# data[].attributes.body
This radio series focuses on how different countries have been formed over time, and is a really interesting approach to learning the history of modern nations.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
BBC Sounds - The Invention Of... - Available Episodes

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Listen to the latest episodes of The Invention Of... on BBC Sounds.

# data[].attributes.body
The link to the reading project that you will complete to support your coursework. This is done over the summer holidays and you will get lots more information about it!

# data[].attributes.body
A set of films about Stalin - login details:

Username: CSFHISTORY

Password: student123

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Film: Stalin - Early Life / A-Level Topic Guide: Russia and the USSR / Historical Association

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
You don’t have permission to view this page.

# data[].attributes.body
Dominic Sandbrook & Tom Holland have created over 300 podcasts on topics as diverse as Putin's rise to power and the impact of weather on history. Check them out on BBC sounds, but there are more available on Apple podcasts, spotify and other providers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
BBC Sounds - The Rest Is History - Available Episodes

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Listen to the latest episodes of The Rest Is History on BBC Sounds

# data[].attributes.body
This is EXCELLENT for a range of CW questions and to build contextual knowledge. There are interviews with multiple key historians, too!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
BBC Radio 4 - The Invention of..., Russia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What is Russia and where did it come from? Misha Glenny presents.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Churchillian - 75th anniversary of abdication crisis

# data[].attributes.subject
The Churchillian - 75th anniversary of abdication crisis

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Skip to content

Wilderness Years

November 29, 2017

Following his blunder over India, Churchill's judgement was again called into question in late 1936 and early 1937. The new king, Edward VIII, wanted to marry the American divorcée Mrs Wallis Simpson, a situation that prompted a constitutional crisis (kings weren't allowed to marry divorced 'commoners'; if the king went ahead, he'd have to 'abdicate', or step down as king).

A tribute, join us

#thinkchurchill

Subscribe

WANT MORE?

Get the Churchill Bulletin delivered to your inbox once a month.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Following his blunder over India, Churchill's judgement was again called into question in late 1936 and early 1937. The new king, Edward VIII, wanted to marry the American divorcée Mrs Wallis Simpson, a situation that prompted a constitutional crisis (kings weren't allowed to marry divorced 'commoners'; if the king went ahead, he'd have to 'abdicate', or step down as king).

# data[].attributes.headline
How did Churchill lose the 1945 general election?

# data[].attributes.subject
How did Churchill lose the 1945 general election?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How did Churchill lose the 1945 general election?

# data[].attributes.headline
How Winston Churchill And The Conservative Party Lost The 1945 Election

# data[].attributes.subject
How Winston Churchill And The Conservative Party Lost The 1945 Election

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Instead, in one of the biggest electoral swings of the twentieth century, the Labour Party won the general election decisively, winning 393 seats, while the second-placed Conservatives only secured 197. With an emphasis on social reform, the Labour Party's manifesto was strongly influenced by the Beveridge Report and included a commitment to full employment, affordable housing, and social security and health care for all.

In contrast, the Conservative campaign focused on Churchill's popular appeal, lowering taxation, maintaining defence spending and encouraging private business interests. While Churchill acknowledged a need for social reform, he argued that this should be done privately rather than by the government, claiming that Labour would need 'some kind of Gestapo' to implement such reform.

Despite Churchill's concerns, the Labour Party's emphasis on social reform clearly appealed to many voters, who gave Labour a landslide victory at the polls and a clear mandate for change.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Winston Churchill And The Conservative Party Lost The 1945 Election

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The 1945 election was the first general election to be held in Britain since November 1935. Churchill had proved himself to be a popular leader during the Second World War, so he was confident that the Conservatives would win this election based on his wartime success.

# data[].attributes.headline
Darkest Hour: The People Who Helped Shape the Future of Britain in May 1940

# data[].attributes.subject
Darkest Hour: The People Who Helped Shape the Future of Britain in May 1940

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In May 1940 Britain was confronted with two of the most important questions in its history. At stake was the very survival of Britain itself.

