Comments on: Early signs of MADness

By: Acquisitions | Airminded

Acquisitions | Airminded — Fri, 02 Dec 2005 06:15:38 +0000

[...] Geoffrey Best. Churchill and War. London and New York: Hambledon and London, 2005. As previously noted. There's disappointingly little on Churchill's "wilderness years" – OK, so there wasn't actually a war on then, but this was the time when the foundations of the Churchill-as-prophet-of-war legend were laid. And it's the period of his career that interests me most :) [...]

By: Brett Holman

Brett Holman — Tue, 08 Nov 2005 09:55:08 +0000

I haven't come across anything like that. I certainly am no expert on Churchill, but my impression is that in the 1920s he was more pessimistic about air war than he was in the 1930s. Eg, Powers in Strategy Without Slide-Rule notes a few gloomy statements from Churchill to the effect that mankind now had the means of its own destruction, whereas in the speeches published in Arms and the Covenant he stresses the possibility of air defence. (Even so, he says that 'the conquest of the air may mean the subjugation of mankind and the destruction of our civilization', p. 245.) I agree, a close reading of his rhetoric on bombing and on nuclear weapons might be very interesting!

By: Dan

Dan — Mon, 07 Nov 2005 14:37:14 +0000

But then Churchill was never hugely original... Or, if you'd rather, he had a great talent for spotting what had worked once and using it again. Ronald Hyam, reviewing Randolph Churchill's biography of the early years, compiled a great list of the occasions on which Churchill used the rhetorical device 'so much - so few' (about fifteen, including the opening of a dam) before 1940. It would be interesting to directly compare the language and syntax of Churchill on the Bomb (late 40s to early 60s) with Churchill on the bomber (1920s and 1930s). Has anyone done that?