Talk:Winston Churchill in politics, 1900–1939

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Explanation and rationale[edit]

This is a spin off from the main Winston Churchill article. The concensus is that page is too long and to preserve the information there- and to expand it- subpages covering different facets and periods of his life needed to be created. See Winston's talk page Lord Harris has started one on Later life of Winston Churchill. This is another subpage.The foundation of the material here is from the original Churchill article to which I was a contributor.

Please add and modify.

I have deleted some matters which seemed off topic or of very marginal relevance such as

In 1910, Churchill commented to Asquith that

The unnatural and increasingly rapid growth of the feeble minded and insane classes, coupled as it is with a steady restriction among all the thrifty, energetic and superior stocks, constitutes a national and race danger which it is impossible to exaggerate...I feel that the source from which the stream of madness is fed should be cut off and sealed up before another year has passed

Backnumber1662 (talk) 00:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abdication Crisis[edit]

Darkfells deleted at the time Churchill was seen as an alternative leader. As Lord Beaverbrook wrote "he has emerged as a leader of a big armaments anti-German movement in politics, hostile to the Government".[1]. I want to revert this. my reasons for doing so are

  • its true, and its verifiable (appropriate source supplied)
  • it adds to a reader's understanding of Churchill, at that time many people distrusted Churchill. One reason was he was seen to be 'on the make' and here (as per quote from Alistair Cooke given in the article) he was seen as making a Kings party and using the Crisis to further his own ambition.
  • it further explains his isolation from the Conservative mainstream
  • it aids in understanding why the Commons was so anti Churchill when he tried to address it on the King's behalf

I wont revert till noon Sunday Eastern Australian time to give people time to commentBacknumber1662 (talk) 10:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[1] for the explanation. There's no need to revert, I've done that myself. — DarkFalls talk 10:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ letter to G Ross cited in A J P Taylor Beaverbrook Hamish Hamilton 1972 p. 372.

Review[edit]

As per User:Backnumber1662 request I have done a review of the article, with some suggestions for improvement. Firstly may I say well done on all you have done, your contributions have been substanative and excellent. Good work! As the article is long, I agree with your suggestion Backnumber that it should be split. My other suggestions are as follows:

  • Per WP:Lead Expand/rewrite the lead section. I think the lead section is mainly a list of Churchills positions. This is important to state but I also feel you could introduce more of his controversies during this period. The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, summarize the most important points, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describe its notable controversies, if there are any.
  • Expand the Entry into politics section - for example start the article with why Churchill went into politics, mention the impact of his father, of his friends of other MPs etc who encouraged him to stand. Also explain why was Churchills election not successful? Given the figure he was about to become, his early electoral failure is an interesting historical fact.
  • Expand the section on Churchills crossing the floor - what are historians views on thius subject, what did his contemporaries think, what were the major reasons for why he did this? Was it over tariffs or was it to do with helping the deserving poor?
  • Reference - Churchill had become one of the most prominent members of the Government outside the Cabinet
  • Why did Churchill loose his seat? Churchill lost his Manchester seat to the Conservative William Joynson-Hicks but was soon elected in another by-election at Dundee constituency.
  • Incorporate the following into prose: His direct achievements at the Board of Trade and later as Home Secretary were considerable:
   * Mines Act 1908, providing an 8 hour day in all mines.
   * Trades Boards Act 1909 which established the first minimum wage system in Britain mandating rates for both time- and piece-work for 200,000 workers in several industries. Churchill was able to get Conservative support for this and the Bill "passed without a division."[19]
   * Labour Exchanges Act 1909 setting up offices to help unemployed people find work.[20]
   * National Insurance Act 1911 providing sickness and unemployment benefits.[21]

This should be rewritten at prose and his impact on these acts could be expanded. Bullet points should be avoided.

  • Reference - He arranged for 50 London buses to be used to give extra mobility and the troops were used in general operations for a few weeks until the "Circus" was wound up.
  • Dardanelles- please reference and expand on The concept was flawed. I think this section could benefit from the opinions of historians, more on the reasons of why the campaing was termed as a failure etc.
  • Churchill was widely blamed for the fiasco. Examples of who blamed him, editorials/paper references etc?
  • Make the Indian Independence section more concise. Why a major and important aspect of his early political career it is given far too much weight. Try a rewrite, shorten some paragraphs, are the full quotes necessary or can they be summarised?
  • Reference - Churchill later sought to portray himself as an isolated voice warning of the need to rearm against Germany. Did he say this? Or have some historians?

My biggest criticism is that the article is somewhat messy, there are loads of full stops, commas where they shouldnt be. Also some sentances do not follow on to the next. I suggest you ask the league of copyeditors for help or get someone to go through the whole article to correct the grammar and structure. I have tried to remove some of the more obvious errors. The most important thing to remember is that where possible, references go at the end of the sentance, after the full stop.

