William Tyler
Churchill: The Interwar Years 1922-1939

​​William Tyler | Churchill The Interwar Years 1922-1939 | 07.06.21

- So morning everybody. Good afternoon. Good evening. William, thanks so much. I’m looking forward to hearing about Churchill and the interim years, and I’ve just got a text from Judy. Right? Okay, we are having two talks today, so we should start. All right, so over to you and thank you.

• Thank you Wendy. And again, good morning, good afternoon, good evening, whatever it is where you are. You’re more than welcome.

• Thank you.

• And today we’re looking at Churchill’s interwar years as Wendy said, and the dates are 1922 to 1939. The bookends to the period is, it begins with Churchill in office as the Liberal Party Secretary of State for the colonies. And it ends with Churchill back in office as the conservative First Lord to the Admiralty. The same job that he’d had at the beginning of the before and during the beginning part of the First World War. The first seven years of this period, 1922 to 39. That is to say 1922 to 1929. The ‘20s are a rollercoaster for Churchill. Where he is, well, I find this quite difficult to write when I was writing it. If he isn’t a typical politician, he’s at least a recognisable politician because he has as much failure as he has success. The '20s are not Churchill’s greatest hour by any means.

From 1929 to 1939, however, he is out of office. He’s merely a backbench member of parliament and he called the '30s himself, my wilderness years. He also called them the locust years. Which was a quotation used by another conservative politician, an man called to Thomas Inskip. And Inskip was quoting the book of Joel, the years that the locust had eaten. And Churchill used the phrase, the locust years to say the missed opportunities for Britain to re-arm the missed opportunities that face up to Hitler, for example, with the invasion of the Rurh and so on. He thinks it was not just a missed opportunity for him, his wilderness years. But a missed opportunity for Britain as a whole, the locust years.

It is of course in the 1930s that Hitler and the Nazis come to power and we usually quote the date 1933, but it was in fact the electoral result in the German general election in 1930 that alerted people like Churchill to the threat of Hitler, and I will come to that. So Churchill was warning about Hitler three years before Hitler came to power. He was warning about it in 1930 and his warnings were being taken seriously by the German foreign office. But I’ll come to that. So I want to start then by returning to the year 1922. In fact, I want to return to the year 1921. Churchill had become Secretary of State for the colonies.

As such, he was, well, an important figure, at least in the Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1922. Which established the Irish free state and also established Northern Ireland as part of Britain separately. It’s the beginning of Ireland becoming entirely an independent country, which of course it did in the '30s. But the Anglo Irish treaty, although it finished the war between Britain and the Republicans in Ireland actually began another war, a civil war in Ireland between the Irish free state government and the Republicans.

That’s another story, but Churchill was caught up in that. Churchill was also concerned, of course with the post-war settlement of the Ottoman Empire in the Middle East. As a result of the Cairo conference held in March 1921, the modern Middle East, the map of the modern Middle East was drawn. That map has been heavily criticised for many angles since and has been the cause of a great deal of concern, trouble and angst in the years following 1921. There is a book called “Winston’s Folley,” by Christopher Catherwood. Which really concentrates on the, what he thinks is the madness of the creation of Iraq out of two former Ottoman Vilayets and two ottoman provinces, which didn’t go together. Sunni and Shia.

That book is on my blog of book list, which you can get onto and have a look. It’s called “Winston’s Folley.” For those who would like to follow through on that. I’m not going to talk about the other issue either, which is the issue of Palestine, of course in the 1921 settlement. And I’m not going to talk about it even though I said I would because I’ve talked to Trudy since, and Trudy is giving another lecture this week on Churchill and the Jews, and she, well obviously will cover that, and it seemed really rather senseless for us both to cover it. And she’s the real expert on Palestine anyhow, so I will be really treading on her toes. So if you want to know about that, tune into Trudy and she will tell you, and she will be prepared to enter into discussions and negotiation and all sorts of things with you.

Now, what I would say though on Pasant is that many promises were made by many different people at the Cairo Conference. Many of those promises were broken. Many borders were established in the way that the British had established borders around the world with a ruler and a red pencil drawing lines. And we even created Iraq as the outstanding example. We even created artificial countries. The question of the Jewish homeland was of course, even then a matter of huge differences of opinion. And it was kicked into the long grass. Although to be fair, both Churchill and his advisor, Lawrence, T. Lawrence. Believed that it would be resolved by sensible negotiation within a few years, they were of course quite wrong.

If you want to look also at this period, you can look at the book by Sir Martin Gilbert, “Churchill and the Jews,” again on my blog. I’m sure you all know that Martin Gilbert is the doyenne or was the doyenne and still is the doyenne following after his death of Churchill studies. He’s also, of course, as I’m sure everybody knows is himself Jewish. And I’m a huge admirer of Martin Gilbert. He’s a very great historian. So his book “Churchill and the Jews,” chapter five is the chapter that you need to read on this particular issue of the Cairo Conference and the carve up of the Middle East.

Martin Gilbert in that book writes this at the end of that chapter, and perhaps it’s worth sharing. “While in Cairo” at conference, “Churchill explained that the presence of an Arab ruler under British overall control east of the Jordan.” That’s the king of Jordan. “Would enable Britain to prevent anti-Zionist agitation from the Arab side of the river. Lawrence shared this view, stressing that pressure could be brought on the proposed ruler in Aman Emir Abdullah.” Later King Abdullah. “To check anti-Zionism. Lawrence also trusted his work that after four or five years under the influence of just policy, Arab opposition to Zionism would’ve decreased if it had not entirely disappeared.”

And finally, Martin Gilbert writes, “The presence of Lawrence of Arabia was an municipal benefit to Churchill in his desire to help the Jews of Palestine. Lawrence, like Churchill saw virtue in the Zionist enterprise. His friendship with the Arab leaders with whom he had fought during the Arab revolt was paralleled by his understanding of Zionist’s aspirations and his keenness to see the Zionist help the Arabs forward in Palestine and elsewhere in the Middle East to modernity and prosperity. Two years earlier, Lawrence had brought Weisman to a conference with Emir Faisal held at the Port of Acaba. Lawrence’s hope for this meeting was to ensure what Lawrence called the lines of Arab and Zionists policy, policy converging in the not distant future. On the first anniversary of the Balfour declaration in November in 1918, Lawrence had told a British Jewish newspaper speaking entirely as a non-Jew. I look on the Jews as the natural importers of western leaven.” Leaven as in bread, “leaven so necessary for countries of the near East.”

