Sir Winston Churchill Quotes

A lady came up to me one day and said 'Sir! You are drunk', to which I replied 'I am drunk today madam, and tomorrow I shall be sober but you will still be ugly.

To each there comes in their lifetime a special moment when they are figuratively tapped on the shoulder and offered the chance to do a very special thing, unique to them and fitted to their talents. What a tragedy if that moment finds them unprepared or unqualified for that which could have been their finest hour.

There are a terrible lot of lies going around the world, and the worst of it is half of them are true.

Nancy Astor: "Sir, if you were my husband, I'd poison your tea." Winston Churchill: "Madame,i f you were my wife, I'd drink it!" (Exchange with Winston Churchill)

We shall draw from the heart of suffering itself the means of inspiration and survival. -Sir Winston Churchill

Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events.

Where does the family start? It starts with a young man falling in love with a girl - no superior alternative has yet been found.

Keep in mind the words of Sir Winston Churchill: 'Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen.

Mr. Young hadn't had to quiet a screaming baby for years. H'ed never been much good at it to start with. He'd always respected Sir Winston Churchill, and patting small versions of him on the bottom had always seemed ungracious.

We make a living by what we get, but we make a life by what we give. The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries. We contend that for a nation to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle. The whole history of the world is summed up in the fact that, when nations are strong, they are not always just, and when they wish to be just, they are no longer strong.

Never, give in! Never give in! Never, never, never... In nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions or honor and good sense!

(Exchange with Winston Churchill) Churchill explains that having a woman in Parliament was like having one intrude on him in the bathroom, to which the Lady Astor retorted, "Sir, you are not handsome enough to have such fears".

I have taken more out of alcohol than alcohol has taken out of me".

Writing a book is an adventure: it begins as an amusement, then it becomes a mistress, then a master, and finally a tyrant.” — Sir Winston Churchill

A nation that forgets its past has no future

I like pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals.

So long as I am acting from duty and conviction, I am indifferent to taunts and jeers. I think they will probably do me more good than harm.

Men occassionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry on as if nothing had happened. -Sir Winston Churchill

Defeat is never fatal. Victory is never final. It is the courage to continue that counts.” – Sir Winston Churchill

Danger—if you meet it promptly and without flinching—you will reduce the danger by half. Never run away from anything. Never! ~SIR WINSTON CHURCHILL

I like pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals. Sir Winston Churchill (1874–1965), British politician

The outside of a horse is good for the inside of man.

ENORMOUS WINS come at the risk of colossal failures.

Sir, I have the honour to inform you that I do not consider your government has any right to detain me as a prisoner. I have therefore decided to escape from your custody,’ and ending up: ‘I remain, sir, your humble and obedient servant, Winston Churchill.

Sir Winston Churchill, one of the truly great writers ever to put pen to paper in the English language, often said that when he was stuck on a passage that just would not come out well in a draft, he would put aside the writing and pick up the King James Bible, letting its beautiful phrases and cadences wash over his mind. He would then return to drafting whatever he was working on and invariably found the correct “turn of phrase.

It was Sir Winston Churchill, in the midst of Nazi bombings, who said to the people of London, "This is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning."' He was the one who offered the best definition of success I've ever read: "Success is moving from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm.

This is the sort of English up with which I will not put.

The Confederate Army’s fight against overwhelming odds, is one of the most glorious moments in Anglo-Saxon history.” —Sir Winston Churchill

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. —SIR WINSTON CHURCHILL

A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty. —SIR WINSTON CHURCHILL

In the words of the great leader, Sir Winston Churchill: “Success is not final. Failure is not fatal. It is the courage to continue that counts.” Redefining

Sir Winston Churchill rightly said, “Never let a good crisis go to waste.” How we work has changed forever. How we make medicines for patients is changing, and for the better. We are pushing barriers, testing conventional wisdom and the “way things have always been done.” We are adopting digital technologies and sharing data in ways never imagined to this crisis. We are finding new ways to innovate, with increased speed and efficiency.

Broadly speaking, the short words are the best, and the old words best of all.

A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.

-Sir, se lei fosse mio marito, io le avvelenerei il tè. -Madam, se lei fosse mia moglie, io lo berrei." Dialogo tra Lady Astor e Winston Churchill

(When told that he is a drunk) My dear, you are ugly; but in the morning I will be sober and you will still be ugly.

Shortly after 8 a.m. on Sunday, 24 January 1965, the noble heart of Sir Winston Spencer-Churchill beat its last.

Churchill enjoyed inviting visitors to Chartwell; on one occasion he offered a whisky and soda to a Mormon, who replied, ‘May I have water, Sir Winston? Lions drink it.’ ‘Asses drink it too,’ came the reply.

Hitler is a monster of wickedness, insatiable in his lust for blood and plunder. Not content with having all Europe under his heel, or else terrorized into various forms of abject submission, he must now carry his work of butchery and desolation among the vast multitudes of Russia and of Asia. The terrible military machine, which we and the rest of the civilized world so foolishly, so supinely, so insensately allowed the Nazi gangsters to build up year by year from almost nothing, cannot stand idle lest it rust or fall to pieces. It must be in continual motion, grinding up human lives and trampling down the homes and the rights of hundreds of millions of men. Moreover it must be fed, not only with flesh but with oil.