However overall a very good article and very authorative. It is certainly well on its way to becoming a featured article. You have put a lot of effort in and it shows so again well done. If I can elaborate on any more of my points then please ask. Once you have responded to my suggestions, your next steps should be a peer review, GA review and finally an FA review. LordHarris 14:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

motivation[edit]

I noticed a comment that one of the resons he became a liberal was to obtain a salary as a minister. There's a ref, so presumably it does support this. However, as it is written now, it rather suggests this was his only reason for doing so. At least one biographer didn't mention such a reason (money), but instead gave various political explanations. Both this and the (i think originating) article, Winston Churchill, allude from time to time to his doing things for money. While he certainly needed money, I do not think, and I don't think the biographers think, this was ever his main motivation for anything. There was one example I read where he turned down a ministerial post in favour of another with half the pay but which suited his interests better. My inclination would be to expand on the reasons for his change of party, and drop the suggestion he did it for money entirely. User:Sandpiper

Although backbench MPs earned nothing until Edwardian times, and only a modest salary until a few decades ago, Cabinet ministers in this era earned 5-10k a year, the equivalent of many hundreds of thousands a year in today's money. Churchill, FE Smith and Asquith were all accused, entirely seriously, by their political opponents of clinging to office for the money. I agree it probably wasn't his main motivation. He had to ramp up his "writing" activities when out of office to cover his extravagant spending.Paulturtle (talk) 06:56, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

machine guns[edit]

the article states that Churchill suggested machine guns be used on striking miners. Hmm. Anyone got a ref for this, or should I delete it? I have seen some mention on the net about machine guns being installed at coal pits, but that is hardly what is implied by the wording here. Sandpiper (talk) 22:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Harris's review[edit]

Per WP:Lead Expand/rewrite the lead section. I think the lead section is mainly a list of Churchills positions. This is important to state but I also feel you could introduce more of his controversies during this period. The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, summarize the most important points, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describe its notable controversies, if there are any.

I'll leave this to last, if we have 2 sections then each will need their ownBacknumber1662 (talk) 02:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expand the Entry into politics section - for example start the article with why Churchill went into politics, mention the impact of his father, of his friends of other MPs etc who encouraged him to stand. Also explain why was Churchills election not successful? Given the figure he was about to become, his early electoral failure is an interesting historical fact.
Partly done, Backnumber1662 (talk) 02:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expand the section on Churchills crossing the floor - what are historians views on thius subject, what did his contemporaries think, what were the major reasons for why he did this? Was it over tariffs or was it to do with helping the deserving poor?
Done
  • Reference - Churchill had become one of the most prominent members of the Government outside the Cabinet
  • Why did Churchill loose his seat? Churchill lost his Manchester seat to the Conservative William Joynson-Hicks but was soon elected in another by-election at Dundee constituency.
Done Backnumber1662 (talk) 02:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Responsibility for Dardanelles fiasco[edit]

The current conclusion of this section says: It is almost certain that a Fleet so equipped and supported by the four divisions made available in April would have cleared the Strait with almost no loss. As the minister responsible, Churchill must bear the responsibility not providing the resources needed.[1]