Who should lead Britain in the war against Nazi Germany? There were two candidates. Lord Halifax, the favourite for the position, had a reputation for solid reliability. The other, Winston Churchill, was seen as a political loose cannon.

Should Britain make a negotiated peace with Hitler? With its army in France pushed back by German forces to the beaches of Dunkirk, it was facing what seemed like certain, shocking defeat.

Today we know what the answers were to those questions. Winston Churchill, to the surprise - and dismay - of many people, became prime minister. Churchill would convince the politicians around him that Britain, despite 'the gravity of the hour', must fight on.

The film Darkest Hour, starring Gary Oldman as Winston Churchill, explores these questions and features some of the people who in different ways had to answer them. They would shape not just the future of Britain, but of the world. They include the family, who supported Winston Churchill in what would become his 'finest hour'.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Darkest Hour: The People Who Helped Shape the Future of Britain in May 1940

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In May 1940 Britain was confronted with two of the most important questions in its history. Who should lead Britain in the war against Nazi Germany? Should Britain make a negotiated peace with Hitler? At stake was the very survival of Britain itself.

# data[].attributes.headline
CHURCHILL BECOMES PRIME MINISTER AND MINISTER OF DEFENCE

# data[].attributes.subject
CHURCHILL BECOMES PRIME MINISTER AND MINISTER OF DEFENCE

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Skip to content

The Life of Churchill

Churchill becomes Prime Minister and Minister of Defence

May 10, 1940

Though his reputation was still not yet fully rehabilitated, a confluence of events led King George VI to invite Churchill to form a government in May 1940.

The Germans had taken Norway and France would soon capitulate in the face of the German Panzers. Hitler launched his 'blitzkrieg' offensive in Western Europe on the very day that Churchill became Prime Minister. Within days the Germans were rapidly advancing around the French lines and through the Low Countries and the situation was becoming dire.

On 13 May, Churchill gave the first of many of his great wartime speeches. He told the House of Commons 'I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat'.

By the end of May, much of Western Europe would be in German hands with the British Expeditionary Forces (BEF) trapped at Dunkirk. The evacuation of BEF would take place at the end of May. There was cause for celebration that nearly 350,000 British and allied troops would make it back to British soil, but Churchill said 'Wars are not won by evacuations'.

Join us for the 40th International Churchill Conference. Edinburgh Scotland, 5-7 October 2023

More

Upon becoming Prime Minister, Churchill made the decision to take up the post of Minister of Defence as well as that of Prime Minister, enabling him to work directly with his military commanders. He did this quite specifically to prevent another disaster like Gallipoli in 1915. This time he would be in charge.

A tribute, join us

#thinkchurchill

Subscribe

WANT MORE?

Get the Churchill Bulletin delivered to your inbox once a month.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Churchill becomes Prime Minister and Minister of Defence

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Though his reputation was still not yet fully rehabilitated, a confluence of events led King George VI to invite Churchill to form a government in May 1940. The Germans had taken Norway and France would soon capitulate in the face of the German Panzers. Hitler launched his 'blitzkrieg' offensive in Western Europe on the very [...]

# data[].attributes.headline
Six Minutes in May: How Churchill Unexpectedly Became Prime Minister by Nicholas Shakespeare – review

# data[].attributes.subject
Six Minutes in May: How Churchill Unexpectedly Became Prime Minister by Nicholas Shakespeare – review

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
he six minutes in May that give Nicholas Shakespeare his title are those in 1940 during which the House of Commons voted on the debate following Britain's disastrous failure in the brief Norway campaign. The prime minister, Neville Chamberlain, was not defeated in the division, but his usual majority was slashed as discontented Conservative MPs abstained or voted against him. The idea of these minutes as critical is nonetheless misleading. As Shakespeare makes clear in this lively and well-informed rerun of how Winston Churchill became prime minister, there were many other hurdles to overcome before the change was complete, and other moments when a few minutes counted for more than the outcome of the debate.