Well, Churchill and the Lawrence’s optimism prove to be misplaced. They’re vastly over optimistic and we still face the same problems as they faced then, but with decades, decades between them and us making the situation worse. Now, I’m not going to say anymore because Trudy is going to say it. And either I shall say something which she disagrees with and you think she’s mad or I’m mad, although we usually agree and she is the expert. So I won’t answer any questions. I ask you to put those questions for her when she talked about it. And I’m sure you’ll get a much better answer than her, than you ever would from me.

In 1922, the coalition government in Britain, which had seen us through the last phase of the war, disintegrated. It disintegrated because the Conservative Party, which was the majority party in the House of Commons, had got fed up with the Liberal Prime Minister Lloyd George. And Churchill at this point is still a liberal member of Parliament and a liberal cabinet minister. And they sought to break the coalition because then they could have a majority conservative government. And that’s what they did. They broke the National Coalition of the War and established a Conservative Government for those of you who are British or take an interest in British affairs, the Conservative Parties Committee of Back Bench MPs which meets today on a regular basis and influences the government of the cabinet is the 1922 Committee.

Then it’s called 1922 Committee because of this break in 1922 when the Tory back benchers said, we’ve had enough of this national government, we have our own government. Well, in the end, all sorts of things happen. Bonar Law becomes a conservative prime minister, but he dies and we get Baldwin. And there’s also the rise of the Labour Party. So we’ve got all sorts of odd things going on at this time. There’s a general election held in 1923, and in that general election, Baldwin leads the conservatives, Asquith leads the Liberals. Lloyd George leads his own family, as one historian has written, he lost all his support.

The Tories are led by Baldwin, the liberals are led by Asquith and Labour is led by Ramsey MacDonald, the general election of 1923. Churchill stood as a liberal in his own constituency of Dundee and he was beaten. He was beaten at Dundee largely because he was unable to be there for more than a few days because he’d had his appendix out and having your appendix out in 1923 is not like having it out in 2021. It was a serious operation. After he lost the seat, typically Churchill, he quit. “I left Dundee without an office, without a seat, without a party, and without an appendix.” he said.

The conservatives had the most seats, 258. Labour had the second, 191 and Liberal had the third, 158. It’s the end of the liberal party of the 19th century. It’s gone at this general election. But the liberal leader Asquith and the conservative leader Baldwin conceded that maybe Ramsey McDonald should be asked as the labour leader to form a cabinet. He did, but within nine months, the labour government, the first labour government we’d ever had of 1924 failed. Ad the Tories are back in office. And this is a piece I want to read you now. “In November, 1924, the conservative party returned to power with a massive majority and Churchill.”

Churchill is strictly, Churchill had moved from the liberal party where he lost at Dundee had moved gradually to being an independent member of Parliament, but leaning now towards the conservatives. But when Baldwin becomes Prime Minister at the end of 1924, he invited Churchill to be the Chancellor of the Exchequer. “Churchill recorded in his memoirs that he was so astonished by the offer that I would oblige will a bloody duck swim. But it was a formal occasion, says Churchill. So I accepted graciously. I took out Lord Randolph’s robes, his father’s because his father had been Chancellor Exchequer. And he preserved them since the time his father had been chancellor in 1866 before he was born the family of kept them.

So Churchill has by accident almost switched from the liberal party back to the Tories which he’d left in 1904. But he still independent. Baldwin appointed it even though he wasn’t a full member of the party. Why did Churchill accept power? I told you before that he really isn’t a party animal, liberal conservative, you know, whatever. He likes power because he sees no point in being a back bench member of parliament. You have to have power, office in order to do things. But it’s an extraordinary appointment by Baldwin. Partly because he hopes that Churchill will bring other liberal voters in to vote for the conservatives to undermine Ashworth. And also because Baldwin although Churchill didn’t really like Baldwin. Baldwin recognised that Churchill had something about him.

And so Churchill comes back to office then in 1924. He’s remembered for one thing only as chancellor the Exchequer. He returned Britain to the pre-war gold standard. This was argued by the cabinet, by the opposition, by the civil servants in the treasury, by academics, by almost everybody except Churchill himself. Churchill gathered some leading economist like Keynes at a dinner party to try and argue that we should not return to the gold standard. But he couldn’t win the argument and we do disastrously return to the gold standard. A later chancellor Exchequer, a very able chancellor Exchequer in Britain, the Labour Chancellor Exchequer Roy Jenkins has said that Churchill was proved right.

I think Churchill was somewhat dividend about taking on the economic establishment. Churchill will remember had always got this not chip on his shoulder. but always got this sense of failure as being a non graduate. He knew he was out of his debt, but he’s sensible, he’s clever, he’s street wise. He read and he listened to people he trusted and the people he trusted said, you are right, we shouldn’t come off it. But in the end we did. He bowed to pressure. Roy Jenkins incidentally said the decision in the end was his politically and he should says Roy Jenkins, with hindsight have rejected it. I don’t think honestly that he could have done had he done, I think he’d have been thrown out of office and office is the one thing Churchill wants.

Well, one of the consequences of the return to the gold standard was deflation and more importantly to what is to come unemployment. And these were major catalysts in the minor strike which led on to the general strike of 1926. And thus we come to two issues in Churchill’s political career in the 1920s where you can say with evidence that he placed himself on the wrong side of history. First in the general strike of 1926. And then secondly, over the question of independence for India led by Mahatma Gandhi. On both those major issues, Churchill turned out to be on the wrong side of history.

I’ve said to you before that I don’t wish to be an apologist for the Churchill. I will try and explain why he did things because I don’t really care. All I care about is that Churchill was our Prime Minister in May, 1940. That’s what’s important, general strike then of 1926. Churchill saw the general strike in very black and white terms. He saw it partly as a threat of revolution. Remember they’re very conscious of the 1917 Russian revolution and remember Churchill’s Home Secretary day before the war. So anxious about the strikes in Liverpool and in South Wales and now he’s faced with a general strike.

He himself said in 1926, the year of the general strike, this is Churchill speaking. "It is a conflict, which if it is fought out to a conclusion. Can only end in the overthrow of parliamentary government or its decisive victory.” He saw it in those terms. Either we win and democracy survives. Or we lose and we lose democracy. Well, it wasn’t really quite like that in reality, but that’s how he and many, many people saw it. This is very much a class division here, a class division between the working class and the middle and upper classes.

But the working class was not militantly Marxist. The strike began with the miners on the 30th of April, 1926. And you can see why they went on strike because the coal owners were proposing a 13% cut in pay and return to an eight hour working day. Once they made that proposal, a million men were locked out the following day for not accepting it. The Trade Union Council then called a general strike, and said, we will take over negotiations with the government. Now the TUC is moderate, it is not Marxist, it’s much more nonconformist Christianity than it is Marxist.

