com> .
To post to this group, send email to churchillchat@googlegroups.com 
<mailto:churchillchat@googlegroups.com> .
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/churchillchat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
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 churchillchat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
<mailto:churchillchat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com> .
To post to this group, send email to churchillchat@googlegroups.com 
<mailto:churchillchat@googlegroups.com> .
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/churchillchat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because

RE: [ChurchillChat] River War Publication

[Dave Turrell]

googlegroups.com <mailto:churchillchat@googlegroups.com>  
[mailto:churchillchat@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of chateaustegosau...@att.net 
<mailto:chateaustegosau...@att.net> 
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2015 3:25 PM
To: churchillchat@googlegroups.com <mailto:churchillchat@googlegroups.com> 
Subject: Re: [ChurchillChat] River War Publication

 

So River War is still under copyright.

 

Jonathan Hayes

 


  _  


From: Allen Packwood <allen.packw...@chu.cam.ac.uk 
<mailto:allen.packw...@chu.cam.ac.uk> >
To:  <mailto:'churchillchat@googlegroups.com'> 
"'churchillchat@googlegroups.com'" <churchillchat@googlegroups.com 
<mailto:churchillchat@googlegroups.com> > 
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2015 9:06 AM
Subject: RE: [ChurchillChat] River War Publication

 

British copyright law in published material is 70 years from the date of the 
death of the author.

 

Allen

 

 

From: churchillchat@googlegroups.com <mailto:churchillchat@googlegroups.com>  
[mailto:churchillchat@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of chateaustegosau...@att.net 
<mailto:chateaustegosau...@att.net> 
Sent: 19 October 2015 16:13
To: churchillchat@googlegroups.com <mailto:churchillchat@googlegroups.com> 
Subject: Re: [ChurchillChat] River War Publication

 

Not sure about British copyright laws but anything published in the US prior to 
1923 is out of copyright and in the public domain.

 

Hillsdale College has been reprinting a lot of the official biography companion 
volumes.  Wonder if they'd be interested?

 

Jonathan Hayes

 


  _  


From: 'Mark Lowrey' via ChurchillChat <churchillchat@googlegroups.com 
<mailto:churchillchat@googlegroups.com> >
To: churchillchat@googlegroups.com <mailto:churchillchat@googlegroups.com>  
Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2015 5:16 PM
Subject: Re: [ChurchillChat] River War Publication

 

Even a Taiwan bootleg edition  would suffice.

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Dave Turrell <daturr...@verizon.net <mailto:daturr...@verizon.net> >
To: churchillchat <churchillchat@googlegroups.com 
<mailto:churchillchat@googlegroups.com> >
Sent: Sun, Oct 18, 2015 7:01 pm
Subject: RE: [ChurchillChat] River War Publication

It’s been going on for at least 11 years to my personal knowledge.  As the 
Texans might say, this would appear to be a publisher that is all hat and no 
cattle… or, as we Brits might prefer it, all mouth and trousers.

 

Their lesser known publication of Savrola remains equally ethereal.

 

My guess would be if Prof. Muller was paid to do the editing and annotation 
work then St. Augustine’s is pretty much bullet-proof in their choice as to 
when or if to publish it. 

 

I see no reason, however, that the vanilla text of The River War should not be 
republished as is – I cannot imagine that St. Augustine’s bought the copyright 
to that.  If it can be done then it would be a great service to Churchill 
bibliography – the full text has not been published since the first edition of 
1899/1900.

 

Dave

 

From: churchillchat@googlegroups.com <mailto:churchillchat@googlegroups.com>  
[mailto:churchillchat@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of chateaustegosau...@att.net 
<mailto:chateaustegosau...@att.net> 
Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2015 5:38 PM
To: ChurchillChat@googlegroups.com <mailto:ChurchillChat@googlegroups.com> 
Subject: [ChurchillChat] River War Publication

 

St. Augustine's Press still has The River War under "Forthcoming Books", yet 
still no publication date.  This has been going on for a donkey's years  -  has 
Prof. Muller considered dropping these people and going with some publisher 
who's actually willing to publish?  It would seem that if he has a contract 
that St. Augustine's Press' lack of performance would be sufficient reason to 
abandon ship.