The story Shakespeare tells is at once a familiar one. Churchill seemed an unlikely candidate to succeed. His reputation as a maverick politician, an unstable ally and an imperialist reactionary made him many enemies in parliament and left him in the political wilderness in the 1930s. In 1940, Churchill once again championed a strategic disaster. The Norway campaign was an ignominious failure, like the Dardanelles campaign in 1915. He might well have expected it to end his brief career in Chamberlain's war cabinet. In the end, the country and the Commons blamed Chamberlain and an uncoordinated movement began aimed at unseating the prime minister and installing a replacement.

Churchill in the end was the choice, but almost by default. There were so few men with the experience and talent to replace Chamberlain. Once Lord Halifax, the foreign secretary, had ruled himself out of the running because he feared the consequences of having to lead the war effort from the House of Lords (no one even in the first world war had had to do that), Churchill was Chamberlain's reluctant choice. Even then the king, George VI, had a strong antipathy to Churchill and in the half hour between accepting Chamberlin's resignation and seeing Churchill he could have changed his mind and called for Halifax. He did not, and that night, 10 May 1940, Churchill, as he later recalled, "walked with destiny".

That the outcome might have been different is certainly possible. Shakespeare is good at reconstructing, blow by blow, the intricate negotiations and intrigues that ruled out the others and favoured Churchill. A good deal had to happen before Chamberlain's awkward six minutes made a Churchill premiership likely. Not least the role of the Labour party leadership in sabotaging Chamberlain's second thoughts as the Germans broke through into Holland and Belgium that perhaps he should stay after all. Even Labour was divided, and certainly no fan of Churchill, but in the end the party executive, meeting in Bournemouth for the annual conference, voted against supporting Chamberlain, sealing his fate. Labour also confirmed that they would serve in a national government under another leader, but did not name Churchill.

What has Shakespeare brought to the established narrative? The answer lies in the microscopic detail that he has unearthed from diaries, unpublished memoirs and private papers, all of which help to make clearer the broader processes at work and to correct established errors. He gives decent walk-on parts to characters usually absent from the history of the succession - "Baba" Metcalfe, whose relationship with Halifax, platonic or not, gave him an outlet to release his anxieties about the situation he faced; Clement Davies, the Liberal MP who organised the All Party Action Group in 1939 to try to get a new wartime leadership; and the Conservative MP Paul Emrys-Evans, who ran the "Watching Committee", an informal cabal. Shakespeare's profile of Halifax helps confirm that he would have been a woeful choice as war leader, though in fairness that was Halifax's own private view. That he was the man widely tipped to succeed seems more difficult now for historians to explain than the eventual success of his rival. Shakespeare cites Clement Attlee 's judgment: "Queer bird, Halifax, very humorous, all hunting and Holy Communion."

Neville Chamberlain in a BBC studio announcing the declaration of war, 1939. Photograph: Fox Photos/Getty Images

Chamberlain's position had seemed solid even by March 1940, but Shakespeare's rebels were tunnelling under the walls. Churchill did not necessarily expect the succession, though he no doubt longed for it. He had too many enemies, and too much accumulated distrust. But his eventual achievement of the premiership was not quite the surprise that Shakespeare implies. He had a strong following in the country, was admired by many for his stirring bellicosity in contrast to Chamberlain's more restrained leadership, and as a potential war leader, he towered above those in high office around him. Faced with Churchill alongside him, Halifax balked at taking the premiership. Churchill became premier faute de mieux, but had there been a more obvious candidate, Churchill would have had to wait, perhaps forever. Though he felt he was walking with destiny, his wartime leadership was not preordained.

Shakespeare tells the whole story well, with sound historical sense and engaging style, but it will be a patient reader who ploughs through the detail to make out the larger narrative. At more than 500 pages, it is hard to think of any other six minutes served by so lengthy a history.

Six Minutes in May: How Churchill Unexpectedly Became Prime Minister is published by Harvill Secker. To order a copy for £17 (RRP £20) go to bookshop.theguardian.com or call 0330 333 6846. Free UK p&p over £10, online orders only. Phone orders min p&p of £1.99.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Six Minutes in May: How Churchill Unexpectedly Became Prime Minister by Nicholas Shakespeare - review

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
he six minutes in May that give Nicholas Shakespeare his title are those in 1940 during which the House of Commons voted on the debate following Britain's disastrous failure in the brief Norway campaign. The prime minister, Neville Chamberlain, was not defeated in the division, but his usual majority was slashed as discontented Conservative MPs abstained or voted against him.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
He was the lion who roared when the British Empire needed him most.