Neville Chamberlain's politics of appeasement were, as far as we can judge, inspired by good motives; he was probably less motivated by considerations of personal power than were many other British prime ministers, and he sought to preserve peace and to assure the happiness of all concerned. Yet his policies helped to make the Second World War inevitable, and to bring untold miseries to millions of men. Sir Winston Churchill's motives, on the other hand, were much less universal in scope and much more narrowly directed toward personal and national power, yet the foreign policies that sprang from these inferior motives were certainly superior in moral and political quality to those pursued by his predecessor. Judged by his motives, Robespierre was one of the most virtuous men who ever lived. Yet it was the utopian radicalism of that very virtue that made him kill those less virtuous than himself, brought him to the scaffold, and destroyed the revolution of which he was a leader.

Tyson emails back: “I’m going to tell you the same thing that I told Henry Louis Gates” (Gates had asked Tyson to appear on his show Finding Your Roots): My philosophy of root-finding may be unorthodox. I just don’t care. And that’s not a passive, but active absence of caring. In the tree of life, any two people in the world share a common ancestor—depending only on how far back you look. So the line we draw to establish family and heritage is entirely arbitrary. When I wonder what I am capable of achieving, I don’t look to family lineage, I look to all human beings. That’s the genetic relationship that matters to me. The genius of Isaac Newton, the courage of Gandhi and MLK, the bravery of Joan of Arc, the athletic feats of Michael Jordan, the oratorical skills of Sir Winston Churchill, the compassion of Mother Teresa. I look to the entire human race for inspiration for what I can be—because I am human. Couldn’t care less if I were a descendant of kings or paupers, saints or sinners, the valorous or cowardly. My life is what I make of it.

Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralizes the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith.

Our new elite have more refined sensibilities than the old aristocracy: just as dowager duchesses would sniff that so-and-so was "in trade", so today's rulers have an antipathy to doers in general. How could Sarah Palin's executive experience running a state, a town, and a commercial fishing operation compare to all that experience Barack Obama had in sitting around thinking great thoughts? In forming his war cabinet, Winston Churchill said that he didn't want to fill it up with "mere advisors at large with nothing to do but think and talk." But Obama sent the Oval Office bust of Sir Winston back to the British, and now we have a government by men who've done nothing but "think and talk". There was less private-sector business experience in Obama's cabinet than in any administration going back a century.

Writing is an adventure. To begin with, it is a toy and an amusement. Then it becomes a mistress, then it becomes a master, then it becomes a tyrant. The last phase is that just as you are about to be reconciled to your servitude, you kill the monster, and fling him to the public.

How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity.” “The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.” “Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities–but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.” –Sir Winston Churchill (The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages 248–50).

Nazi aggression, one might think, should have lent support to Winston’s candidacy. At this, of all times, it seems inconceivable that Baldwin would pick a weak man to supervise the defense of England. Nevertheless, that was what he did. Baldwin said outright: “If I pick Winston, Hitler will be cross.” In his biography of Chamberlain, Keith Feiling writes that the Rhineland was “decisive against Winston’s appointment”; it was “obvious that Hitler would not like it.” As the prime minister’s heir apparent, Chamberlain encouraged Baldwin to think along these lines. He suggested that Baldwin choose a man “who would excite no enthusiasm” and “create no jealousies.” The prime minister agreed. On Saturday, March 14—exactly a week since German troops had crossed the Rhine—he announced that he was establishing, not a ministry of defense, but a ministry for coordination of defense. Its leader, the new cabinet member, would be Sir Thomas Inskip.

Everyone stumbles over the truth from time to time, but most people pick themselves up and hurry off as though nothing ever happened. —SIR WINSTON CHURCHILL

There is something about the outside of a horse that is good for the inside of a man.

God forbid I go to any Heaven in which there are no horses.

Por mais bonita que seja a estratégia, ocasionalmente deve-se olhar os resultados." --- Sir Winston Churchill

There is something about the outside of a horse that is good for the inside of man.

There is something about the outside of a horse that is good for the inside of a man.

There is something about the outside of a horse that is good for the inside of a man

The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

Winston Churchill was famous for his SARCASTIC and SARDONIC comments. Here are two well-known examples: Bessie Braddock: Sir, you are a drunk. Churchill: Madame, you are ugly. In the morning I shall be sober, and you will still be ugly. Nancy Astor: Sir, if you were my husband, I would give you poison. Churchill: If I were your husband, I would take it.

There are a terrible lot of lies going around the world, and the worst of it is half of them are true. —Sir Winston Churchill

The Western Front was at all times, according to this view, the decisive theatre of the war, and all the available forces should continually have been concentrated there. The only method of waging war on the Western Front was by wearing down the enemy by ‘killing Germans in a war of attrition.’ This we are assured was always Sir Douglas Haig’s scheme; he pursued it unswervingly throughout his whole Command. Whether encouraged or impeded by the Cabinet, his policy was always the same: ‘Gather together every man and gun and wear down the enemy by constant and if possible by ceaseless attacks.’ This in the main, it is contended, he succeeded in doing, with the result, it is claimed, that in August, 1918, the enemy, at last worn down, lost heart, crumpled, and finally sued for peace. Viewing the events in retrospect, Colonel Boraston invites us to see, not only each of the various prolonged offensives as an integral operation, but the whole four years, 1915, 1916, 1917 and 1918, as if they were one single enormous battle every part of which was a necessary factor in the final victory. We wore the enemy down, we are told, upon the Somme in 1916, we wore him down at Arras in the spring, we continued to wear him down at Passchendaele in the winter of 1917. If the army had been properly reinforced by the politicians we should have persisted in wearing him down in the spring of 1918. Finally, as the fruits of all this process of attrition and ‘killing Germans’ by offensive operations, the enemy’s spirit was quelled, his man power was exhausted, and the war was won. Thus a great design, measured, foreseen and consciously prepared, reached its supreme accomplishment. Such is the theory. These views are supported in the two important

The King was one of the first to bring up the question. ‘He hopes,’ wrote his private secretary Sir Arthur Bigge, on 5 January 1911 ‘that these outrages by foreigners will lead you to consider whether the Aliens Act could not be amended so as to prevent London from being infested with men and women whose presence would not be tolerated in any other country.

Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts. — Sir Winston Churchill

Never give in. Never, never, never, never--in nothing, great or small, large or petty--never give in.

Many have said what pride they felt in rendering personal service to Sir Winston Churchill during World War II. How much more should it be a matter of pride and glorying to know and serve the Lord of heaven and earth!

I will not pretend that, if I had to choose between Communism and Nazism, I would choose Communism. I hope not to be called upon to survive in the world under a Government of either of these dispensations. I cannot feel any enthusiasm for these rival creeds. I feel unbounded sorrow and sympathy for the victims.

No podrá decirse que «los militares», es decir, el Estado Mayor, no hayan actuado a su gusto. Pudieron llevar su triste experimento hasta el final; sacaron de Gran Bretaña todo lo que pidieron; gastaron a la vez los hombres y los cañones del ejército británico casi hasta su destrucción y lo hicieron frente a las más claras advertencias y contrargumentos que no podían contestar. Sir Douglas Haig actuó por convicción, pero sir William Robertson se dejó arrastrar pesadamente: ha aceptado plenamente su responsabilidad y no podía dejar de hacerlo. «Yo era más que un simple asesor; era el jefe profesional de todos los ejércitos británicos, como Haig lo era de los del frente francés. Se recurría a mí, como hizo el Imperio entero, para que no se les pidieran cosas imposibles y para no encontrarse colocados en ninguna parte en situación desventajosa»216 y también el 23 de junio: «Mi propia responsabilidad […] no es pequeña al pedir la continuación de un plan con el que el primer ministro se ha mostrado disconforme […]».217 Y, finalmente, de Robertson a Haig, el 27 de septiembre: «Usted conoce ya mi opinión personal. Siempre ha sido la defensiva en todos los teatros menos en el Oeste. Pero la dificultad está en probar que esto es lo correcto ahora que Rusia ha caído. Confieso que me empeño en ello más bien porque no veo otra cosa mejor y porque me impulsa mi intuición, no porque disponga de ningún buen argumento en que apoyarlo».218 Estas palabras son terribles cuando se aducen para justificar el sacrificio de cerca de 400.000 hombres.

El plan de ataque de Cambrai estaba implícito en la idea original del tanque; era para esto, precisamente para esto, para lo que los tanques se habían imaginado. Los tanques habían entrado en acción en el frente británico en número creciente y considerable desde que su invención había sido inoportunamente expuesta al enemigo en el Somme en 1916. En el Cuartel General del cuerpo de tanques se habían desarrollado profunda y ampliamente las ideas tácticas originales que habían inspirado su nacimiento, pero el cuerpo de tanques no había logrado nunca que se le permitiera ponerlas en práctica. Se habían empleado estos ingenios en número reducido como simples auxiliares en las batallas de infantería y artillería, y habían sido condenados a encenagarse en los campos de embudos bajo el fuego concentrado de la artillería alemana o a hundirse en el barro de Passchendaele. Nunca se les había permitido arriesgar su suerte en una batalla para ellos solos, adaptada a su especialidad y en la que pudieran rendir los servicios inestimables para los que habían sido especialmente trazados. El éxito de algunos tanques en una operación secundaria de Passchendaele, donde fueron correctamente empleados por el cuerpo de ejército del general Maxse, fue probablemente lo que redimió al cuerpo de tanques del disfavor creciente en que habían caído sus carruajes debido al mal empleo que había hecho de ellos el Cuartel General británico, durante mucho tiempo. Cualquiera que fuera la razón, el hecho es que se aprobó un proyecto que había estado en la mente del Estado Mayor del cuerpo de tanques durante cerca de tres meses, y para el cual se habían emprendido ya los preparativos necesarios, fijándose su fecha para el 20 de noviembre.221 Se concedieron al fin todos los requisitos necesarios: los tanques operarían en un terreno no dislocado todavía por la artillería y en un frente no preparado aún contra la ofensiva: la sorpresa por encima de todo, iniciando los propios tanques el ataque. Aceptando osadamente la responsabilidad, sir Julian Byng, que mandaba el tercer ejército, ordenó que la artillería británica no disparara un tiro ni siquiera de corrección hasta que los tanques estuvieran ya lanzados; los cálculos artilleros que hicieron posible este hecho por primera vez sin daño para las tropas propias acreditan altamente a sus autores. El plan detenidamente preparado del cuerpo de tanques tenía la aspiración de «efectuar la penetración en cuatro sistemas sucesivos de trincheras en unas pocas horas y sin preparación artillera de ninguna clase».222 Se disponía aproximadamente de quinientos tanques. El general Elles, jefe del cuerpo de tanques, dijo a sus hombres en una orden especial: «Mañana, el cuerpo de tanques tendrá la oportunidad que ha estado esperando largos meses, operará abiertamente en la vanguardia del asalto». «El ataque —dice el historiador del cuerpo de tanques, coronel Fuller—223 tuvo un éxito asombroso. Al moverse y avanzar los tanques, seguidos inmediatamente por la infantería, el enemigo perdió completamente su moral y todos los que no huyeron del campo presa del pánico se rindieron con escasa o nula resistencia. […] A las cuatro de la tarde de dicho día, se había ganado una de las batallas más asombrosas de la historia y en lo que concierne al cuerpo de tanques, se había también terminado, pues, al no disponerse de reservas, no era posible hacer más.» En la breve duración de un día de noviembre había sido penetrado el sistema completo de las defensas alemanas en un frente de 10 kilómetros y se habían capturado 10.000 prisioneros y 200 cañones sin perder más que 1.500 soldados británicos. «Cabe preguntarse —dice el oficial del Estado Mayor— si hubo algún otro golpe de los ejércitos aliados en el frente occidental que resultara más fructífero a la vez en terreno y en resultados que esta batalla de Cambrai, pese a su limitado propósito».