 

Just a thought.

 

Jonathan Hayes

-- 
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 churchillchat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
<mailto:churchillchat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com> .
To post to this group, send email to churchillchat@googlegroups.com 
<mailto:churchillchat@googlegroups.com> .
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/churchillchat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
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 churchillchat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
<mailto:churchillchat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com> .
To post to this group, send email to churchillchat@googlegroups.com 
<mailto:churchillchat@googlegroups.com> .
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/churchillchat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/op

RE: [ChurchillChat] River War Publication

[Dave Turrell]

It's been going on for at least 11 years to my personal knowledge.  As the
Texans might say, this would appear to be a publisher that is all hat and no
cattle. or, as we Brits might prefer it, all mouth and trousers.

 

Their lesser known publication of Savrola remains equally ethereal.

 

My guess would be if Prof. Muller was paid to do the editing and annotation
work then St. Augustine's is pretty much bullet-proof in their choice as to
when or if to publish it. 

 

I see no reason, however, that the vanilla text of The River War should not
be republished as is - I cannot imagine that St. Augustine's bought the
copyright to that.  If it can be done then it would be a great service to
Churchill bibliography - the full text has not been published since the
first edition of 1899/1900.

 

Dave

 

From: churchillchat@googlegroups.com [mailto:churchillchat@googlegroups.com]
On Behalf Of chateaustegosau...@att.net
Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2015 5:38 PM
To: ChurchillChat@googlegroups.com
Subject: [ChurchillChat] River War Publication

 

St. Augustine's Press still has The River War under "Forthcoming Books", yet
still no publication date.  This has been going on for a donkey's years  -
has Prof. Muller considered dropping these people and going with some
publisher who's actually willing to publish?  It would seem that if he has a
contract that St. Augustine's Press' lack of performance would be sufficient
reason to abandon ship.

 

Just a thought.

 

Jonathan Hayes

-- 
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 churchillchat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
 .
To post to this group, send email to churchillchat@googlegroups.com
 .
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/churchillchat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
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 churchillchat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to churchillchat@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/churchillchat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

RE: [ChurchillChat] River War

[Dave Turrell]

I tend to share the skepticism.  St. Augustine Press was listing the release
date of this work, along with their projected edition of Savrola, back in
2004.  To slightly paraphrase the old boy,  We are waiting for the
long-promised publication. So are the fishes.

Dave

-Original Message-
From: churchillchat@googlegroups.com [mailto:churchillchat@googlegroups.com]
On Behalf Of John McLeod
Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2015 8:30 PM
To: churchillchat@googlegroups.com
Subject: [ChurchillChat] River War

The publisher's website in the past has listed a November release date for
numerous years in the past.  Does anyone have information that this anything
beyond a perennial placeholder?

Sent from my iPhone

-- 
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 churchillchat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to churchillchat@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/churchillchat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
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 churchillchat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to churchillchat@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/churchillchat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

RE: [ChurchillChat] Churchill and nuclear attack against USSR

[Dave Turrell]

I wouldn't doubt for a second that it may have been Churchill's opinion at
one point - but there's a significant gap between opinion and policy.

 

For an 'investigative journalist' it appears that the author has much
investigating yet to do.

 

Maier said: 'Churchill had been a great historian of warfare. He saw the
last great cavalry charge during the First World War and championed the
development of tanks'.  I'm not convinced that many historians would
consider that the great battles of the First World War included Omdurman.

 

Dave




 

From: churchillchat@googlegroups.com [mailto:churchillchat@googlegroups.com]
On Behalf Of dmitry...@gmail.com
Sent: Saturday, December 6, 2014 1:49 AM
To: churchillchat@googlegroups.com
Subject: [ChurchillChat] Churchill and nuclear attack against USSR

 

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

 

-- 
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 churchillchat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
mailto:churchillchat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com .
To post to this group, send email to churchillchat@googlegroups.com
mailto:churchillchat@googlegroups.com .
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/churchillchat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
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 churchillchat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to churchillchat@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/churchillchat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

RE: [ChurchillChat] Re: Another new book of debunking

[Dave Turrell]

Looks like he's got prior form, as the Sweeney might say.  Was it just me
who missed the recent information that FDR instigated the attack on Pearl
Harbour?

