Slashdot Mirror

>> What would Churchill say about this turn of events.

> Winston did have this to say about what his country finds itself up against

I prefer to think that he would deliver a speech more like this:

https://www.winstonchurchill.o...

Skip through to the last para at the bottom, it's quite a long speech being a report back to the House of Commons. The final line includes the phrase "New World" - that's the US and thankfully they did pile on in because we were pretty close to fucked. It is a speech that virtually any Brit would recognise.

The stuff quoted by the Federalist is a bit disingenuous: channelling someone who many in the New World (hah) also regard as a great leader and fixating on some of his ideas that no longer resonate with the vast majority of people who regard liberty and freedom of speech amongst other inalienable rights as paramount to an ordered and civilized society.

""If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain." There is no record of anyone hearing Churchill say this. Paul Addison of Edinburgh University makes this comment: "Surely Churchill can't have used the words attributed to him. He'd been a Conservative at 15 and a Liberal at 35! And would he have talked so disrespectfully of Clemmie, who is generally thought to have been a lifelong Liberal?""
From www.winstonchurchill.org

Seems apropos.

The Munich Agreement
October 5, 1938. House of Commons

...

I do not grudge our loyal, brave people, who were ready to do their duty no matter what the cost, who never flinched under the strain of last week - I do not grudge them the natural, spontaneous outburst of joy and relief when they learned that the hard ordeal would no longer be required of them at the moment; but they should know the truth. They should know that there has been gross neglect and deficiency in our defences; they should know that we have sustained a defeat without a war, the consequences of which will travel far with us along our road; they should know that we have passed an awful milestone in our history, when the whole equilibrium of Europe has been deranged, and that the terrible words have for the time being been pronounced against the Western democracies:

"Thou art weighed in the balance and found wanting."

And do not suppose that this is the end. This is only the beginning of the reckoning. This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigour, we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time.

You can Google for "Churchill Coventry dilemma" but make sure you read the sober articles, not the conspiracy theories. As it happens, when I just Googled the top five links all deny that Coventry was deliberately sacrificed.

For a short trustworthy account of Ultra I suggest "Top Secret Ultra" by Peter Calvocoressi.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coventry_Blitz
... while Churchill was indeed aware that a major bombing raid would take place, no one knew what the target would be.

Peter Calvocoressi was head of the Air Section at Bletchley Park, which translated and analysed all deciphered Luftwaffe messages. He wrote "Ultra never mentioned Coventry... Churchill, so far from pondering whether to save Coventry or safeguard Ultra, was under the impression that the raid was to be on London."

Scientist R. V. Jones, who led the British side in the Battle of the Beams, wrote that "Enigma signals to the X-beam stations were not broken in time," and that he was unaware that Coventry was the intended target. Furthermore, a technical mistake caused jamming countermeasures to be ineffective. Jones also noted that Churchill returned to London that afternoon, which indicated that Churchill believed that London was the likely target for the raid.

http://www.winstonchurchill.org/learn/myths/myths/he-let-coventry-burn
... What did Churchill know and when did he know it? The most succinct summary came from one of Churchill's private secretaries, John Colville, in his book, The Churchillians (London, 1981), page 62: ''All concerned with the information gleaned from the intercepted German signals were conscious that German suspicions must not be aroused for the sake of ephemeral advantages. In the case of the Coventry raid no dilemma arose, for until the German directional beam was turned on the doomed city nobody knew where the great raid would be. Certainly the Prime Minister did not. The German signals referred to a major operation with the code name "Moonlight Sonata." The usual "Boniface" secrecy in the Private Office had been lifted on this occasion and during the afternoon before the raid I wrote in my diary (kept under lock and key at 10 Downing Street), "It is obviously some major air operation, but its exact destination the Air Ministry find it difficult to determine." ''

In the empire of lies, truth is treason. -Ron Paul

Interesting counterpoint to that of celebrated statesman, Sir Winston Churchill, who recognized the importance of secrecy in wartime, and the value of deceiving the enemy..