No se puede seguir la larga cadena de ocasiones fallidas que impidieron el forzamiento de los Dardanelos sin experimentar una sensación de espanto. Mirando atrás, se ven al menos una docena de situaciones, todas fuera de la intervención del enemigo, cualquiera de las cuales, de haberse decidido de otra manera, habría asegurado el éxito. Si cuando se resolvió hacer el ataque naval, se hubiera sabido que había un ejército disponible y se hubiera dispuesto de él, habríase resuelto un ataque combinado naval y militar por sorpresa y todos lo habrían apoyado de corazón. Si no se hubiera enviado nunca ningún ejército, la marina, una vez bien organizado el servicio de dragaminas, habría reanudado sus esfuerzos después de la detención del 18 de marzo y, de hacerlo así, habría consumido las municiones de los fuertes turcos y dragado los campos de minas. Si no se hubiera dado contraorden para la marcha de la 29 división el 20 de febrero, o se la hubiera acomodado correctamente en los transportes en disposición de poder combatir en cuanto desembarcara, sir Ian HamiIton habría atacado la península de Gallípoli casi a raíz del 18 de marzo y, en tal caso, la habría encontrado mal defendida. Las batallas de junio y julio fueron indecisas hasta el último momento y cualquier adición substancial a las fuerzas atacantes habría resultado decisiva. La parálisis del poder ejecutivo durante la formación en mayo del gobierno de coalición retrasó por seis semanas la llegada de los refuerzos británicos y permitió a los turcos duplicar la fuerza de su ejército, anulando así el instante favorable de comienzos de julio. La batalla de Suvla en agosto está caracterizada por una combinación de azares desdichados, extraordinaria en los anales de la guerra; la historia del noveno cuerpo de ejército y de todo el desembarco en Suvla sería increíble si no fuera verdad. La dimisión de lord Fisher, mi sustitución en el Almirantazgo y la impopularidad de la expedición de los Dardanelos a causa de la ignorancia general intimidaron a nuestros sucesores en el Consejo del Almirantazgo, impidiéndoles aceptar la responsabilidad de los riesgos que había que correr. Rehusar la alianza y el ejército de Grecia cuando se nos ofrecieron en 1914; no lograr obtenerlos cuando se solicitaron en 1915; la insensatez de Rusia al rechazarlos; el delicado equilibrio de que estuvo pendiente la fatal decisión de Bulgaria; las extraordinarias circunstancias que condujeron en París durante el mes de septiembre al nombramiento del general Sarrail y a la proposición del Gobierno francés de enviar una gran expedición a la costa asiática de los Dardanelos y el posterior abandono de una política que tantas perspectivas de éxito ofrecía; la dispersión de todas las fuerzas disponibles a fines de 1915 del objetivo vital de los Dardanelos y de Constantinopla para las operaciones pródigas y por tres años enteros indecisas de Salónica, y, por último, la decisión final de evacuar Gallípoli en el momento en que el ejército turco se encontraba en la situación más desesperada y la marina británica más segura de sí misma, todas estas son tragedias distintas y encadenadas.

We shape our dwellings, and afterwards our dwellings shape us. —Sir Winston Churchill (1874–1965) British Prime Minister and painter

En primera línea estarían Francia y Alemania, y escalonadamente a sus espaldas y a intervalos variables, bajo una cortina de reservas y restricciones de distintas densidades, se desplegarían los otros componentes de la Triple Alianza y de la, como por entonces se empezaba a llamar,Triple Entente. En un momento dado, estos elementos de apoyo de segunda línea dirían unas palabras misteriosas e indicadoras de su estado de ánimo, a consecuencia de las cuales Francia o Alemania marcharían un poco atrás o adelante, o quizá se moverían ligeramente a la derecha o a la izquierda. Cuando se hubieran hecho estas ligeras rectificaciones en la gran balanza de Europa y, por consiguiente, del mundo, los miembros de la formidable asamblea se retirarían a sus antiguas posiciones con muchas ceremonias y saludos, congratulándose o condoliéndose mutuamente con cuchicheos del resultado. Esto lo habíamos visto muchas veces. Pero este proceso no estaba exento de peligros. Hay que pensar que tales movimientos entre naciones, por aquellos días, no eran como los de las piezas de un tablero de ajedrez o como los de marionetas muy bien vestiditas, que se hacen muecas entre sí y por cuadrillas, sino como de organizaciones prodigiosas de fuerzas activas o latentes que, al igual que los cuerpos planetarios, no podían aproximarse entre sí en el espacio sin dar lugar a grandes reacciones magnéticas. Si se acercaban demasiado, las chispas empezarían a centellear y, más allá de un cierto límite, estas fuerzas podrían ser atraídas mutuamente, apartadas de sus órbitas de contención y lanzadas unas con otras a una terrible colisión. La misión de la diplomacia era evitar tales desastres; en tanto no existiera un propósito, consciente o subconsciente, de guerra en la mente de alguna potencia o raza, la diplomacia seguramente podría triunfar. Pero en estas situaciones graves y delicadas, un gesto violento por alguno de los bandos rompería y desorganizaría todos los impedimentos interpuestos y sumergería al cosmos en el caos. Yo, por mi parte, creo que los alemanes habían sufrido cierto agravio con motivo del primitivo convenio anglofrancés. Nosotros habíamos conseguido muchas ventajas en Egipto; Francia también había obtenido muchas ventajas en Marruecos. Si Alemania creía que su posición relativa había salido perjudicada por este convenio, no había razón alguna para que no expresara y gestionara su punto de vista de un modo paciente y amigable. A mí me parecía que Inglaterra, como la gran potencia más retirada y menos inmiscuida en el asunto, podía ejercer su influencia apaciguadora a fin de llegar a un acuerdo; y esto fue, por supuesto, lo que nosotros intentamos. Pero sería absolutamente inútil si Alemania adoptaba una posición malévola. En tal estado de cosas, tenía que haberse hecho sentir una palabra decidida y antes de que fuera demasiado tarde. Tampoco nuestra retirada de la escena hubiera ayudado a facilitar la cuestión. Si hubiésemos procedido así, se habría desvanecido nuestra influencia restrictiva y se habrían intensificado las desavenencias entre las fuerzas antagonistas. En consecuencia, empecé a leer con recelo todos los documentos y telegramas que empezaron a cursarse, y pude ver bajo la calma de sir Edward Grey una ansiedad creciente, que en algunos momentos llegó a ser grave.