Dave

Sacrifice of Singapore: Churchill's Biggest Blunder 
by Michael Arnold 

The fate of Singapore was sealed long before the Japanese attack in December
1941. The blame lay with British Prime Minister Winston Churchill who
refused to listen to warnings from military advisors to reinforce defences
in Singapore/Malaya, convinced the Japanese would never dare to attack a
‘white power’. Obsessed with beating German General Erwin Rommel, he poured
into The fate of Singapore was sealed long before the Japanese attack in
December 1941. The blame lay with British Prime Minister Winston Churchill
who refused to listen to warnings from military advisors to reinforce
defences in Singapore/Malaya, convinced the Japanese would never dare to
attack a ‘white power’. Obsessed with beating German General Erwin Rommel,
he poured into the Middle East massive resources that should have gone to
the Far East. However when, inevitably, Singapore fell to the Japanese in
February 1942, Churchill attempted to deflect criticism by accusing the
defenders there of spineless capitulation.

Recently released information from the Office of Naval Intelligence in
Washington reveals that United States President Franklin Roosevelt not only
knew of the impending attack on Pearl Harbour but actually instigated it.
Although Roosevelt promised a shield of B-17 aircraft for Singapore from
Manila, General Douglas MacArthur in the Philippines had been told to do
nothing until after the Japanese attacks there and at Pearl Harbour so that
the United States could claim an unprovoked assault that would allow them to
declare war on Japan.

This book provides an account of events during World War II as they unfolded
in Malaya, Singapore and elsewhere in the world prior to the Japanese
attack, as well as a detailed study of the troops on the ground attacking
and defending Singapore.


From: churchillchat@googlegroups.com [mailto:churchillchat@googlegroups.com]
On Behalf Of PatFinn1940
Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2014 3:39 PM
To: churchillchat@googlegroups.com
Subject: [ChurchillChat] Re: Another new book of debunking

'Truths'--what 'truths'?   The author's??   I'd like to see what sources he
used for this.   Are they 'original' sources, or ones that fit the author's
presuppositions and agendas?

How ridiculous.

(Ms.) Patricia Finnegan
pfinn2...@gmail.com

On Monday, December 1, 2014 1:15:00 PM UTC-5, Antoine Capet wrote:
Another new book of debunking : 

Arnold, Michael. Hollow Heroes: An Unvarnished Look at the Wartime Careers
of Churchill, Montgomery and Mountbatten. Casemate, 
2014. 

The book reveals the truths behind the conventional images of three of Great
Britain's primary military leaders during and 
immediately after the Second World War. In each case there was a totally
different side to each man, which demonstrates that a 
great deal of their reputation was built on contrived results, deception and
dishonesty. It examines the influence and impediment 
of class on the performance of the British Army in World War II, and
quotes the views of the Americans that far too often there 
was an unwillingness among the British to base officer promotion on
effectiveness rather than on social background; conforming was 
more important than performing, as anyone who has served in the British
Army's ranks would agree. At the same time, Montgomery 
feared and was jealous of Patton, whose rate of advance was nearly always
twice that of Monty's. The services of Field Marshals 
Wavell and Auchinleck, two of Britain's finest commanders of the war, were
largely lost to Britain because of Churchill's 
consistent interfering in field matters and his need to contrive almost
anything to remain in power after he had been responsible 
for the fall of Singapore. This book includes the bizarre case of
Major-General Dorman-Smith, one of Britain's most brilliant 
original thinkers, who without reason was sacked by Churchill. Dorman-Smith
was the tactician who had produced Britain's victory 
over Rommel at the first battle of Alamein, but his crime seems have been
overachievement; an unforgivable sin in some eyes. 
Mountbatten's fumbling in India is also realistically portrayed in these
pages, putting paid to the man for the century's overly 
embellished reputation. 