Baldwin, the prime minister, met representatives of the Trade Union Congress and discovered that they like him were really frightened of a general strike in terms of where it might go. If it got into the hands of, well they would’ve thought of them as Bolsheviks. Baldwin was opposed by Churchill as coming to an agreement. Churchill said, no, we’ve got to face this down. And Churchill is at his worst at this point. He becomes terribly gung-ho and he decides to take over the, well he takes over the newspaper business. The media if you like. The print workers had joined the strike. Churchill set up his own newspaper. The “British Gazette,” Churchill had been a journalist. This is another opportunity for Churchill to be a little boy in a sweet shop editing the “British Gazette.” A government propaganda organ.

Citrine remarked it is a poisonous attempt to bias the public mood. The TUC set up a rival paper, the “British Worker,” but Churchill produced far more copies of the “British Gazette,” because he had requisitioned all the newsprint stock held by three of the major English British newspapers, “The Times,” “The Daily Mail,” and “The Daily Telegraph,” so he could print more than they could print. After nine days, the Trade Union Council called off the general strike. They had gained nothing, the miners struggled on until November of that year. They went back to work on less pay and longer hours.

The government introduced the Trade Disputes Act, which said, that it banned sympathy strikes, and it banned mass picketing. But in those few months we were on the cusp of what could have been very nasty indeed. Students from Oxford in Cambridge ran the buses in London. And when the miners threatened to go on strike later in the interwar period, lady Astor, the first conservative woman MP said, “What do these earth worms want now?” We were a very divided society in Britain in the interwar years. The old deference of the Edwardian age pre-1914 had gone A new age of more equality is not to come until after the second World War. Not really until the 1960s.

This is still a very stratified society, and Churchill’s actions could have led to even worse stratification than was happening. We were saved not by Churchill, not by Baldwin, but I think by the common sense of the Trade Union Congress, the TUC. It was a moment not on the plus side in my opinion, of Churchill’s career. So the next issue is India. The Indians had been for some while now campaigning for independence. Led by this charismatic figure Mahatma Gandhi.

Now Churchill have actually met Gandhi before the first war in 1906 when he was Under Secretary of State for the colonies. He met him when he was in South Africa because Gandhi had gone to South Africa as a lawyer, British trained lawyer to represent the Indians who were working in South Africa. Incidentally, Gandhi was very racist against black Africans at that time. Nothing is ever straightforward in history and to try and put our present views on the past is always dangerous. But Churchill met Gandhi.

Now whether he ever remembered meeting Gandhi in the '30s I don’t know, in the '30s Churchill is out of office. And Gandhi is becoming really both important and a thorn in the side of the British. The British don’t really know how to deal with him. The smart western suit that he wore in 1906, has been replaced by the dress that we most famously remember him for. He led the Salt March in India, which again the British authorities did not know how to deal with. Churchill said this of Gandhi, he said this in 1931, in a speech in the Royal Albert Hall in London, Churchill said, “I’m against this surrender to Gandhi,” and it wasn’t a surrender, it was a negotiation. Churchill calls it a surrender. “I’m against these conversations and agreements between Lord Irving” who was the Viceroy “and Mr. Gandhi. Gandhi stands for the permanent exclusion of British trade from India.”

Oh, there we have it, there we have it. The British Empire is based on money on profit, and here is Churchill saying precisely that, “Gandhi stands for the permanent exclusion of British trade from India. Gandhi stands for the substitution of blaming domination for British rule in India. You’ll never be able to come to terms with Gandhi.” He is desperately opposed, he’s opposed because he’s an old imperialist. He’s opposed because he believes this threatens Britain’s economy. Interestingly, he doesn’t mention that we’re threatened by the loss of the Indian army. which of course happens in after 1945 or after independence in 1947. There are many references which are decidedly racist by Churchill about Gandhi. This is Churchill at his worst.

Well, Leo Amery says he heard Churchill once refer to Indians as a beastly people with beastly religion. Is it all negative? Well you see the problem with history when it becomes political as indeed it is both in America and Britain in terms of our education system of what you can, what you can’t, what you should, what you shouldn’t teach, then it, becomes less, what shall I say, nuanced. Let me read you what Churchill wrote in Volume One of his History of the Second World War about this issue of India.

This is Churchill, and he’s writing about this in the, he’s writing looking back to the '30s you understand. “As the British authority passes for a time inter collapse, the old hatred between the Muslims and the Hindus revive and acquire new life and malignancy. We cannot easily conceive what these hatreds are. There are in India, mobs of neighbours, people who grow together in the closest public quinity of all their lives. Who when held and dominated by these passions will tear each other to pieces, men, women and children with their fingers. Not for a hundred years have the relations between Muslims and Hindus been so poisoned as they have since England was deemed to be losing her grip and was believed to be ready to quit the scene if told to go.”

Well of course there was no way Britain could ever stay and had it not been from the Second World War, almost certainly we would’ve gone by the end of the '30s. As it is we went in 1947 as quickly as we could in fact too quickly because the partition of India led to exactly what Churchill said. We don’t know how many millions of people died. Sikhs, Muslims, Hindus killed by each other. As the British, well what Churchill said, we basically washed our hands of India. Our withdrawal from India is a most dreadful, dreadful story of the British empire.

Could it have been done better. Well, I don’t think it could have been done worse. Let’s put it like that. And was Churchill right? Yes, he was right about looking into the future of what might happen. But he wasn’t prepared to be positive in the '30s of how he, wouldn’t accept the British rule was coming to an end. And British rule. There were so few Britain ever in India. And once India had decided that it wanted independence, there was no way on earth that Britain could have held India. We were there only as long as the Indians accepted us being there. Once they did not, there was no way other than independence.

Well that’s another story for another day, but I see Churchill as being on the wrong side of history, both with the general strike and with India. I understand where he was coming from, born in 1874. I understand his fear of Bolshevism. I understand his fear of the loss of imperial status. I understand all of that, but don’t forget, I’m not looking with hindsight, many, many people took an opposite view to Churchill both over the general strike and indeed even more over the question of India and Gandhi. He was on the wrong side of history. And I suppose if his career had ended when he lost office in 1929 or when he left parliament at some point in the '30s. We would point to this, out of touch, an old man.

But of course it was this old man that saved us and the world. And saved democracy and civilization in 1940. Churchill is not a saint, Churchill is human. I was saying to Wendy before we began as a phrase I often use, he was extraordinarily ordinary. And that’s what makes him I think so great. He wasn’t somebody that got everything right. And he certainly got these two things wrong. Now we turn to the thing he got right. The lead up to war in 1939. I said to you at the beginning that it was 1930. Which was the wake up call for very few people. That was a wake up call for Churchill. In September, 1930, the Germans held general elections. And the big news of the day across Europe was at the Nazi party had made great gains.