Does anyone have access to the James reference, who could say whether James in fact blames Churchill for failing to supply resources? My own reading on this subject suggests that he might have the blame for pressing the campaign, which very likely would not have happened at all except for his efforts, but that he tried his very best to get as great resources as he could. This was not simply his decision but depended on the views of the rest of the Government, particularly Kitchener with regard to supplying troops. Actual choices about what ships to send etc were significantly down to admirals, not Churchill. I'm not sure anyone appreciated the difficulties involved in clearing the mines before they got there? Sandpiper (talk) 13:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gilbert, Manchester, and Jenkins all share Sandpiper's reading, i.e., that WSC's failure was to start a process over which he had insufficient control because he had insufficient support from his fellow Cabinet members, from the Sea Lords, and from the Admirals. The Churchill Centre described his mistake as, "Championing the Dardanelles operation without plenary authority to bring it to a successful conclusion." The result was not even a bastardization but a near total opposite of his original idea of a low-risk, naval-only operation, using old and largely "disposable" ships, that would be prompt but easily called off if it met with trouble. (See Italy, WWII for history repeating itself.) Thus, he was officially responsible but, practically, over-ruled in every decision other than the general idea of forcing the straits. The suggestion that it was a lack of resources, rather than a surfeit, is more than slightly suspect. The ones crying for more -- Fisher and KofK among them -- were the ones most opposed to the idea in general. De Robeck's analysis of what was done right and wrong similarly contradicts this take. Czrisher (talk) 19:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not altogether happy about the Dardanelles campaign section as a whole. There is another debate on the [Winston Churchill] page where James is quoted criticising Churchill, saying he misrepresented Baldwin. Not knowing what James has written, it sounds as though he is not keen on WC. I didn't like the intro of this section where it talkes about 'the disastrous gallipoli landings'. WC did want landings, but the initial plan which he was most personally involved with involved no troops to speak of. Then, who says this was 'disastrous'. It was a failure, but by the standards of this war, no more than average. It was untrue that nothing at all was accomplished: it failed in its main potential gains but it was still a campaign tying up enemy troops which might otherwise have been making trouble elsewhere. Marder p.327 has a list of modest benefits taken from the 'official Military History'. I remain unclear as to what WC really thought about the plan for naval action without troops. Obviously, he supported it, but all I have read suggests he would have been happier if there were troops along. However, there were military grounds for some action against the Turks, and Kitchener made it plain there would be no troops. So, logically,.... I don't believe WC failed to listen to the advice of his admirals (ref James again). He just disagreed with it. I don't think he disagreed with Fishers advice at all re how the campaign should be conducted, only on how it could be conducted. He might have made a bad decision and paid the price, but equally he might have made a reasoned good decision to proceed despite all the unfavourable circumstances which have been pointed out since, considering the potential advantages. Sandpiper (talk) 22:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As the person who started this entry I'd better deal with the comments.
Firstly as to the troops, it was Churchill who told cabinet they were not needed. At that time Kitchener was prepared to send them (and the ANZAC were still training but would have been available)
Secondly as to old battleships quite so but it misses the point which (according to Liddel Hart and Admiral Keys) was that if there had been properly equipped minesweepers (instead of fishing smacks )the mines would have been detected and the minefield cleared.
Thirdly as what one could expect from London as being different to waht was on the ground, this is a lack of analysis and as Churchill was responsible for pushing the plan through Cabinet its his job to have the briefing papers ready (and he had done this before - his briefings on other topics had been very good- see my earlier reference to his belief (which is supported in Roy Jenkins biography of Asquith) that a main reason that Churchill was promoted so early was because he had done his homework the cabinet was fully informed and Churchill had all the answers to possible criticisms of his department ready. He should have had what the army calls an 'appreciation' prepared that covered all the issues. He didnt. Its true the cabinet was very divided and its true that Churchill didnt have the full confidence of the cabinet (Lloyd George among others thought of Churchill as an adventurer) but that should have only got Churchill to prepare his position more carefully.
IT was a great idea, if it had worked the war might have been over much more quickly, but it didnt work and the reasons are (According to Liddel Hart) poor planning , not enough resources when they were needed. IF the whole thing had been a co ordinated plan from the beginning Gallipoli would have been a great success. But do we concerntrate on this too much , perhaps we need also to show what people at the time thought. That's what James is writing about- his book tries to show why Churchill didnt succeed in the 20s and 30s and he says a major reason was distrust and a major reason for that distrust was Gallipolli.Backnumber1662 (talk) 06:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't doubt Churchill got a very bad press and lots of blame for Gallipoli. The issue is whether it was deserved. My own reading of Jenkins on Churchill is that contrary to what you say, although troops were available (the ones which eventually went) Kitchener was the person who said they were not, and he remained unchallenged by anyone on army issues. Churchills initial proposals called for troops, he only submitted a plan to it without troops once told none were going to be forthcoming. Yes, the minesweepers were wholly inadequate, but at this point early on in the war it may not have been obvious to the navy that this would be the case. They had been used successfully in home waters. Now, people in the admiralty ought to have been able to see why they might have problems in the dardanelles (the current, the guns), but frankly hardly anyone there seemed to talk to each other. Cooperation at this point was a joke inside the department: few senior officers believed in taking advice. Sandpiper (talk) 13:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ James op cit p 97-99

Bot report : Found duplicate references ![edit]

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "centre-710" :
    • {{cite web | url = http://politics.guardian.co.uk/election/story/0,15803,1453251,00.html | title = Labour defector asks to return | accessdate = 2007-07-13 | last = | first = | year = 2005 | format = | work = | publisher = Guardian Unlimited }}
    • {{cite web |url = http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=710 |title = All the Elections Churchill Ever Contested |accessdate = 2007-02-26 |last = Hall |first = Douglas J. |year = 1950 |format = HTML |work = Churchill and... Politics |publisher = The Churchill Centre}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 12:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I renamed the second ref. However, it really wants replacing with a biographical ref to Churchills statement about re-ratting rather than a contemporary politics one which just mentions it in passing. Sandpiper (talk) 08:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Early development of the tank[edit]