Los cuadros de bajas expuestos en el capítulo titulado «Estadística sangrienta» muestran la falsedad de esta impresión. Sir Douglas Haig no fue bien servido en esta ocasión por su Servicio de Información del Gran Cuartel General196 la tendencia a decirle a un jefe de elevada situación solo las cosas que gusta de oír es una de las explicaciones más corrientes de una dirección

Los cuadros de bajas expuestos en el capítulo titulado «Estadística sangrienta» muestran la falsedad de esta impresión. Sir Douglas Haig no fue bien servido en esta ocasión por su Servicio de Información del Gran Cuartel General196 la tendencia a decirle a un jefe de elevada situación solo las cosas que gusta de oír es una de las explicaciones más corrientes de una dirección equivocada. La visión del jefe de cuya decisión dependen los acontecimientos fatales es así, en general, mucho más confiada de lo que exige la brutalidad de los hechos.

Men stumble over the truth from time to time but most pick themselves up as if nothing had happened. SIR WINSTON CHURCHILL

Hasta mediados de 1915, las animosas multitudes de voluntarios habían excedido en mucho a nuestra capacidad para equiparlos y organizarlos. Habían acudido ya libremente más de tres millones de hombres que representaban lo que había de mejor y más fuerte en el patriotismo de la nación británica. Pero, hacia el verano de 1915, las salidas fueron ya superiores a las entradas y resultó evidente que no podría mantenerse en campaña en 1916 un ejército de 70 divisiones y menos aún de 100, sin adoptar medidas completamente nuevas. La escuela liberal pura, capitaneada por el primer ministro, era partidaria de hacer nuevos esfuerzos con la reclutación voluntaria, pero la mayor parte de los ministros conservadores, apoyados por mister Lloyd George, y también por mí hasta mi salida del Gobierno, estaban convencidos de que era inevitable el servicio obligatorio inmediato. Por entonces, lord Kitchener, orgulloso con razón de la admirable respuesta que habían encontrado sus sucesivos llamamientos de voluntarios, se inclinaba en aquella época del lado de mister Asquith y hacía pesar la balanza contra la adopción del servido militar obligatorio. Pero la guerra seguía su curso sin compasión y, ya en enero de 1916, bajo la fuerza imperiosa de las circunstancias, la crisis del Gabinete sobre el asunto del reclutamiento se renovó violentamente, siendo entonces reforzada la cruel necesidad de los hechos por un movimiento de opinión de carácter moral que excitó el apasionamiento de grandes masas de la población. Habían partido voluntariamente tres millones y medio, pero no eran bastantes. ¿Habían de volver al frente en virtud de su compromiso voluntario, cualquiera que fuese el número de veces que resultaran heridos? ¿Habían de empujarse a la lucha voluntarios maduros, debilitados y quebrantados, mientras cientos de miles de jóvenes robustos vivían en lo posible su vida ordinaria? ¿Había de obligarse a continuar a los ciudadanos del ejército territorial y a los soldados del ejército regular, cuyos compromisos habían expirado, mientras otros que no habían hecho ningún sacrificio no eran obligados siquiera a iniciarlos? De tres millones y medio de familias cuyo amado sostén, cuyo héroe, lo estaba sacrificando todo libremente para la causa de su país, familias que representaban los elementos más sanos sobre los que descansaba la vida entera de la nación, surgió la petición de que no se dilatara la victoria ni se prolongara la matanza porque otros rehusaran cumplir con su deber. Al fin, a fines de enero, lord Kitchener cambió de bando y mister Asquith tuvo que ceder. Solo un ministro, sir John Simon, dimitió de su cargo, y la ley de reclutamiento fue presentada al Parlamento y aprobada rápidamente por una mayoría aplastante.