They in fact had 6.4 million votes in the general election of 1930. Which gave them hundred and seven seats in the Reichstag before the election they only had 12 seats. They went from 12 seats to 107 and with 107 seats, they were the second largest party in the Reichstag, to the socialists who had 143 seats. They’re within touching distance of power. The next month Hitler gave a very extraordinary interview to the Times newspaper. He explained, “The Nazi party is not out for a bloody revolution.” He said, “The Nazi party has made itself the second strongest party and at the next election we shall become the strongest party in the Reich.”

Hitler told the times interviewer, “We will conquer political power by strictly legal means.” Well of course that was true and often I’m asked, what is the lesson William we can learn from history in the 20th century? And the lesson we learned from history, is that Hitler achieved power through the ballot box, in a democracy, The Weimar Republic. His attempted a coup d'etat in Munich had failed. He gained power through the ballot box and immediately then said about destroying German democracy. But if you are worried about democracy in Britain, in America, or you look at Hungary or Poland, the threat to, or even France and Germany. If you you’re worried about democracy, it’s not likely to be overthrown at the end of a pistol. It will be overthrown by people dropping their ballot papers into the boxes they did in Germany.

And Churchill saw the danger as early as 1930. He met a friend of his Prince Bismarck, who was in the German embassy representing Germany for the Weimar Republic in London, and they had dinner. And they talked about Hitler and the Nazi party. Churchill said, I know know Hitler has said he will not fight a war of aggression, but Bismarck wrote, “Churchill was convinced that Hitler or his followers would seize the first available opportunity to resort to armed force.” Which is just what I told you happened in 1933.

Prince Bismarck, this is of course not the real Bismarck, this is generation below. Prince Bismark documented the conversation, and sent it to the German foreign office in Berlin. The senior counsellor in the foreign office attacked a note to this note to the note of Bismarck, he attached a note and the note said, “Although one should always bear in mind Winston’s Churchill very temperamental personality when considering his remarks, they nevertheless deserved particular attention.” And Bismarck himself had finished his note by saying, “As far as can be humanly foreseen, Churchill will play an influential role in any conservative government in years to come.”

So Churchill recognised the danger of Nazism in 1930 and the Germans recognise what Churchill might be to them in the future. In 1934, Churchill goes on throughout the thirties making these speeches, writing in the papers. And although the establishment, particularly the conservative party, the monarchy name who you like in the establishment dismissed Churchill, this is the man who is the disaster at . This is the man who who took a pistol down to Sydney Street. This is the man who produced a newspaper propaganda during the general strike. This is a man who doesn’t understand India. This is a man we cannot trust.

But Churchill went on speaking and ordinary Britains listened. That’s why Churchill had such support in 1940, not from the establishment but from ordinary people. Who knew what this man could bring in this most dangerous of all hours perhaps that Britain have faced since 1588 and the Armada. And Churchill spoke one year after Hitler came to power in the House of Commons. This is 1934 and Churchill said this, “Beware Germany is a country fertile in military surprises. The great Napoleon in the years after Jena”

That’s Napoleon’s great victory over the Prussians in Germany. “Was completely taken by surprise by the strength of the German army which fought the war liberation. Although he had officers all over the place, the German army which fought in the campaign of Leipzig,” Which is where Napoleon was first defeated in 1813. “Was three or four times as strong as he expected.” Churchill is saying, look, Germany is going to re-arm and it’s going to re-arm it in an enormous quantities and what are we doing sitting on our bottoms doing nothing is really his message. A year later, again in the House of Commons 1935.

Churchill stood up and this is what he said then. “We cannot afford to see Nazidom in its present phase of cruelty and intolerance with all its hatred and all its gleaming weapons paramount in Europe.” Churchill was under no illusions about what Nazidom stood for, and he was under no illusions that this was something you could negotiate with. This was something you had to face up to and be prepared for to be strong and not conciliatory. In other words, not to appease. As the Chamberlain government at the end of the '30s was doing, appeasement. Look we’re terribly nice people, really. I’m sure you are nice as well. Gosh, we’ve learned about appeasement.

In 1938, now with his sniffing distance of the war. Churchill rose again in the House of Commons and he said this, “Now the victors are the vanquished and those who threw down their arms in the field and sued for an armistice are striving onto world mastery.” After Munich, after Britain and France appease Hitler, Hitler said, we’re no longer the victors. We’re now the vanquished and the vanquished are no longer the vanquished. They’re striving across the stage of Europe. The crisis of 1938 is a crisis in Munich. Germany mobilised on the 2nd of September.

On the 12th of September, 1938, Hitler made a speech condemning the Czechoslovak government. He wants the Sudetenland. Chamberlain met Hitler twice. The Germans thought Chamberlain rather funny really with his funny little umbrella and everything. And Chamberlain came back waving his piece of paper, peace in our time. And was the first prime minister to stand with the Royal Family on the balcony of Buckingham Palace. The man who brought peace and Churchill knew, Churchill knew there was no peace.

And then Chamberlain made this ridiculous broadcast. In which he said on the radio, “How incredible it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas masks here because of a quarrel in a far away country,” Czechoslovakia, “because of a quarrel and a far away country between people of whom we know nothing.” One of the most dreadful things any British prime minister has ever said. On the 5th of October, 1938, Churchill made one of his greatest speeches from the Backbenches off course. The speech is called, “A total and unmitigated defeat.” That is how Churchill described the Munich agreement. That little piece of paper, it was a magnificent speech.

Roy Jenkins, who I quoted before said, “It was a speech of power and intransigence.” And Churchill wasn’t speaking on behalf of the Conservative party or indeed of the House of Commons, or the monarchy or the establishment. But he was speaking on behalf of ordinary people who read the speech in their papers. “I will therefore begin,” he said, “by saying the most unpopular and most unwelcome thing. I will begin by saying what everybody would like to ignore or forget, but which must nevertheless be stated. They knew that we have sustained a total and unmitigated defeat and that France has suffered even more than we have.”

No prisoners taken with the opening paragraph, later he said, Of the discussions held by Chamberlain with Hitler, “One pound was demanded at pistol point when it was given two pounds was demanded at pistol point. Finally, the dictator,” Hitler, “consented to take one pound, 17 shillings and six pence and the rest in promises of goodwill for the future.” And Churchill said, because it was one pound 17 and six plus promises and not two pounds. His argument is Chamberlain could claim victory but of course it wasn’t. He even said that if the Czechs have been allowed to negotiate themselves, they would’ve got better terms. He went on to say that you’ve given the whole of Czechoslovakia away.