Antoine CAPET, FRHistS 
Professor emeritus of British Studies 
University of Rouen 
76821 Mont-Saint-Aignan 
France 
antoin...@univ-rouen.fr 

'Britain since 1914' Section Editor 
Royal Historical Society Bibliography 

Reviews Editor of CERCLES 
http://www.cercles.com/review/reviews.html 


-- 
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 churchillchat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to 

RE: [ChurchillChat] River War - Annotated Edition

[Dave Turrell]

St. Augustine's Press currently has the release date as being August 2014,
but I think their site is programmed to automatically push the date out by
six months every six months.  They've been doing that since Adam was a lad.

 

On the bright side I note that the world's oldest person just turned 116, so
there may yet be hopes for the likes of you and I not only to read this one,
but also the last seven documentary volumes of the 'official' biography.

 

Cheers,

 

Dave

 

  _  

From: churchillchat@googlegroups.com [mailto:churchillchat@googlegroups.com]
On Behalf Of chateaustegosau...@att.net
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2014 8:23 PM
To: Churchillchat@googlegroups.com
Subject: [ChurchillChat] River War - Annotated Edition

 

Apparently Prof. Muller's annotated edition has been published.  Does anyone
know where I might purchase one?  I've been eagerly awaiting this and would
like to be able to peruse it before I shuffle off this mortal coil.

 

Churchillian regards,

 

Jonathan Hayes

-- 
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 churchillchat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to churchillchat@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/churchillchat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

-- 
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 churchillchat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to churchillchat@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/churchillchat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

RE: [ChurchillChat] Bust Ceremony Teaser video released by Speaker's Office

[Dave Turrell]

Not sure that I would buy into this kind of retro-snobbery.

 

Would the Sir Winston who wanted 'plenty of brass bands' have wanted any
coloured people at the unveiling?

 

WSC was actually quite adventurous at certain points in his life.  The 90
year-old may have wanted 'plenty of brass bands' but the younger Winston was
outraged by the attempt to prevent prostitutes plying their trade in the
Empire Palace of Varieties in London's Leicester Square.  Which Winston
would not have approved of Daltry?  1898?  1908?  1921? 1941? 1964?

 

Dave

 

  _  

From: churchillchat@googlegroups.com [mailto:churchillchat@googlegroups.com]
On Behalf Of Rafe Heydel-Mankoo
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2013 10:01 PM
To: churchillchat@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: [ChurchillChat] Bust Ceremony Teaser video released by
Speaker's Office

 

I know that we are not supposed to speculate about how historical figures
might react to the issues of today. However, I think I can say quite
confidentially that Sir Winston Churchill would not have opted for Roger
Daltry of The Who to perform at the solemn and distinguished unveiling of
his bust at the Capitol Building next week. 

 

Hat's off to Senator Boehner for his stirring tribute to Sir Winston and the
great video he put out...but...really? To say What better way to celebrate
Winston Churchill's friendship to the United States than to have one of
Britain's most legendary recording artists perform in the halls of the
Capitol, Boehner said in the release.  Roger's performance is sure to
guarantee that the Churchill bust receives the first-class welcome it
deserves. strikes me as rather odd.  

 

Only in America! I can't imagine Elton John singing at the unveiling of
Reagan's statue in London.  A choir singing the Battle Hymn of the Republic
would have been glorious.  Suddenly I'm not *quite* so envious of not being
at the unveiling.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/click/2013/10/who-frontman-heads-to-the-hill-1
75874.html

 

RHM

 

  _  

Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 10:38:40 -0700
From: wdavidfree...@yahoo.com
Subject: [ChurchillChat] Bust Ceremony Teaser video released by Speaker's
Office
To: churchillchat@googlegroups.com

 

Colleagues,

 

Please see link released today by the office of the Speaker of the House in
regards to next week's dedication ceremony of the Churchill bust in Statuary
Hall:

 

http://www.speaker.gov/video/churchill-ceremony-teaser-released

 

Regards,

 

David


-- 
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 churchillchat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to churchillchat@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/churchillchat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

-- 
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 churchillchat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to churchillchat@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/churchillchat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

-- 
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 churchillchat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to churchillchat@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/churchillchat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.