me encontré para almorzar con Herr Ballin; acababa de llegar de Alemania. Nos sentamos juntos y le pregunté qué pensaba sobre la situación. Con las pocas palabras que pronunció, se vio claro que no había venido en viaje de placer. Dijo que la situación era grave. «Me acuerdo —dijo él— del viejo Bismarck cuando me decía, un año antes de su muerte, que llegaría un día en que estallaría una gran guerra europea a consecuencia de algún simple incidente en los Balcanes.» Estas palabras podían ser ciertas. Todo dependía del zar. ¿Qué haría si Austria hacía la guerra a Serbia? Unos cuantos años antes no habría habido peligro, pues el zar no estaba seguro en su trono, pero ahora no era así y, además, el pueblo ruso era muy sensible a cualquier cosa que pasara en Serbia. «Entonces —añadió él—, si Rusia ataca a Austria, nosotros iremos a la guerra y, por consiguiente, también Francia; y ¿qué haría Inglaterra en tal caso?» Yo no estaba en situación de decir nada más que sería una gran equivocación el suponer que Inglaterra no tendría que hacer nada y, añadí, que ella juzgaría los acontecimientos a medida que se fueran produciendo. Replicó, hablando con tono muy vivo: «Suponga usted que nosotros entramos en guerra con Rusia y Francia, y suponga que derrotamos a Francia y, sin embargo, no nos apropiamos de nada de esta en Europa, ni un simple metro de su territorio, sino solo algunas de sus colonias en concepto de indemnización; ¿sería esto causa de una actitud diferente por parte de Inglaterra? Suponga usted que damos previamente una garantía». Yo, por mi parte, me hice firme en mi fórmula de que Inglaterra juzgaría los acontecimientos y que sería erróneo suponer que quedara al margen de cuanto pudiera suceder. Esta conversación la referí por el curso debido a sir Edward Grey y la repetí al principio de la siguiente semana en el Gabinete. El miércoles de dicha semana se nos telegrafió oficialmente desde Berlín exactamente la misma proposición que hizo Herr Ballin, es decir, que Alemania no haría conquista territorial alguna en Francia, pero se indemnizaría en sus colonias. Esta proposición fue rechazada inmediatamente. No tengo la menor duda de que el emperador había confiado directamente a Herr Ballin la misión de explorar qué es lo que haría Inglaterra. La impresión de esta visita a Inglaterra la describió Herr Ballin en sus memorias diciendo: «Incluso un diplomático alemán medianamente capacitado podría haber llegado a un acuerdo con Inglaterra y Francia, lo que habría asegurado la paz e impedido a Rusia empezar la guerra». El redactor de estas memorias añade: «La gente, en Londres, estaba, ciertamente, muy preocupada con la nota austríaca, pero la medida en que el Gabinete deseaba el mantenimiento de la paz puede deducirse de la observación que hizo Churchill, casi con lágrimas en los ojos, a Ballin cuando se separaron:“Mi querido amigo, no nos hagan ir a la guerra”.». Tenía proyectado pasar el domingo con mi familia en Cromer y resolví no alterar mis planes. Dispuse que hubiera continuamente un operador en las oficinas de telégrafos para asegurarme un servicio de noche y de día. El sábado por la tarde llegaron noticias de que Serbia aceptaba el ultimátum. Me fui a la cama con la sensación de que las cosas se resolverían. Esta narración nos ha mostrado que antes se habían resuelto muchas veces; de vez en cuando las nubes se habían amontonado constantemente, amenazando, y quedaron después dispersas.

En el año 1895 tuve el privilegio, como joven oficial, de ser invitado a un lunch con sir William Harcourt. En el curso de una conversación en la que tomé parte, pregunté, temo que no con mucha modestia: «¿Qué sucederá?». El viejo estadista victoriano replicó: «Mi querido Winston, las experiencias de mi larga vida me han convencido de que nunca sucede nada». Desde aquel momento, tal como me parece a mí, nada ha dejado de ocurrir. El aumento por doquier de grandes antagonismos vino acompañado por la agravación progresiva de la contienda política del país. La magnitud que han adquirido por sí mismos los acontecimientos ha empequeñecido los episodios de la época victoriana: sus pequeñas guerras entre grandes naciones, sus disputas de buena fe sobre asuntos superficiales, el alto y agudo intelecto de sus personajes, los límites de acción sobrios, frugales y estrechos, todo esto pertenece a un período desaparecido. Los ríos suaves por los que navegábamos, con sus pequeños remolinos y ondas, parecen inconcebiblemente remotos de la catarata a que hemos sido arrastrados y de las corrientes en cuya turbulencia estamos ahora luchando. Yo cifro el comienzo de estos tiempos violentos en nuestro país desde la incursión de Jameson, en el año 1896. Este fue el heraldo, si no el progenitor, de la guerra sudafricana. De la guerra sudafricana nacieron la elección caqui, el movimiento proteccionista, la campaña sobre la mano de obra china y la consiguiente reacción liberal y su triunfo del 1906. A partir de aquí, se produjeron las violentas incursiones de la Cámara de los Lores sobre el Gobierno popular, que, hacia fines del 1908, había reducido la inmensa mayoría liberal a una virtual impotencia, de cuya condición fue rescatada por la Ley de Presupuestos de Lloyd George en 1909. A su vez, esta medida fue, por ambas partes, la causa de aun mayores provocaciones, y su rechazo por la Cámara de los Lores fue un ultraje constitucional y un desatino político sin parangón. Ello condujo directamente a las elecciones generales de 1910, a la ley o estatuto parlamentario y a la lucha de Irlanda, en la que nuestro país estuvo en el umbral de la guerra civil. De este modo se produjo una sucesión de acciones de partido que continuaron, sin interrupción, cerca de veinte años: cada injuria era devuelta con creces, cada oscilación era más violenta, cada peligro más grave, hasta parecer que tendría que suplicarse la intervención del sable para enfriar la sangre y calmar las pasiones exaltadas.

This report, by its very length, defends itself against the risk of being read. —Sir Winston Churchill Statesman 1874–1965

Books, in all their variety, offer the human intellect the means whereby civilization may be carried triumphantly forward.