His phrase was, Czechoslovakia will be engulfed in the Nazi regime, which of course it was. He finished it with these words. “And do not suppose,” remember this is the 5th of October '38, “And do not suppose that this is the end,” said Churchill. “This is only the beginning of the reckoning. This is only the first sip, the first fore taste of a bitter cup, which will be profited to us year by year and thus by a supreme recovery of moral health and marshal vigour we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time.” That’s Churchill in 1938. Before the war and before of course he’s prime minister. But with 18 months he is prime minister. And then of course that’s exactly what Churchill does.

We rise again and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time. High blown words you might say, but at this juncture, important words, not popular words to the establishment, but words that echoed around the country with ordinary people. This is a man they could trust. He’s saying things that they would say they trust Churchill. Churchill spoke again in the debate when to on the war of 3rd of September, 1939. Chamberlain had spoken at saying we were going to war and his speech was rather, well one has to say rather typically Chamberlain to be honest. It was rather wet, wimpy sort of speech. And Churchill got up and made a long speech. He’s from the back benches, but the speaker of the House of Commons called him after the political leaders, the leaders of parties had spoken, after Chamberlain has spoken as prime minister. Why?

Because the speaker recognised that Churchill was perhaps, I would say the voice of the nation. And Churchill said, “All had 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 and millions and men and women whose cooperation 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.” He then goes off into the very chacillian wordy that many people disliked in parliament and in the establishment but not in the country.

He said, “This is not a question of fighting for Danzig or fighting for Poland. We are fighting to say the whole world from the pestilence of Nazi tyranny.” Except the Churchill will always said Nazi tyranny. “We are fighting to save the whole world from the pestilence of Nazi tyranny and in defence of all that is most sacred to man. This is no war domination or imperial aggrandisement or material gain no war to shut any country out of its sunlight and means of progress. It is a war viewed in its inherent quality to establish on impregnable rocks, the rights of the individual. And it is a war to establish and revive the stature of man.”

Some of Churchill’s biggest followers, Bob Boothby, Leo Amery, said this was the speech of a war leader, not the prime minister’s speech. It was Churchill that spent. Chamberlain a week after war had been declared on the 3rd of September, wrote, “What I hope for not a military victory. I very much doubt the possibility of that, but a collapse on the German home front.” Well thanks a lot Chamberlain. That isn’t what is required in this war against Nazi tyranny. When the final speech was made on that day we went to war the 3rd of September. Churchill was invited by Chamberlain to go to the Prime Minister’s office in the House of Commons. And there, and there he’s asked to become First Lord of the Admiralty. The job that he’d held before and during until Gallipoli in the first World War.

Churchill said, “I’m very glad to accept this.” Now I’m going to turn to Churchill’s own words. This is Volume One. Second World War by Winston Churchill. Many of you may have, this is my dad’s copy actually. And this is halfway through the book. Chamberlain hadn’t been given, the Chamberlain hadn’t said when he was going to take over as first lord, “And nothing had been said about when I should formally receive my office from the King.” Every cabinet minister has to kiss the King’s hand, not literally, but he has to go and see the King. “And in fact, I did not kiss hands to the 5th of September,” two days after war had been declared. “But the opening hours of war may be vital neighbours.” “I therefore sent words” says Churchill “to the admiralty that I will take charge forth with and arrive at six o'clock. On this, the board of the Admiralty were kind enough to signal to the fleet.”

Those famous three words, the board of the Admiralty signalled to every ship of the Royal Navy, Winston is back. No doubt in the Navy that this was a man for the hour. No mention of Gallipoli. This is the man we need. Winston is back. “So it was,” says Churchill, “that I came again to the room. I had quitted in pain and sorrow almost exactly a quarter of a century before. When Lord Fisher’s resignation had led to my removal from my post first Lord of the Admiralty. And ruined irretrievably as it proved the important conception of forcing the dardanelles. A few feet behind me as I sat in my old chair was the wooden map case I had it fixed in 1911. And inside it still remained the chart of the North Sea on which each day in order to focus attention on the supreme objective. I’ve made the Naval intelligent branch record the movements and dispositions of the German high seas fleet.”

No one had touched a blank blank thing. Since Churchill had left the office in 1915. No one had actually opened it since 19. If you want an example of how unprepared Britain was, that’s about it, isn’t it? Churchill says, “Since 1911, much more than the quarter of a century has passed. And still mortal peril threatened us at the hands of the same nation.” And then Churchill writes these. Well, I think fantastic words, “Once again, defence of the rights of a weak state. Outrage and invaded by unprovoked aggression.” This is Poland, “Forced us to draw the sword. Once again we must fight for life and honour against all the might and fury of the valiant, disciplined and ruthless German race once again. So be it.” said Churchill. So be it.

Well that’s the end of my story today as they say. But if you listen with mothers, we used to say when I was a child on BBC radio in Britain, if you listen with Mother again next week I think it is, we will be looking at Churchill, the war leader. But that’s Churchill, failures and successes, 1922 to 1939. Thanks for listening. There’s probably lots of questions and lots of points.

Q&A and Comments

Yes, somebody else is saying, I recommend the book, “The Splendid and the Vile,” It’s a fantastic book. “The Splendid and the Vile,” I’ll put it on my next book list. Eleanor and Clementine, Fascinating Eleanor Roosevelt, Clement Clemmie Churchill. Yeah, Churchill’s relationship with Roosevelt is very interesting. Lectures on FDR will be a wonderful idea. Well, you are thinking ahead Harold, and you are absolutely right. Only earlier today I agreed with Trudy that I would do a lecture on FDR, specifically on FDR as a biography. But I’m also going to be talking about FDRs, dealing with the depression in the '30s and also about the America coming out of isolationism, which it went into after Woodrow Wilson’s sad illness. Yeah, JFK I will look at JFK but that’s a long time ahead. We’ve got a lot to cover if we’re going to do America before we get to JFK. I have to say JFK’s interesting talk about, I find Johnson really interesting, a fascinating man is Johnson.

Oh, somebody did obviously, Joe. This is, I’m an American saying, we are worried about university education. Well, I’m personally not left wing and I’m not ultra right wing. I’m in British terminology, I’m on the left of the conservative party or the right of the liberal party. But in terms of education, it’s the same problem in Britain as in America we have to find a way, A middleware of teaching history. We cannot go on teaching the British Empire as I was taught it, that is quite wrong. On the other hand, we’ve got to be balanced in how we teach it and it’s not easy, but we’ve got to do it and we’re going to. I think it clearly there’s more problems in America for obviously historical reasons than they are in Britain. But whatever happens in America, washes onto us in Britain as indeed has happened over questions of statues and pulling down the statues. I can’t say I get over emotional about statues. I’ve never been one for statues.

