One of the few truly great men of the 20th Century.

The recent biography of Churchill by Roy Jenkins is an awesome read.

Remember - apropos Britain supporting the US on Iraq - Churchill's words to Roosevelt during WW2 :

"Your friendship to me is supremely important. It is the rock on which we will re-build the world".

He was the Man of the Century. It has been said that Churchill could not win the war (alone), but he could have certainly lost the war. It is no exaggeration to say that he saved Western Civilization.

Much of Europe can now be seen to be reverting, sadly, to the fecklessness and obsession with local squabbling which occupied it between 1918 and 1939.

Churchill's warnings at the time were eloquent and well documented but they cut no ice with people who were, as now, pursing their careers and having a good time. They dismissed him, we should remember, principally by smearing him as a "warmonger" (precisely how so many Europeans are smearing Bush today).

This is a long term reversal to type, following directly from the fact that the Europeans no longer have the Red Army poised on their doorstep.

As the French say themselves, "plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose".

The core countries of Europe are too complacently wealthy to be effective allies unless a serious challenge were to come on so slowly that they could spend the years it would take to pull themselves together, wake up and arm themselves to fight. We need to accept this as a fact and move on.

In this context seeking to separate the poorer and more threatened EU members from France, Germany etc., and deal with them, is a great approach and should be continued. Many of the Eastern European countries should be good for at least another generation, due to their close-up experience with totalitarianism.

"I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat" In first speech as P.M., made before House of Commons just after the fall of France, when things could not have looked more bleak for England. So WSC steps up, everyone fully paniced and expecting a "don't worry, I'll get us through this" speech, and he says the above words...and suddenly a terrified world psychologically rallies, and morale begins to soar, as people bend to the task at hand. This is 1940, and Britain has two more years of defeat to endure, but from this speech on, the people knew, against all evidence, that they would win. WSC's speeches defeated Hitler.

For those who wants to read more:

Jenkins' new book is great.

For a truly breathtaking account of the appeasement of Hitler, try Manchester's second volume of The Last Lion: Alone 1932 - 1940. In retrospect, it is a jaw-dropping account of irresponsibility and denial among the western European governments. At the time, though, reasonable people thought they were advocating a reasonable approach to controlling Hitler. It is only when they realized that Hitler would never stop - in effect, that he was insanely megalomaniacal - that they were roused to action. And Churchill was the only one who saw this aspect of Hitler's character for many years.

In peacetime, it is virtually impossible to argue in favor of war. What became clear to the British - within a hair's breadth of being too late - was that Germany was already at war with them, regardless of what they did. Hitler viewed appeasement as a very convenient self-imposed, self-delaying tactic by his enemy.

Likewise, it was only Sept. 11 that caused us to realize that the war was already on, we had just been able to ignore/deny it until then.

For a long time, people accused Churchill of being a warmonger, and there is no doubt - once war began - that he found some thrill and joy in what he viewed as a noble pursuit. But he loathed getting into wars and viewed them as a last resort, a pre-emption of the inevitable. Better fewer casualties now than - at best - greater casualties or - at worst - defeat, later.

It should also be noted he said something along the lines of, A commander-in-chief casts his fate to the wind once he embarks on a war, for the flow of events gets the upper hand and carries all along with it. So, as both a politician and a human whose leadership would be remembered throughout history, he was fully aware that, having engaged in war, he triggered events that were much larger than any one person, or one country, upo which his elgacy would be based.

A wise admonition for any leader.

When I began the journey through the six volumes of "The Second World War" by Churchill a couple of years ago, two things immediately came to light:

First was the rather 'victorian' language that Churchill preferred. It took me a while to realize that the (even then) antiquated and ponderous manner of speaking and writing that he preferred was a choice of cunning. A casual reader or listener misses what Churchill truly said in a 'sub-rosa' manner; the true message sometimes hidden by the arcane profundity of his choice of words.

Read it once and see one thing. Read it thrice and understand what he really said.

The second thing I noted was his referral to himself as "former naval person" when he wrote Roosevelt This odd moniker is in referrence to his position in the Navy during The Great War, and is indicative of how long he and Franklin Roosevelt had known one another.

The two leader's long aqquaintance made them familiar with the subtleties of each the other's prose, and may well have confused the Axis eavesdroppers no end. Mostly though it indicated the respect which Winston had for Franklin. He was no supplicant to the U.S. by any means. But he knew that he needed help. And he knew that politeness and sincereity would win more destroyers than would petulance and castigation.

Smart man that Mr. Churchill. Please read France, Germany, Russia, ... World

I believe FDR wa Secretary of the Navy in WWI.

For anyone visiting Britain, a really interesting trip is to go to Chartwell, Churchill's country home in Kent, about 40 miles from the centre of London. (Train to Westerham station, then a local cab - but check on the opening times).

Not a TOP, must-see sight - but a lovely part of the countryside, and you get the "flavour" of where Churchill had his base in the "Wilderness Years" before WW2.

thankfully Churchill was booted as soon as the war ended.

Why "thankfully"? Besides, he was re-elected soon, anyway, wasn't he?

From what I read, Hitler didn't have concealed armaments. He constantly bluffed that he had more than he actually had, and this intimidated the French and the British followed the French lead.
When he marched into the Rhineland some of the troops marched with broomsticks. When he marched into Vienna 90% of his tanks broke down and they weren't even fighting. It was the influence of the 1936 peace referendum In Britain that intimidated the West. This was one on of the first instances of a nationwide public opinion poll.

Ummm Kav.... You educumated in Amerikan pupic skool system or somthin?

I agree Churchill was the most important figure
of the 20th century. Not bad for a guy who each day drank a bottle of champagne (and plenty of sherry) and smoked 20 cigars. Plus he was clinically depressed.

"From what I read, Hitler didn't have concealed armaments. He constantly bluffed that he had more than he actually had,"

He did both as it suited him, but he most definitely violated the Versailles treaty limits on GErmany's armed forces during the early years of his government, and lied about it. The French even had weapons inspectors roaming Germany, but HItler was nonetheless able to build battleships(!) during this period that violated Versailles without the inspectors twigging to what he was up to.

It was only after he formally repudiated Versailles that he moved into "bluff" mode. During the crucial early years of his buildup, he he simply lied and evaded his treaty obligations, like a certain other mustachioed megolomaniac.

So many parallels with what we see today...remember the Hitler/Stalin nonaggression pact, USSR was in there carving out their half of Poland along with the German invasion that "officially" started WWII when England declared. The British Parliament "wet" speeches during the 30's could transpose to what Blair was up against, almost word-for-word. "Don't make him mad at us," is what it boiled down to, both times. The difference today was today's Churchill was already the P.M., Churchill himself came aboard in 1940, when it was far too late to stop a massive war. We needed Churchill 5 years earlier. And here again, so many in England refused to see any parallels.

As for "concealing weapons", Hitler, with the connivance of the General Staff, concealed the ENTIRE LUFTWAFFE. Germany was forbidden to have an air force.

Likewise with the Army; the Army was supposed to be only 100,000 men. But most of that 100,000 were officers and non-coms--so that when the war came, that 100,000 could command hundreds of thousands more. And there were hundreds of paramilitary groups ready to supply the men.