"In war-time, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies." -- Winston Churchill

“No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.” -- Winston Churchill, Europe Unite

Having broken the Prime Directive of /. by RTFAing, I wonder why they're surprised that astronaut's "goody stash" become a source of "trade goods" towards the end of a mission.
People in an isolated environment, with restricted access to status goods use a lower status material of restricted availability as a proxy for other items of value. Look in any prison at the trade in "contraband" tobacco. Look also at the submariner's tale (up-thread, look for a typo of "submarien", IIRC) of tobacco rations being treated similarly. Look back to the rationing in the war (any war), and what a GI could get for a pair of nylons. Come out to an oil rig with my colleagues and I for a couple of weeks and notice how the "can of coke and a Mars bar" becomes a local variant of a gold standard.
To be honest, I'd suspect that the mission planners DELIBERATELY included the sweeties etc. - in a "stashable" form - so that people would develop this sort of economy. It then naturally provides a (seemingly) self-developed social lubricant to minor awkward moments. Good psychology.
That's probably why the submariners had a "smokes" ration too. This isn't exactly a novel situation.
Which would you prefer - chocolates, smokes, or a good dose of Rum, Sodomy and The Lash (allegedly Winston Churchill's list of the traditions of the Royal Navy).

Actually, Churchill never said this.

It's kind of disturbing that no one else here seems to have looked it up.

It's not a deep nugget of wisdom. It was a clever insult. Best not to read too deeply into it.

But then, those who are using it are probably not the best judges of brains anyway:

http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=112

"Conservative by the time you're 35"

"If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain." There is no record of anyone hearing Churchill say this. Paul Addison of Edinburgh University makes this comment: "Surely Churchill can't have used the words attributed to him. He'd been a Conservative at 15 and a Liberal at 35! And would he have talked so disrespectfully of Clemmie, who is generally thought to have been a lifelong Liberal?"

"Conservative by the time you're 35" "If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain." There is no record of anyone hearing Churchill say this. Paul Addison of Edinburgh University makes this comment: "Surely Churchill can't have used the words attributed to him. He'd been a Conservative at 15 and a Liberal at 35! And would he have talked so disrespectfully of Clemmie, who is generally thought to have been a lifelong Liberal?" http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=112

A young person who isn't a liberal has no heart. An old person who is has no brain.

In this solemn hour it is a consolation to recall and to dwell upon our repeated efforts for peace. All have been ill-starred, but all have been faithful and sincere. This is of the highest moral value--and not only moral value, but practical value--at the present time, because the wholehearted concurrence of scores of millions of men and women, whose co-operation is indispensable and whose comradeship and brotherhood are indispensable, is the only foundation upon which the trial and tribulation of modern war can be endured and surmounted. This moral conviction alone affords that ever-fresh resilience which renews the strength and energy of people in long, doubtful and dark days. Outside, the storms of war may blow and the lands may be lashed with the fury of its gales, but in our own hearts this Sunday morning there is peace. Our hands may be active, but our consciences are at rest.

The short of it is : in the long hard days of war, you need to know you exausted *every* opportunity for peace.

From Churchill speeches.

If a man is not a socialist by the time he is 20, he has no heart.
If he is not a conservative by the time he is 40, he has no brain.
- falsely attributed to Winston Churchill

What the good doctor is missing is that you are the whole picture. Everything that happened in your life, good and bad has lead you to where you are today. To deny/forget the bad would make you less of a human. I am still that 11 year old kid who played D&D and cried when that jerk of a DM killed my 35th level mage that I cheated to make. I'm still the guy who in high school managed to seduce the hottest girl in school. I'm still the guy who took 4 grams of mushrooms on a road trip from Austin to New Orleans to make the time pass (though I wasn't driving). I'm still the guy who was on the Longhorns SouthWest Conference championship Lacrosse team. I'm still the guy who failed out of college 3 years later. I'm still the Sp.ED teacher who worked for 7 years teaching autistics before realizing I could live up to my family obligations on a Sp.Ed teachers salary. I'm still the guy who defaulted on some significant debts in my 20s. I'm still the jerk who told that girl I loved her only so I could sleep with her...

I'm still the good husband and mighty developer I am today. But all because of all that stuff in the past.