Martin Gilbert’s book, “Letters to Auntie Fori,” is a great way to delve into Jewish history. Thank you. Is it Eli? I think it must be Eli and then separate Kay must be a surname, so Eli that’s that’s very good because I’d not read that book. So that’s another book on my, all the, you can’t see. I’ve got a whole pile here of books that I’ve got to read and I’ve got a whole two shelves of books over there to read.

Oh no. Churchill had gone back into parliament before. No, no, no. Churchill was in parliament by 1924. No, not a problem. And as you write these say, I dunno why I do these lectures. People are answering the questions before I read them. I think that’s splendid. Thank you very much.

At least even you and I agree. Yeah, to society changes. It’s the one thing that we know is certain about society and that is changes certain. It’s activism against the Vietnam War that yeah, Climate change should. You’ve got to try, you’ve got to try and put aside the fact that we are all, most of us listening and speaking are older generations. You must be careful not to therefore patronise the young or criticise them. Think about it, when you were young in the '60s for example.

Joe, you are absolutely right about Vietnam. But there are some questions which are overriding that and climate change overrides everything because it’s the future of the human race for goodness sake. Moral relativism, the slippery slope. Oh yeah, this is a very good lecture you are all doing on your own on this question and answer. Yet Churchill was on the wrong side of history over the abdication crisis too, question mark. Yes, absolutely. I didn’t talk about that because it’s a huge subject in itself and I like talking about the abdication crisis to be honest, it was an extraordinary event. Churchill was entirely on the wrong side.

Now let me to explain something. I’ll come back to the questions Let me just explain something about the abdication crisis. Churchill took a romantic view of the royal family. He took a romantic view about Edward VIII. He saw him as this young man as who was a matinee idol. Even though he wasn’t young, he had charisma. He had something that no member of the royal family had ever had before. He had a sort of Diana touch about him to be honest, Churchill thought he was magnificent. And Churchill sought a solution, like a morganatic marriage. That is to marry the woman whose name we will not speak. To marry her. But if they had any children, which of course they didn’t. Possibly her, but almost certainly him as well. They couldn’t have children if they had a child. A morganatic marriage meant that the child would not be in the line of succession. But every twist of it he lost out on.

Now I had a friend whose father was the managing director of a big publishing firm that publishes stuff for the royal family. The print stuff like funerals and weddings and things. And they had Churchill to dinner. And this lady whom I knew was a quite young, a teenager. But she was allowed to go to dinner because it was a great man, Churchill, who was coming at the invitation of father. And the father said to him, Mr. Churchill, what is your view of the late King Edward VIII now Duke of Windsor. And apparently Churchill went expletive after expletive after expletive, suddenly realised this girl was there. The lady who called me in the story, and oh, I do apologise, I forgot your daughters. I’m so sorry to abuse language that Churchill had taken a quite different view.

He’d come to realise in the war when Edward VIII was in Portugal with that woman whose name we do not mention. And he was likely either to go over to the Germans or to be captured by the Germans and used by them. Churchill was sending a warship to bring him home. And he dithered and said he didn’t want to come. And Churchill sent a telegram. “May I remind you, sir, that you are a serving officer in the British army. This is an order, Churchill Prime Minister.” And Edward VIII came back and Churchill sent him as governor of The Bahamas, where he’s in all sorts of shady deals with Swedes. And the woman who we dare not name, spends fortnights shopping in the States. Oh, it, the whole thing is ghastly and you are absolutely right. I’m sorry to have gone on, but I’m so intrigued with that whole thing.

Where am I? I’m going to see if I can find something else that’s interesting, but they’re all interesting. There we are. No I didn’t say that Abdullah was awarded Transjordan as a way of swaying the Arabs away from anti Zionism. I said that that’s what Lawrence and Churchill believed they could do. That’s sorry, I can’t, you are absolutely. The problem was the basic problem with the Arabs was the Arab leadership. That is to say the family of Rasaip, the Hashemites wanted to create an Arab empire in the Middle East to replace the Ottoman empire. There was, and they half been promised that in the same way that the Jews as Zionist had been promised a homeland in the Middle East. When push came to shove, they had no intention of allowing an Arab empire to be created. But they did place the Sons of Hussein on Thrones.

But remember that the Middle East was also divided between British areas of interest and French areas of interest. The big mistake they made was let Saudi Arabia go because they let it go, because they didn’t think anything was there. They didn’t realise oil was there. And so that fell in to the hands of the House of Saud. Which has been the greatest mistake of all that came out of Cairo. One of the greatest mistakes. But that’s another story for another day. It is very complicated and I have taught it. But I can’t do it in five minutes and I can’t do it in an hour either. But there’s a lot of stuff written about it. The problem was we had really no sensible plan on how to deal with the Ottoman Empire in the Middle East. The belief was that we could set up these states, they’d all be nice to each other. That we would also be able through them to establish what had been promised. An Israel, a Jewish homeland, it would all be hunky dory and France and Britain would withdraw and it would be lovely forevermore. And we did not understand what the hell we were doing.

But of course we had interests. And the interest was of course oil. Oil was the interest. Thank God we hadn’t let the Russians into the Middle East. Had Russia still been in the war, had there been no revolution in 1917, Russia would’ve taken Constantinople, which would’ve made things far worse today even than they are. But many of you have been reading in the papers today about the Turkish invasion of North Iraq. The likelihood of a Kurdish civil war. But you see the Kurds have been promised a Kurdistan. They never got a Kurdistan. We had totally misjudged Saudi Arabia. And this is without talking about the chaos we caused in Palestine and the promise of a Jewish Home Act. The whole thing was a disaster from beginning to end. And yet they did it how to the best of intentions and they thought they’d solve the problem. And there’s the, and if the Americans are listening to this, oh typically British, this is a complete British dot dot dot.

Let me remind you, Woodrow Wilson was talking about self-determination, self-determination. And in a sense that is exactly the basis upon which this new Middle East was constructed a false basis. Or that’s another, now maybe I’ll talk about Woodrow Wilson. I find him interesting as well. Woodrow Wilson was an academic and not a politician. And maybe that says it all. Churchill was really in many ways hopeless romantic, absolutely correct. That’s how I see him despite so many things about him. You know, he was a romantic. He was a romantic in terms of his private life with Clemmie. He’s a romantic in terms of how he sees England. But amidst the romanticism, there is iron in his soul in terms of realism as well. Romanticism wouldn’t have got us through 40 and 41. He’s realistic, but he doesn’t always.