Sir Winston Churchill was born into the respected family of the Dukes of Marlborough. His mother Jeanette, was an attractive American-born British socialite and a member of the well known Spencer family. Winston had a military background, having graduated from Sandhurst, the British Royal Military Academy. Upon graduating he served in the Army between 1805 and 1900 and again between 1915 and 1916. As a British military officer, he saw action in India, the Anglo–Sudan War, and the Second South African Boer War. Leaving the army as a major in 1899, he became a war correspondent covering the Boer War in the Natal Colony, during which time he wrote books about his experiences. Churchill was captured and treated as a prisoner of war. Churchill had only been a prisoner for four weeks before he escaped, prying open some of the flooring he crawled out under the building and ran through some of the neighborhoods back alleys and streets. On the evening of December 12, 1899, he jumped over a wall to a neighboring property, made his way to railroad tracks and caught a freight train heading north to Lourenco Marques, the capital of Portuguese Mozambique, which is located on the Indian Ocean and freedom. For the following years, he held many political and cabinet positions including the First Lord of the Admiralty. During the First World War Churchill resumed his active army service, for a short period of time, as the commander of the 6th Battalion of the Royal Scots Fusiliers. After the war he returned to his political career as a Conservative Member of Parliament, serving as the Chancellor of the Exchequer where in 1925, he returned the pound sterling to the gold standard. This move was considered a factor to the deflationary pressure on the British Pound Sterling, during the depression. During the 1930’s Churchill was one of the first to warn about the increasing, ruthless strength of Nazi Germany and campaigned for a speedy military rearmament. At the outbreak of the Second World War, he was appointed First Lord of the Admiralty for a second time, and in May of 1940, Churchill became the Prime Minister after Neville Chamberlain’s resignation. An inspirational leader during the difficult days of 1940–1941, he led Britain until victory had been secured. In 1955 Churchill suffered a serious of strokes. Stepping down as Prime Minister he however remained a Member of Parliament until 1964. In 1965, upon his death at ninety years of age, Queen Elizabeth II granted him a state funeral, which was one of the largest gatherings of representatives and statesmen in history.

And as Alexander Pope observed at the time, Blenheim has always felt more monument than home: Thanks, Sir, cry’d I, ’tis very fine. But where d’ye sleep, or where d’ye dine? I find by all you have been telling, That ’tis a house, but not a dwelling.

During that century the two countries nearly went to war again at least three more times. As prime minister in the 1840s, Sir Robert Peel was acutely conscious of the American threat to Canada, and warned Parliament of possible war. This was the age of ‘manifest destiny’, which for many Americans meant their country’s destiny to rule the whole of North America, including Canada. At the 1844 presidential election James Polk and the Democrats campaigned on a bellicose platform, demanding the territory which would become the Canadian province of British Columbia, the Pacific coast from Oregon north to the 54th parallel and the border with Russian America, now Alaska: hence the unwieldy slogan ‘Fifty-four forty or fight!’ When Polk was elected, he backed off and found an easier target to the south, embarking on the Mexican–American War of 1846.

Never give in — never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.

One of the most famous stories of medieval chivalry tells how Sir James, the “Black” Douglas, for twenty years the faithful sword-arm of the Bruce, took his master’s heart to be buried in the Holy Land, and how, touching at a Spanish port, he responded to a sudden call of chivalry and joined the hard-pressed Christians in battle with the Moors. Charging the heathen host, he threw far into the mêlée the silver casket containing the heart of Bruce. “Forward, brave heart, as thou wert wont. Douglas will follow thee or die!” He was killed in the moment of victory.

you’re going through hell, keep going.” —Sir Winston Churchill

If you’re going through hell, keep going.” —Sir Winston Churchill

Never give in. Never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.” ~ Sir Winston Churchill Prime Minister of Great Britain during WWII

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile – hoping it will eat him last. Sir Winston Churchill

This is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.” – Winston Churchill (November 10, 1942) Sir Winston Churchill

A lady came up to me one day and said, 'Sir! You are drunk!' To which I replied, 'I am drunk today, madam, and tomorrow I shall be sober— but you will still be ugly.

I got into my bones the essential structure of the normal British sentence – which is a noble thing Sir Winston Churchill, My Early Life

Treat your FRIENDS as you do your pictures, and PLACE THEM IN THEIR BEST LIGHT!

In both World Wars Britain had powerful and self-willed Prime Ministers in Mr. Lloyd George and Sir Winston Churchill. It is to their credit that they selected equally powerful and capable Army Chiefs in Generals Robertson and Lord Alanbrooke. Alanbrooke is the beau-ideal of a great Chief of Staff and is the type of man and officer required to shield the Army from any misuse of the temporary power bestowed on the political head, or to resist the imposition of impossible military tasks. Churchill and Alanbrooke worked that most misused term Civil Supremacy in the correct and healthy way, although their personal relations were not always cordial. They led Britain from the despondency of Dunkirk in 1940 to the final Allied victories in 1945.

Russia is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma.

A free press is the unsleeping guardian of every other right that free men prize; it is the most dangerous foe of tyranny… where free institutions are indigenous to the soil and men have the habit of liberty, the press will continue to be the Fourth Estate, the vigilant guardian of the rights of the ordinary citizen.’ SIR WINSTON CHURCHILL

A simple way to take measure of a country is to look at how many want in ... And how many want out.