He held many positions during his long career and was an accomplished civil servant. Winston Churchill entered the Royal Military College of Sandhurst, and graduated with honors in December of 1894 ¹. He later saw action in Cuba, India, Egypt, Sudan, the front lines of World War I, and even took part in one of the last British cavalry charges in history ². When he turned twenty-five, Churchill was elected to Parliament, and began his career as a statesman in the House of Commons. He went on to serve as First Lord of the Admiralty, Minister of Munitions, Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Prime Minster. In his private life, Winston Churchill was an avid reader and scholar, painter, author, journalist, and war correspondent. Historians widely attribute Churchill with being "the greatest statesman of the 20th century." Churchill was an effective leader and statesman because of his tremendous ability to inspire people; his unique strategic insight; his relentless passion; and his imperturbable personality.

One of Winston Churchill's chief attributes as a leader was his capability of inspiring people, regardless of seemingly ominous circumstances. The source of this inspiration was his own character. Churchill perpetually demonstrated enthusiasm, determination, and optimism-if not at all times in private, then at least always in public. One of Churchill's private secretaries spoke of Churchill's drive:

The effects of Churchill's zeal was [sic] felt immediately in Whitehall. Government departments which under Neville Chamberlain had continued to work at much the same speed as in peacetime awoke to the realities of war. A sense of urgency was created in the course of very few days and respectable civil servants were actually to be seen running along the corridors. No delays were condoned; telephone switchboards quadrupled their efficiency; the Chiefs of Staff and the Joint Planning Staff were in almost constant session; regular office hours ceased to exist and weekends disappeared with them ³.

Churchill's ability to inspire may be seen in the opening days of World War II. He did not permit a defeatist attitude, nor would he entertain talk of reasonable terms with Adolf Hitler. As Sir Martin Gilbert, Churchill's official biographer, wrote, "It was Churchill's own opposition to all forms of defeatism that marked out the first six months of his war premiership and established the nature and pattern of his war leadership." ⁴ Another example of Churchill's powers of inspiration was his ability to channel his determination to the British people, and generally strengthen their resolve through enthusiastic encouragement and praise to others. During the opening days of the war he said that, "The British people are like the sea. You can put the bucket in anywhere, and pull it up, and always find it salt." ⁵ Churchill inspired not only British leaders, but British citizens as well, by projecting an attitude of optimism and stalwart fortitude. Finally, Churchill's robust optimism is excellently showcased in a speech he made in the House of Commons on June 4, 1940, when he spoke these famous words:

We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender. ⁶

Churchill's words prompted the Labour MP Josiah Wedgwood to say, "That was worth 1,000 guns, and the speeches of 1,000 years." ⁷ Churchill's potent spirit of perseverance and determination is best summed up in one of his own maxims: "We must just KBO." The initials stood for "Keep Buggering On." ⁸ Churchill understood the dangers of defeatism and poor morale as a soldier and leader, so he set the example needed to inspire others around him... and he kept "buggering on."

Winston Churchill was also an effective statesman and leader because he possessed the attribute of strategic foresight. An example of his keen intuition is found in the aftermath of the Munich Agreement. While Neville Chamberlain proclaimed that its policies of appeasement had brought, "peace in our time," Winston Churchill complained of the terms. He declared that: a) nothing vital was at stake; b) Czechoslovakia could "have hardly got worse" terms in the agreement; and c) the agreement would ultimately not be successful in preserving Europe's uneasy peace while the threat of Nazi Germany under Hitler still loomed. ⁹ World War II would prove his intuition correct. Despite his misgivings, Churchill, "...never doubted that the Western Alliance would defeat Hitler and subsequently Japan," and his vision was again clear. ¹⁰ Another example that showcases Churchill's strategic foresight is Communist Russia. Churchill had early misgivings about Russia, apart from the ones that he voiced in his famous "Iron Curtain" speech, where he spoke of an iron curtain settling on Eastern Europe. In 1931, Churchill declared in front of a large audience in Brooklyn, New York, that the great struggle of the future would be between English-speaking nations and communism. ¹¹ The Cold War would later prove his prophecy correct. A third example of Churchill's strategic intuition is shown during his time as First Lord of the Admiralty starting in October 1911. Churchill summed up his approach to British naval power in these words:

Adequate preparation for war is the only guarantee for the preservation of the wealth, natural resources, and territory of the State, and it can only be based upon an understanding, firstly, of the probable dangers that may arise; secondly, of the best general method of meeting them as taught by the principles to be deduced from the events of history; and, thirdly, of the most efficient application of the war material of the era. ¹²

Churchill applied this policy to his duties as First Lord of the Admiralty and set about thoroughly preparing Britain's fleet for war. He also studied German naval progress, strength, and maneuvers. A mere four years later, World War I broke out, and thanks to Churchill's wisdom, the British Navy was well prepared for battle. In summary, Churchill possessed exceptional strategic foresight, tempered with a healthy dose of realism. As one observer wrote, "Churchill had great foresight, but he knew the future is mostly unpredictable." ¹³

While Winston Churchill's foresight was a critical component of his leadership, there was another factor that elevated all of his talents to the forefront: his passion. Winston Churchill possessed a passion for democratic freedom that drove him to work hard for its preservation, allowing him to be an effective statesman and leader. Perhaps the best example of Churchill's passion is found in some of the words that he used to inspire people and battle defeatism: "I am convinced that every man of you would rise up and tear me down from my place if I were for one moment to contemplate parley or surrender. If this long island story of ours is to last, let it end only when each one of us lies choking in his own blood on the ground." ¹⁴ Churchill's passion fueled his desire to maximize the efficiency of Britain's wartime government and bureaucracy. An excellent example of this efficiency is the structural organization that Churchill implemented in the English chain of command. Sir Martin Gilbert writes that:

The organization of his wartime premiership was a central feature of Churchill's war leadership. That organization took several months to perfect, but from his first days as Prime Minister and Minister of Defense he worked to establish it, and to create in the immediate ambit of 10 Downing Street an organization that would give the nation strong and effective leadership. ¹⁵

This organization was comprised of different councils, executives, committees, and boards. Each leader in charge of the respective agencies sat on an executive board chaired by Churchill called the Chief of Staff Committee. Once Churchill fine tuned this system, "...the highest possible accumulation of professional knowledge was at his disposal." ¹⁶ Churchill's passion also produced innovation. For example, he prompted the invention of the tank. In order to break the deadlock of the "no-man's land" of World War I, Churchill suggested that a type of heavy tractor with robust treads be produced from which men could fire machine guns and throw grenades from behind armor plating. This suggestion led to the production of the first tanks. Churchill's service as a soldier also showcases his passion. During World War I, Churchill served on the frontlines in France as a major with the 2nd Battalion of the Grenadier Guards. ¹⁷ Eventually, Churchill became the commander of the 6th Royal Scots Fusiliers, a battalion of the 9th Division. ¹⁸ As a soldier, he possessed a steady, defiant courage, setting an excellent example for his men. When he left France in 1916, one Scotsman from under his command declared that, "I believe every man in the room [at a farewell lunch] felt Winston Churchill's leaving us a real personal loss." ¹⁹

The last component of Churchill's remarkable formula for success was his imperturbable personality. Coupled with a dogged determination was a personality that was capable of exuding charm and wit, and that caused people to gravitate toward him. Churchill famously described himself in the following way: "We are all worms but I do believe I am a glow worm." History shows that he did indeed glow. For example, he was able to maintain a poise in even the most stressful of times:

Churchill's typists were also to find that, however bad his moods could be in dire moments of the war, he always had words of comfort for them and a ready smile--his "beatific grin," as Marian Holmes called it. "Don't mind me," he would say after an outburst, "it's not you-it's the war." On one occasion, in November1944, finding Marian Holmes and her colleague Elizabeth Layton working in the Hawtrey Room and Chequers without a fire, he commented, "Oh, you poor things. You must light a fire and get your coats. It's just as well I came in"- and he proceeded to light the fire himself, piling it high with logs. ²⁰

It may be said that Churchill's personality was the result of a combination of different qualities that produced his witty charm. John B. Severance, a British author on Churchill writes that, "Lots of people have imagination, courage, and tenacity. Few people have them in the amount or combination that Churchill did." ²¹ Churchill used his unique charm and personality to encourage people to strive hard at their work and to excel in the jobs they were assigned. For example, people visibly displayed their affection for Churchill, as General Ismay recalled in an incident on Downing Street when a large group of people waited outside his private entrance to the Admiralty, and greeted him with cries of encouragement and good luck. ²² Churchill's poise was also displayed in his famous wit. One evening as a tired and wobbly Churchill was leaving the House of Commons, the Labour Member of Parliament Bessie Braddock accused him of being "disgustingly drunk." He replied: "Bessie, my dear...you are disgustingly ugly. But tomorrow I shall be sober and you will still be disgustingly ugly." ²³

World War II, however, is where Churchill's personality shines the most. He tirelessly travelled to military positions and installations, conducting inspections, boosting morale, and supporting commanders. He also established a personal friendship with Franklin Delano Roosevelt and maintained strong relations and diplomatic ties with the American Government. Through it all, he was able to maintain a cool assurance of victory and instill confidence in everyone around him.

In conclusion, of all the qualities that Churchill displayed, perhaps the most interesting was his unexpected outbursts of humility. While Churchill's power to inspire, his strategic foresight, his driving passion, and his unstoppable personality were the core qualities that made him an effective leader and statesman, the realization that he too was a "worm" tempered his character and kept him focused. His lifetime spanned not only the two World Wars of the 20th century but other conflicts, historic diplomatic meetings, and the onset of the Cold War. Winston Churchill led the British nation on two separate occasions as prime minister, in peace and in war, and on two separate occasions as First Lord of the Admiralty, both in the office and on the frontline. Yet, he steadfastly refused to take the credit. When cheered at the demise of Nazi Germany, he responded, "I have never accepted what many people have kindly said, namely that I inspired the nation. It was a nation and race dwelling all round that had the lion heart. I had the luck to be called upon to give the roar." ²⁴
Footnotes
[1] John B. Severance, Winston Churchill: Soldier, Statesman, Artist (New York: Clarion Books, 1996), 17.

[2] Ibid., 18.

[3] Geoffrey Best, Churchill and War (London and New York: Hambledon and London, 2005), 167.

[4] Martin Gilbert, Winston Churchill's War Leadership (New York: Vintage Books, 2004), 27.

[5] Ibid., 26.

[6] Martin Gilbert, Churchill: A Life (London: Pimlico, 2000), 656.

[7] Ibid., 656.

[8] Gilbert, Churchill's War Leadership, 29.

[9] "The Munich Agreement" in Sir Winston Churchill & World War II: Remembering "Their Finest Hour," High School Summer Study Abroad (Hillsdale: Hillsdale College, 2008), 55.

[10] John Keegan, The Second World War (New York: Penguin Books, 1989), 310.

[11] Severance, Soldier, Statesman, Artist, 75.

[12]Gilbert, Churchill: A Life, 239.

[13]Severance, Soldier, Statesman, Artist, 9.

[14]Gilbert, Churchill's War Leadership, 23.

[15] Ibid., 5.

[16] Ibid., 6.

[17]Gilbert, Churchill: A Life, 332.

[18] Ibid., 340.

[19] Ibid., 360.

[20]Gilbert, Churchill's War Leadership, 18.

[21] Severance, Soldier, Statesman, Artist, 10.

[22]Gilbert, Churchill's War Leadership, 48.

[23]Ronald Golding to Richard M. Langworth, Churchill by Himself (New York: Public Affairs, 2008), 550.