You remember the speech, the famous speech that he made. That we shall fight on the beaches in which shall fight and the landing grounds and in the fields and which will never surrender, that famous speech. And as he sat down under his breath, he said, and they could hear him on the front bench of the government and over on the other side, he said, nearly under his breath, let us an aside and we’ll fight them with the broken ends of beer bottles if we have to, because that’s bloody well all we’ve got. So the great speech is fantastic of course. But the aside tells you the other side of Churchill, he knew that if the Germans landed, we would be with broken bottles defending our island. So he’s a realist as well.

Oh India, I remember having a friendly argument, a couple of Indian friends at uni many years ago, I’d been Jewish, saw Churchill was a hero because of the . They were very anti Churchill. Yeah, the anti Churchill, not every Indian is anti Churchill I have to say. But they are anti Churchill, and largely that is to do with the war. And I’ll speak about that next time, which is the Bengal famine. Now, there are a lot of different opinions about that today. It’s not as clear cut as it was then. But yes, the Indians, and of course they dislike if they’re Hindu, they dislike all the comments he made about Gandhi. Oddly enough, he’s more popular in Muslim Pakistan today than he is in India. Well, perhaps that isn’t surprising.

Oh, I don’t take the Guardian. So I didn’t read the article that Margaret refers to. Maybe somebody will send it to me. British influence, the biggest British influence that India has English. That as a language that enables the country to stay together with its multiple languages and that allows it to be a powerful influence on the internet and in world trade. There were a lot of things, the rule of law, the British leaving of India may have been disastrous. But one of the things we left is that India today remains the largest democracy in the world. Okay? Not a democracy like ours perhaps, but a democracy nonetheless, and that is some achievement.

Oh yes, no, sorry. Yeah. I think you’ve seen the answer above. But you ask, who’s this? Todd. The question you answer is interesting.

Q: Can someone become a cabinet minister without being elected? A: Yes, they can technically be so. What happens in Britain if suddenly Mr. Johnson, they unlikely is to ring me up tonight and say, William, we’re desperate for your help, but you don’t have a seat. Then what he would do is, is make me a member of the House of Lords. And so I go into the House of Lords and I then would be part of the government, but I don’t have to go into the House of Lords. I can be a member. Smuts was a member of Churchill’s wartime government, If a South Africans listening they will tell us. But not now, It would be very, very unusual. But I think almost impossible now because you remember Britain, unlike America is not dominated by any written constitution but unwritten. And I think now it’ll be impossible for any prime minister to appoint someone who wasn’t a member of parliament, to make them a member of parliament. They made a house of Lords. But if it was a big position like Foreign Secretary, Home Secretary. they couldn’t really function from the House of Lords.

So what happens then is that Joe Bloggings, who is absolutely hopeless being on the drink for decades, has never made a speech in the last 25 years, is suddenly made a Lord and his seat becomes available and I go and stand in his seat, which is a solid conservative seat and I’m elected or a solid labour seat when I’m elected and I go into the House of Commons, there are the ways of beating the system. The interesting thing about, no, I would, I won’t go. Yes, I will. If you don’t have a written constitution, you can write it and you can make up the rules as you go along. That has some advantages over a written constitution. It also has disadvantages. But as in America, the most important thing to me as a lawyer is the independence of the judiciary, of the legal system. And although it comes under attack, particularly in America with the Supreme Court. But particularly here under our present government, it’s still a bullwick of our democracy because our democracy comes from the same tree. Both American and British, South African, Australian. And it’s the legal profession. It’s the lawyers that are in that are absolutely important.

Q: What could Britain have done before Germany to quell Germany? A: Well, one thing we know that if Britain and France stood up to the invasion of the Ruhr. Hitler said afterwards that he would’ve withdrawn. We could have drawn some lines whether it would ever have stopped Hitler in the end, I don’t know. What we could have done was to prepare for war earlier. One of the things we couldn’t control was the fact of the French surrender. The France of 1940 was not France of 1914. That’s what really did for us in terms of 1940, was the surrender of France. And surrender is the word that should be used because it’s the only word that fits the historical events.

Oh yeah, well that’s very nice of people who said they enjoyed it. I enjoy giving it, I love talking about Churchill. I think Churchill other about people. Elizabeth I. I don’t know if I go, if I lucky enough to go upwards when I pass away rather than downwards. If I’m given the choice, who would I ask to meet? I think I’d ask to meet Elizabeth I and Churchill. And I don’t know which order I take them in. I think Elizabeth I would probably have me for breakfast, but I’d rather enjoy the experience. I think it would be Elizabeth I really. I’d love to meet Elizabeth I. I’d love to talk to her.

Q: Oh, was Churchill’s sympathy design a lone voice in the wilderness? A: No, it was not. Now truly will talk about that and put it into its context. Those of you who know that particularly who are British Jews. Know that antisemitism at a level was a pretty constant in high society in Edwardian, England. And it goes on. That does not mean that everyone was anti-Semitic. And Trudy will explain that. I think how Churchill was a friend of Jews. What there are then of other friends of Jews. What is also interesting, oh, that’s for another talk. Now what’s also interesting, members of the British cabinet who were actually Jewish. Were not necessarily Zionists. So there’s all sorts of. I’ve long since learned from Jewish friends that you have six Jews together, there’s six different opinions, 60 Jews, 60 opinions. And the same is true here with all of that. But no, there is a level of antisemitism present and it’s present still today, but it’s present in a different way today. I think it’s present today in a different class of people than it is in Edwardian Britain. But you must answer that question or Trudy will. As a non-Jew, it’s very difficult to answer those sorts of questions because I don’t experience it.

Yes, I do know the book. “Six Minutes in May,” It’s one of the many I’ve got. If you saw my room scattered of books, my wife says, no one can ever see your room if they visit because it is so disgusting. Well, it isn’t disgusting. It’s just, I know exactly where every book is, but yeah, if you came in, you would think it was disgusting.

Edward VIII was a Nazi and they were glad to get rid of him. Yes, that is, well, he wasn’t a Nazi in terms of being a member of a party. The woman whose name we dare not mention was far more Nazi than him. And she was a nasty piece of work. Not only that, she was having it off. I hope that’s an expression that others of you understand. She was having it off with von Ribbentrop the German foreign secretary before the war in England when she was also having it off with Edward VIII. And I know that for a fact because I met a lady who worked in a grand house in Essex outside of London, where von Ribbentrop went for weekends. And she came along as well and had to have the bedroom net. Oh, we won’t go there. It’s too disgusting. But no, they had definite they had more than German sympathies. The Royal family had German sympathies, but Edward VIII and Mrs. S had more than that. They were, she I think, thought that Hitler would make her Queen of England. They really deserved each other in the end because she was never in love with him. She even wrote to her ex-husband during the honeymoon saying that her relationship with him was the best of her life. Oh, she was quite appalling.