I'm afraid this section contains a number of small inaccuracies. Churchill funded the Landships Committee out of the Navy Budget, not "research funds." He didn't "head" the Committee, but formed it; its Chairman was Eustace d'Eyncourt, and it reported to Churchill, but he was not a member. The Committee was formed before any demonstrations to Lloyd George or anyone else. The Committee developed the (arguably) first tank, not the first tank corps. The tank was not seen as as misappropriation of funds. Its development was kept secret for some time, in case it be thought a waste of money, but it was given official support at the highest level from February 1916. The cited website is highly inaccurate, and, in my view, not a suitable source. Hengistmate (talk) 11:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Luton Peace Riots[edit]

(Mentioned in section War and Air Secretary) The riots at the Peace celebrations at Luton Town Hall in 1919 were not the doing of serving soldiers - as this article seems to imply - but discharged soldiers and civilians disenchanted at unemployment and also (according to a documentary presented by Ian Hislop I recall) the fact that the town hall dinner did not include veterans.Cloptonson (talk) 20:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing this unchallenged I have changed 'Soldiers' to 'Ex-servicemen' as this is the consensus among Wikipedia articles about Luton, History of Luton and Luton Town Hall, and have added a citation lifted from the latter article.Cloptonson (talk) 22:31, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Winston Churchill in politics: 1900–39. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:31, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 28 August 2017[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: boldly moved - non-contested technical request DrStrauss talk 16:02, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Winston Churchill in politics: 1900–39 → Winston Churchill in politics, 1900–1939 – WP:COMMADIS and WP:DATERANGE. --Nevé–selbert 18:58, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Wrong Cassell[edit]

Churchill had brought a successful libel action against Lord Alfred Douglas who had accused Churchill of giving a deliberately false account of the Battle of Jutland at the request of Sir Ernest Cassel. During the trial it emerged that Cassell, whose company remained Churchill's publisher, had paid for some of the furnishings of Churchill's London residence.

Cassell & Co is a British book publishing house, founded by John Cassell, not Sir Ernest Cassel. Valetude (talk) 19:49, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, well spotted. I checked in Roy Jenkins's Churchill, which is used as the ref, it does not support the claim about Cassel being his publisher. I have removed the false claim, and corrected the date, and added the detail that Lord Alfred was sentenced to 6 months. It is deeply concerning that someone should have introduced such a falsehood into the article. DuncanHill (talk) 21:12, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rather appallingly, the error has been in the article since 2008! The editor who introduced it is no longer active. DuncanHill (talk) 21:19, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The statement was originally referenced to David Cannadine's The Aristocratic Adventurer, not to Jenkins. DuncanHill (talk) 21:32, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Damascus 1912[edit]

The photo is captioned "Churchill in Damascus in 1912". Are we absolutely sure of this? What was he doing there when he was First Lord of the Admiralty and it was still part of the Ottoman Empire? I think he did visit the region when he was Colonial Secretary in 1921-2, so maybe it's misdated?Paulturtle (talk) 18:56, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the photo. I don't think he was in Damascus in 1912, it's not mentioned by Randolph in Volume 2 of the multi-volume biography, nor is it mentioned by Gilbert in A Life. It also doesn't look like Damascus, and the other chaps don't look like Arabs or Ottomans. I'd say he looks too young for it to be post-War. DuncanHill (talk) 06:25, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Black and Tans[edit]

The article presently states, under 'War and Air Secretary':- 'Churchill was responsible for establishing both the Auxiliary Division and the Black and Tans during the Irish War of Independence.' This is unsourced (the source note only covers the final quotation in the paragraph) and appears to be counter-factual. The Black and Tans article itself certainly doesn't support it. The RIC did not report to Churchill as Secretary of State for War. They reported to their own Inspector-General, to the Lord Lieutenant (French) and to the Chief Secretary for Ireland and hence the Cabinet. RIC recruitment does not seem to have been in Churchill's remit. Khamba Tendal (talk) 14:45, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Citation style[edit]

Citations in this article are formatted in various ways that will confuse readers. One of the styles is the deprecated rp. Given the inconsistency, I think it is debatable if WP:CITEVAR can apply here but I will in any case propose a way forward to try and gain consensus.

I propose implementation of sfn, aligned with harv, for major book sources and full utilisation of cite web, cite news, etc. for online sources. This would align the article with the styles used in its parent and sister articles. Would anyone seriously object if I do that? If there is no response to this request by next Sunday 28th, I will assume consensus and make a start. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:07, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is rp deprecated? As both a reader and an editor I find sfn/harv unhelpful at best, prone to error, and very prone to decay as the article changes over time. DuncanHill (talk) 17:41, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Rp is not recommended "unless necessary": see Template:Rp#Notice. I see what you mean about sfn/harv because I'm always fixing errors where it isn't linking to the bibliography. It's fine if done right but that depends on the editor and, as you say, tends not to be the case. No Great Shaker (talk) 18:44, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Winston_Churchill_in_politics,_1900–1939&oldid=1206693807"