[24]Winston S. Churchill, The Unwritten Alliance: Speeches 1953-1959 (London: Cassell, 1961), 202-3.
Bibliography
Best, Geoffrey. Churchill and War. London and New York: Hambledon and London, 2005.

Churchill, Winston S. The Unwritten Alliance: Speeches 1953-1959. London: Cassell, 1961.

Gilbert, Martin. Winston Churchill's War Leadership. New York: Vintage, 2004.

-. Churchill: A Life. London: Pimlico, 2000.

Keegan, John. The Second World War. New York: Penguin Books, 1989.

Langworth, Richard M. Churchill by Himself: The Life, Times and Opinions of Winston S. Churchill in his Own Words. New York: Public Affairs, 2008.

Severance, John B. Winston Churchill: Soldier, Statesman, Artist. New York: Clarion Books, 1996.

Sir Winston Churchill & World War II: Remembering "Their Finest Hour." High School Summer Study Abroad Program. Hillsdale: Hillsdale College, 2008.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Churchill: Leader and Statesman - The International Churchill Society

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
He was the lion who roared when the British Empire needed him most. He held many positions during his long career and was an accomplished civil servant. Winston Churchill entered the Royal Military College of Sandhurst, and graduated with honors in December of 18941. He later saw action in Cuba, India, Egypt, Sudan, the front ...

# data[].attributes.headline
CHURCHILL AND HIS GENERALS: THE TASKS OF SUPREME COMMAND

# data[].attributes.subject
CHURCHILL AND HIS GENERALS: THE TASKS OF SUPREME COMMAND

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Churchill and His Generals: The Tasks of Supreme Command

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
“Churchill exercised one of his most important functions as war leader by holding military calculations and assertions up to the standards of a massive common sense, informed by wide reading and experience at war….His uneasy relationship with his generals stemmed, in large part, from his willingness…

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Churchill's Southern Strategy | Air & Space Forces Magazine

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The D-Day invasion was forced on a reluctant Churchill by the Americans.

# data[].attributes.headline
How Winston Churchill Pulled Britain Through The Early Years Of WWII

# data[].attributes.subject
How Winston Churchill Pulled Britain Through The Early Years Of WWII

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
subscribe to Fresh Air podcast

DAVE DAVIES, HOST:

This is FRESH AIR. I'm Dave Davies filling in today for Terry Gross. As the coronavirus pandemic spreads, Americans and citizens of many countries are getting a new look at their national leaders, evaluating their performance in a moment of crisis. Our guest today, author Erik Larson, has a new book about one of the most renowned leaders of the 20th century, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, and his leadership during some of the darkest hours of World War II.

Larson's book focuses on Churchill's first year in office from May of 1940 to May of 1941, a time when France had fallen to the Nazis, the United States had not yet entered the war and Hitler was determined to break the will of the British people with a ferocious bombing campaign that killed more than 44,000 civilians. Erik Larson has written seven previous books. His new book is "The Splendid And The Vile: A Saga Of Churchill, Family, And Defiance During The Blitz." Like Terry, I'm working from home these days. I spoke to Larson via Skype.

Well, Erik Larson, welcome back to FRESH AIR.

ERIK LARSON: Thank you very much.

DAVIES: This is a story about a leader at a time of national crisis. And I just wonder if, as you've seen the coronavirus pandemic unfold and we've all watched our leaders try to handle it, you thought about Churchill and insights you might have gleaned into. What makes an effective leader in a time of crisis?

LARSON: Yes, absolutely. I don't want to emphasize the parallels too much between what Churchill confronted at the time and what we're confronting now. I think a lot, actually, about how Churchill might have confronted this situation that we're in now - very differently than what we've seen thus far, honestly. And I'm really startled, actually, at the lack of competent, wise national leadership, but maybe it'll come. I certainly hope so.

But when I think about Churchill and I think about how he would've negotiated the situation - he understood the power, first of all, of symbolic acts. He understood the importance of being and seeming brave and wise and so forth. But above all, he was particularly good at - obviously, at delivering speeches. And I'm not just saying in terms of being able to craft a terrific line. Of course, we all know that. But when you look at his speeches, there is a structure that really works very well, I think, in a time of crisis like ours.