No, you are quite right Czechoslovakia was not so. In fact ,Czechoslovakia had made one of the most economic advances in Europe since its creation at the end of the First World War. Yeah, absolutely right. Yeah, yeah, absolutely right. England was seen is totally betraying the Czechs selling them for a useless piece of paper. Absolutely, it was an appalling act of cowardice really. Had Churchill been at Munich instead of Chamberlain, he wouldn’t have believed Hitler and he would prepare.

Now the next question is would we have been in any position to help Czechoslovakia? We were in no position to help Poland. And I cannot see how we could’ve helped Czechoslovakia. So I’m not quite sure what would’ve happened. I suspect what would’ve happened is that we would’ve declared war on Germany when Germany invaded the Sudetenland in the same way that later we are to declare war on Germany when it invaded Poland. I don’t think there’s anything else, but there was nothing that we could do about that.

Oh, “17 carnations.” Somebody said the book “17 Carnations,” a great read. Fascinating, a book about Edward VIII and she who must not be named. Thanks, yeah. This book, the “17 Carnations,” it’s also cheap on most of these cheap bookstores.

Q: Did Churchill in fact establish the rejection of appeasement as the default position for dealing with aggressive actions of autocratic governments for the future? A: Now this is a huge problem. It’s a problem not only in Britain, but in America as well. We have been dogged by Chamberlain’s government and policy of appeasement. And so I think both in Britain and America, we’ve taken actions on occasions because we’re fearful. We’ve taken military actions because we’ve been fearful of taking another cause. In Britain, the clear example is Anthony Eden and the Suez Crisis of 1956, which America did not support. But there are American examples as well, not least Iraq. So appeasement, it’s now a problem and it will be a problem for you or me, were we foreign secretary in either Britain or America. We would both have this sword of Damocles above our heads.

Yes, you are quite right Margaret, Edward VIII did threaten to commit suicide if the woman we do not name left him. That’s why she stayed with him. He had a gun loaded pistol under his pillow and she really thought he would shoot himself, silly man. And they’re not kids. They’re not kids. They’re middle aged, It’s sad, but it’s sad on both sides. At least they didn’t spoil other people’s lives. What a comment. I think I must be high on something tonight.

Yeah, I will talk, if you want sometime perhaps I will talk about the abdication. I don’t know how interested non British people are in the abdication. Although the Duke of Sussex was not immediately in line for the throne.

Q: What do you infer from the proclivity of British royal males to append themselves to apparently unsuitable problematic women? A: Harriet, what a fantastic question. Well, I think the problem with Harry was they didn’t find him a job to do. He couldn’t find anyone to marry, and he wanted children. And in the end, I think he was caught in the same way that Edward VII was caught. He was caught by a woman who, well, hopefully she loves him and he loves her. which is much better than the relationship of Mrs. S and Edward VIII. He loved her. She certainly didn’t love him. But maybe Megan does love Harry. but I can’t see it ending other than in tragedy. It’s very sad, you don’t have to be royal to marry into the royal family. Kate has shown that and so has the Countess of Wessex, who’s the closest member of the royal family with the Queen. They’re ordinary people.

Oh, I like that though. That’s a very British joke. Denise has said, as Molly Sugden would’ve said in TV comedy, “Are you being served?” He was weak as water. Yeah, absolutely right, that will pass over everybody else’s head. But I enjoyed it.

Yeah, overheated is the word to use about the woke and all of this argument. We’ve got to seek a middle way. And it seems to me that’s very important. In Britain we have a government which is not seeking middle ways, in America you had Trump who certainly wasn’t seeking middle ways. To abandon, seeking a middle way is, I think, dangerous in democracies. Americans must answer for Biden. I’m not in a position to make a comment at, well, not yet or not yet publicly about Biden. It is important that in democracies. I think what I really want to say is we don’t seem to attract the right people into politics anymore. And certainly that’s true in Britain and I’m not, because frankly, would you want to go into politics or advise your children or grandchildren to? There’s all your private lives are going to be over the front page of the paper. They’re going to be on the TV news immediately. I mean, I’ve always said jokingly, I could never go into parliament because all the stories about my brother would hit me but who knows.

Yeah. Yeah. Thanks very much for the nice comments. I’m only too pleased to do it. I’m glad you are. I’m glad some of you enjoy it. Oh, that’s interesting. I don’t know the answer to that, Alan.

Q: Did Churchill ever meet Joseph Kennedy or comment on Kennedy’s appeasement views? A: I’ve got a feeling he didn’t meet him. I can’t think of anything. I could be absolutely wrong on that. Do not quote me. I’d have to do some research, Alan on that. I don’t know. Joseph Kennedy was a, well that’s another story. It was a real problem. Thank you.

Well, that’s a very nice, Hermione I’m warmed to your comment, thank you ever so much for that. So I think I’ve answered most of the things, although it’s, I’ve got more and more. I can’t go through 73 are there.

• [Wendy] Okay. No, you know what, you’ve been amazing. Really, It’s been amazing, it’s been 90 minutes. So William, fantastic. Thank you.

• Thank you, Wendy. I’m exhausted.

• [Wendy] I’m sure you are absolutely.

• I’ll have to go have tablet or something.

• [Wendy] Yeah, you can have a glass of wine and then come back and answer the other 75 questions.

• Oh, I don’t drink. I’m TT, I’m T total.

• [Wendy] I actually don’t drink either. And I think people say to me, how come you’ve got excess energy? And I said, I think it’s because I don’t drink and I don’t smoke much.

• Well there you are yeah absolutely. I should just go into relapse now and I can’t speak to the family or anything now for the next four hours.

• [Wendy] I don’t want them to hate us. But anyway, Patrick, fantastic. Thank you very, very much.

• No problem.

• [Wendy] I’m actually looking forward to hearing more about Churchill.

• I’m looking forward to doing that as well. I’ll say farewell. Bye-Bye everyone.

• Thank you. Good night to everybody. Good afternoon. Thank you, Judy. And we see you soon. We’ll see you in 30 minutes. We have another presentation. Jeremy Rosen will be presenting today. So thank you very much, Rabbi Jeremy Rosen. Thanks William.