I completely understand what was IMPLIED by the article, but I that that is an issue of privacy, not of computing. And to imply that people should forget about their past (or others) doesn't seem like a good idea. I am about as anti-religion as you can get, but I recognize the powerful words "...and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us."

Military censorship of all troops' correspondence is not exactly new.

s/Leopard/Leopold/

http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cf m?pageid=393

If you want to go into the cold war, you really should know that it might never have happened if the USA had not REFUSED to negotiate with the USSR.

One of the main goals of Wiston Churchill's second tenure (1951-1955) was to bring about peacefull negotiations between the USA and USSR. He managed to get the USSR to agree to negotiations, but the USA (President Eisenhower) refused.

The source for this was a TV documentary on the BBC.
The only reference brought up by Google is this:

http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cf m?pageid=711

After Stalin's death in March of that year, the new Soviet regime appeared to Churchill to be signaling, in various ways - for example, in the Austrian treaty negotiations - a new readiness to reduce tensions. He believed there was a least a glimmer of light, a possibility of progress. He told President Eisenhower in a letter: "A new hope has been created in the unhappy, bewildered world." And he suggested that the West make a new approach to Moscow. He wrote in a top secret message; "If we fail to . . . seize this moment's precious chances, the judgement of future ages would be harsh and just."

The moment, unfortunately, remained unseized. John Foster Dulles and some in his own Foreign Office accused Winston Churchill of starting down the road of appeasement. As the recently published diary of his private secretary, Sir John Colville, recounts, it was one of the bitter moments of Churchill's life when Eisenhower rejected the policy of negotiation.

The issue is not whether the policy surely would have worked; many of his friends conceded that at that time it might very well have failed. But Winston Churchill was steadfast in believing that it should be tried. As he said in 1955, in one of his last, great speeches to Parliament, "I have hoped for a long time for a top-level conference where these matters can be put plainly and bluntly" - and he was talking then specifically about the issue of nuclear weapons.

If it were true, It would show how unfit Churchill was to be PM. There are always other ways than letting innocents die. Fortunately I find it incomprehensible and so do many others.

Certainly Churchill thought that the raid was going to be over London. As he was preparing to leave Downing Street for Enstone in Oxfordshire he was handed a report from the Air Ministry which he took with him to read in the car. He did not get very far. On reading the document he ordered his driver to turn around and go back to Downing Street, explaining to his aide that the Air Ministry expected a major German raid on the capital that night. (Sir John Martin letter to The Times 28 Aug.76; Longmate, AIR RAID pages 57-58). After sending his staff away to a shelter, and accompanied by General Sir Hastings Ismay, Churchill went to the Air Ministry roof and there waited for the bombers which never came.

Proof enough that no one left the city to burn for reasons of high strategy is the fact that on the afternoon before the raid Bomber Command attacked 27 enemy airfields and even Berlin. The unfortunate fact is that the raid was expected over London, not Coventry. Even so, 119 aircraft were launched to protect the city once the bombers were seen to be heading for it. Coventry, as the historian Ronald Lewin has written, is a twice-crucified city: once by the bombers and then by those writers who, despite the evidence to the contrary, spread the lie that the city was martyred to protect "Ultra."

From http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cf m?pageid=690 admittedly biased source.

A common myth surrounding the bombing is that Coventry was deliberately sacrificed in order to prevent the Germans knowing that Enigma cipher machine messages were being read by British codebreakers. This has been proven untrue -- Winston Churchill was aware that a heavy raid was to take place, but it was not known where, and was expected to be in London.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Coventry#2 0th_CenturyMuch less Biased.

What hatred?!

Everything I have written about you can find everywhere if you cared. Even those who stand up for Churchill don't deny his faults "Much has been made of the implicit hypocrisy of Churchill in declaring such sweeping rights of self-determination which in no way affected his attitude toward the British Empire. This criticism is certainly valid..." http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cf m?pageid=281 "

Read his book "The River War - An Account of the Reconquest of the Sudan (1902)" in which he admires the efficiency of a European power at wiping out the "barbarians" and "savages" that dared resist it and defend themselves "Thus ended the battle of Omdurman--the most signal triumph ever gained by the arms of science over barbarians. Within the space of five hours the strongest and best-armed savage army yet arrayed against a modern European Power had been destroyed and dispersed, with hardly any difficulty, comparatively small risk, and insignificant loss to the victors." http://www.nalanda.nitc.ac.in/resources/english/et ext-project/history/riverwar/leftframe.html

If you find "hatred" in what I said, it is Churchill you hate!