Catherine let that sink in. Then said, “Somebody might get hurt.” “I’m pleased you’ve grasped the essentials.” He took a magnificent slurp of tea. “Besides, Taverner’s heart’s not in it. She’s up to something, and it’s not going well.” “And this is a cause for rejoicing? We’re all on the same side, remember?” “Jesus, have you learned nothing? When they tell you to take it one day at a time, that doesn’t mean do a memory wipe each morning.” He set the mug down. It couldn’t possibly be empty yet. “If we were all on the same side, we wouldn’t have to watch our own backs.” “We can’t watch our own backs. We have to watch each other’s.” “That, sir, is arrant pedantry,” Lamb said, in a fair approximation of Winston Churchill. “Up with which you can fuck right off.” He was impossible in this mood, which was something it had in common with all his other moods.

Perhaps it was foolhardy to suppose that in real life we could undo what had been done, cancel our knowledge of evil, uninvent our weapons, stow away what remained in some safe hiding place. With the devastation of World War II still grimly visible, its stench hardly gone from the air, the community of nations started to fragment, its members splitting into factions, resorting to threats and, finally, to violence and to war. The certainty of peace had proved little more than a fragile dream. “And so the great democracies triumphed,” Sir Winston Churchill wrote later. “And so were able to resume the follies that had nearly cost them their life.” Prophetic as he was, Churchill did not foresee the awesome extremes to which these follies would extend: diplomacy negotiated within a balance of nuclear terror; resistance tactics translated into guidelines for fanatics and terrorists; intelligence agencies evolving technologically to a level where they could threaten the very principles of the nations they were created to defend. One way or another, such dragon’s teeth were sown in the secret activities of World War II. Questions of utmost gravity emerged: Were crucial events being maneuvered by elite secret power groups? Were self-aggrandizing careerists cynically displacing principle among those entrusted with the stewardship of intelligence? What had happened over three decades to an altruistic force that had played so pivotal a role in saving a free world from annihilation or slavery? In the name of sanity, the past now had to be seen clearly. The time had come to open the books.

A Victorian-style sensibility still held sway throughout the English-speaking world well into the twentieth century. Winston Churchill claimed that he was rebuked by one American society hostess for asking for breast meat when offered chicken. According to Sir Winston she replied: “In this country we ask for white meat or dark meat.” To make amends, he sent the offended lady an orchid. Being Winston Churchill, he attached a note that read, “I would be obliged if you would pin this on your white meat.

There is a book to be written, for instance, on small errors in subtitles. In the Fred Astaire musical Royal Wedding, for instance, the English girl he falls for, played by Sarah Churchill (daughter of Sir Winston), is engaged to an American, whom we never see but who’s called Hal—like Falstaff’s prince, like a good high Englishman. That English H, though, was completely inaudible to the French translator who did the subtitles, and so throughout the film the absent lover is referred to in the subtitles as Al—Al like a stagehand, Al like my grandfather. If you have the habit of print addiction, so that you are listening and reading at the same time, this guy Al keeps forcing his way into the movie. “But what shall I say to Hal—that I have never loved him?” Patricia says to Fred. Down below it says, “Et Al—qu’est-ce que je vais lui dire?

famosa definición que dio el primer ministro británico Sir Winston Churchill de que “el éxito es el resultado de ir de fracaso en fracaso, sin perder el entusiasmo” es una de las principales características comunes de las sociedades innovadoras.

In the meantime, the Germans established numerous bridgeheads on the south bank of the Somme, to be used when the southward advance began. Panzers invested Boulogne on May 22nd, and on May 23rd, the British evacuated their troops at midnight. The French garrison surrendered at noon two days later on May 25th, recognizing their utterly hopeless position. The British government ordered an evacuation of Dunkirk on May 26th, but the British Expeditionary Force (BEF) and the French forces accompanying them could not escape that easily, however. Near catastrophe struck on May 28th when the Belgians surrendered to Germany, opening a colossal gap in the Allied lines. King Leopold III, showing consistency of character at least if not moral courage, informed the British and French of his planned capitulation only hours prior to the actual surrender, leaving them with practically no time to prepare for its disastrous military consequences. The action earned Leopold III such sobriquets as “King Rat” and “the Traitor King,” nicknames he did little to disprove when he evinced more willingness to negotiate with Hitler for restoration of Belgian independence than he had shown in dealing with France and Britain, which sought to defend Belgium's freedom in the first place. British Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill blasted the Belgian monarch's abrupt surrender in a detailed speech summarizing the repercussions: “The surrender of the Belgian Army compelled the British at the shortest notice to cover a flank to the sea more than 30 miles in length. Otherwise all would have been cut off, and all would have shared the fate to which King Leopold had condemned the finest army his country had ever formed. So in doing this and in exposing this flank, as anyone who followed the operations on the map will see, contact was lost between the British and two out of the three corps forming the First French Army.” (Churchill, 2013, 174).

Where there is great power, there is great responsibility.

10. Never Give Up If there’s one person who understood the value and importance of sticking with things, it was Sir Winston Churchill. Legend has it that when he once gave a speech at Harrow School, he simply stood up and said, ‘Never give in, never, never, never. Never give in.’ He knew those simple words make such a difference. Whatever your walk in life, the ability to dig in and not quit when it gets tough will not only set you apart, it will set you up for a more exciting, more fulfilled and more prosperous life. That dogged resolve, that never-say-die attitude, takes people to a place that few are prepared to explore. And it is here that life becomes most interesting. So, when you think you’ve exhausted all possibilities, look inwards and just remember one thing: you haven’t! You always retain the ultimate decision whether or not to hang on in there. No one can force you to quit. And luckily Churchill knew that this tenacity had power. ‘Never give in, never, never, never. Never give in.’ He didn’t need to say any more during that speech. They were the wisest few words he could ever have imparted to those pupils - and it was a lesson learnt the hard way, at the bleak coalface of war. Never give in, never, never, never. Never give in.