NOTICE: Citizendium is still being set up on its newer server, treat as a beta for now; please see here for more.
Citizendium - a community developing a quality comprehensive compendium of knowledge, online and free. Click here to join and contribute—free
CZ thanks our previous donors. Donate here. Treasurer's Financial Report -- Thanks to our content contributors. --

Talk:Winston Churchill

From Citizendium, the Citizens' Compendium
Jump to: navigation, search

Lead image

I think the article needs an image in the lead section, to show how Winston Churchill looks like. However, I have not found any copyright-free picture yet. If anyone does find such an image, please add onto the article, thanks! Yi Zhe Wu 17:38, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

Please explain reverts

Please explain your reverts. We have a "zero unexplained revert" rule, which means you cannot simply undo a significant amount of work by someone else (e.g., several sentences)--or re-revert, to re-include them--without an adequate explanation. See this section of CZ:Professionalism, please. --Larry Sanger 12:17, 14 August 2007 (CDT)

we seem to have a philosophical dilemma. It is illegal to erase text but also illegal to restore it. (In this case I DID provide an explanation in the Summary line)> Richard Jensen
Droll, but untrue...the Law is not to erase text, or to restore it, without sufficient explanation. Explanation is almost never going to sufficient if limited to the space given by the summary line, IMO. --Larry Sanger 07:18, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

I should have explained better - I was surprised to learn that Hitler had ordered the bombing of Berlin. I deleted text that seemed to include an embarrassing error without attempting to find the correct alternative.

There was a second problem in that the line conflated the Battle of Britain with the Blitz. These are generally regarded as quite separate phases; the Battle of Britain were daytime raids against airfields; this is generally regarded as being "won" when the balance of aircraft lost in daily sorties shifted critically in favour of the RAF; the Blitz involved subsequent night bombing attacks on London, (fighter defences were less effective at night, but precision raids on e.g. airfields not practicable at night).

There are two issues of interpretation; did the Briish set a trap, and was the Blitz simply retaliation? First, the lone raid on Berlin is said to be a retaliation for earlier sporadic attacks on London, not a conscious attempt to lure the Germans into bombing London. Second the Blitz went far beyond plausible retaliation but was rather a strategic shift to attack industrial capacity and demoralise the civilian population.

As this is an article on Churchill, it's probably worth mentioning that "The Battle of Britain" is the name given by Churchill, in his speech in June 1940, and the end is really defined by him in another famous speech ("never in the field of human endevour has so much been owed by so many to so few")

Gareth Leng 06:35, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

The historiography on Luftwaffe says Hitler ordered the shift to the blitz as retaliation for the raids on Berlin, and that this was a serious blunder because it relieved pressure on the RAF. The word is "trap" is problematical if it suggests Churchill knew ahead of time Hitler would make this blunder (no one could predict Hitler). Note from one study:(Levine, Strategic Bombing of Germany 1992 p 26):
On August 30 Hitler decided to retaliate on London. In this he was following

the advice of many Luftwaffe generals, who had long believed that an attack on London would force a decisive air battle under conditions that would favor the Luftwaffe. This was a miscalculation. The attacks on London, which began on September 7, lifted the pressure from Fighter Command's airfields in southeast England, and the RAF did well in the fighting over London. The decision to make London a target, however hard for the Londoners, gave Fighter Com- mand a welcome respite. It is doubtful that this decided the Battle of Britain, as was once widely believed. But the attacks on Berlin, along with Bomber Com- mand's attacks on the invasion fleet, certainly were to Britain's advantages." Richard Jensen 12:43, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

I concur with Gareth's analysis. And the blitz was not limited to London (I live in Glasgow). But these are niggles in a fine article, RichardWahib Frank 15:10, 15 August 2007 (CDT)
Coventry too. Chris Day 16:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

There is a Battle of Britain article, I hope in reasonably final form, for which I'd appreciate review. In that, I distinguish the Blitz as one phase, but also identify the next major phase as the Battle of the Beams. The point of transition, although it was not obvious to the cities being bombed, was the German decision to cancel Operation Sea Lion, the planned amphibious invasion of Britain. Howard C. Berkowitz 16:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)



  1. lead says he was a younger son, but text says he had 1 brother, born 1880, ie after him
  2. lead says he crossed the floor in 1906, but text says 1904

At a quick glance through I can't see any mention of his knighthood (1953). Americans may consider such things unimportant, but I think it should be mentioned. Perhaps I missed it somewhere.

His speeches inspiring the nation were actually read on the radio by an actor.

As regards the discussion above about the start of civilian bombing, the account I read somewhere was this. A German bombing party, heading to attack a French military target, got lost in fog & accidentally bombed a German village. Hitler chose to blame the French & "retaliate". Peter Jackson 15:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I see the knighthood does at least appear in his full name. Peter Jackson 16:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Something seems to have got lost near the beginning of the family section. Peter Jackson 12:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)