The Nazis and Soviets had their faults, no doubt, but Churchill's "evil empire" rhetoric was bullshit! Hitler was no less "evil" than Churchill was, by any means. In fact, man for man and cause for cause, Hitler is far more respectable than that patrician pig.

This came up on Groklaw a little while back and I took the trouble to check up. The speech was made in the House of Commons (and not broadcast, of course). Extracts were read on the radio news that evening but not by Churchill, who did not record the speech during the war, either. So despite being embedded in the group consciousness, fewer than a few hundred people actually heard Churchill use those words during 1940. The 'beer bottles' meme has no authority that I can trace, and I label it apocryphal. The Groklaw thread is here.

The funny thing is Churchill never gave the speech, a stand-in did

See the full story

Not really an unbiased source, but it explains the source of the myth and gives its version of the events.

"I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. We have definitely adopted the position at the Peace Conference of arguing in favour of the retention of gas as a permanent method of warfare. It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas.

"I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes. The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses: gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected."

That quote always gets attributed to Churchill, but Churchill never said it. In fact, he went the other direction.

While this quote has been frequently attributed to Churchill, I haven't been able to find any evidence that he actually said it.

http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cf m?pageid=112

The ideas in that thought of the moment are entirely unoriginal; they are simply a rehash of the basic tenets of communism.

While I am too young to view communism with the sort of venom incited by Western Cold War propaganda, I can see why it was doomed to failure. Basically, communism asks us to subvert human nature on a grand scale. Don't be greedy. Don't be selfish. Hey, evolution invested billions of years making us greedy and selfish!

The real weakness of communism is that is requires a powerful ruling class to ensure that everybody else does what they're meant to do. Of course, this class becomes highly corrupted and we end up with an ugly totalitarian regime. History will back me up on this one.

Dammit, I used to be borderline communist once, but the more I thought about it, the more obvious the fatal and irrepairable deficiencies of the system.

"If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain"

Chamberlain's late-30s policy of appeasement remains controversial. It has been interpreted variously as a policy born of moral cowardice or as one founded on a realistic assessment of Britain's military strength (for example, the RAF only began re-equipping with modern monoplane fighters - the Spitfire and Hurricane - in 1938).

Chamberlain resigned as Prime Minister in May 1940, but remained a member of Churchill's war cabinet. He resigned on ill-health grounds in October 1940 and died the following month. Churchill's speech in the House of Commons on November 12, 1940, is a very generous assessment of Chamberlain's role in the build-up to war.

http://www.winstonchurchill.org/quotes.htm#put

No. JFK called himself a Jelly Donut.

A "Berliner" is a person from Berlin, while "ein Berliner" is a goop-filled pastry. Kennedy mixed it up.

Churchill said "We are all worms, but I believe I am a glowworm."

Harry S. Truman said "Never kick a fresh turd on a hot day."

I'll make sure not to kick you.

Actually, that's a paraphrase of a famous Winston Churchill quote (uttered after he was criticized for ending a sentence with a preposition). For details, check this.

Yes, RMS is a fanatic. Also Mahatma Gandhi and Winston Churchill.

When Hitler invaded Austria and Czechoslovakia, the Prime Minister of Great Britain (Neville Chamberlain) tried to be "rational" and to avoid a new World War. So he sat down to negotiate with Hitler. He succeded to keep the peace. Hitler would rule Austria and Checoslovaquia.

Churchill was very critic about that. He always said that the Nazis were dangerous and that Hitler and the Nazis should be stop as soon as possible.

When Hitler invaded Poland it was clear he was right.

Only fanatics can lead a revolution. If RMS was rational, the Free Software movement would be lost.

I know that also Lenin, Adolf Hitler and Mao Tse-tung were fanatics. But is our responsibility to decide what is the wise solution. To follow a fanatic or to surrender to the current situation.

I follow RMS