What Churchill would do is he would - first of all, he would begin with an assessment, a sober assessment, of what the - of the reality of the threat. And he would not sugarcoat. He would state as frankly as he could what was actually happening. But then he would come back. He would follow with cause for optimism - rational, realistic cause for optimism - not happy talk, but a real, rational appraisal. And then he would end his speeches invariably with a rhetorical flourish that would metaphorically - or, perhaps, even literally - metaphorically, though, bring listeners out of their seats just feeling like they, too, were emboldened and they were ready to do whatever was next. That's leadership.

DAVIES: We'll talk more about that as we go through this. Let's talk about Churchill's experience. He became prime minister in May of 1940. What circumstances led to him being named prime minister then?

LARSON: Yeah. He became prime minister on May 10, 1940. He was, at the time, actually, perceived to be by many to be an unwelcome candidate for the job. He was deemed to be somewhat erratic and full of energy directed in all directions, as one of his ministers said. But there had been a revolt, a parliamentary revolt, in which Chamberlain was essentially thrown out of office. It was made clear that he was not the man for the coming conflicts.

DAVIES: That's Neville Chamberlain, who had led the country during...

LARSON: That was Neville Chamberlain, yes. Yeah. He was...

DAVIES: Known for having appeased some of Hitler's moves in Europe. Yeah.

LARSON: Yeah. He was confronted during - well, he was ardently opposed in several days preceding the - preceding Churchill's appointment as prime minister. And, in fact, in one speech, one of his antagonists, if you will, quoted Cromwell and said, for God's sakes, go (laughter). That was as clear a signal as any, I suppose. But Churchill becomes, then, prime minister on May 10, 1940.

For Churchill, it's important to note, this was the thing that he had lived for his life. I mean, this was what he sought throughout his career. And honestly, the fact that it happened on May 10, 1940, a day when Hitler invaded the Low Countries and the real intense war that we know as World War II began, he didn't mind that at all. He loved the fact that now he had the reins. He was in control.

DAVIES: Right. The country had been at war since the previous September, when Germany invaded Poland. And the Nazi army had swept through much of France and then attacked the Netherlands. What was the state of the British armed forces at the time and its position on the battlefield?

LARSON: After the invasion of the Low Countries, Germany turned its attention to France and, through a series of surprise maneuvers, basically caught the allies off guard. The British were under severe attack by the Germans, by the Nazi forces, especially by their armored elements and were being forced to - actually, to retreat and to, ultimately, of course - the famous Dunkirk evacuation - to flee France.

DAVIES: You know, I've covered politics and government for most of my career as a reporter and covered a lot of governors and mayors. And it's made me think a lot about the characteristics of leadership, and there are a lot of them. You know, one thing that makes a good leader is to be an effective speaker. Charisma really matters in inspiring your citizens to higher goals. But you also have to effectively run a government. And one thing a leader needs - and this is easy to overlook - is a really serious work ethic and stamina. You have to immerse yourself in a lot of important detail. What did you learn about the pace of Churchill's activity, say, as compared to his predecessor, Neville Chamberlain?

LARSON: Well, Chamberlain was a very staid, kind of a very grey leader, if you will. In fact, his nicknames were The Coroner and The Old Umbrella. Churchill was a very different kind of character. He was described by one minister as the - with some misgiving, as the rogue elephant.

But one thing that did split - that very, very much marked Churchill's administration as prime minister was precisely his work ethic. The man loved to work. He would get up not super early, but around 8 or 8:30. He'd work from bed, smoking a cigar or whatever, and then, you know, proceed to the Cabinet meetings and so forth, then lunch. You know, lunch, you know, typically involved a fair amount of alcohol and excellent conversation. He would have a couple of naps during the day, but then he would work well into the night until, like, as late as 2, 3 o'clock in the morning, much to the chagrin of his private secretaries and his staff, who were just dying to have an early night with this man. But, yes, he just loved work. He worked all the time.

And Churchill had this real willingness to dive into the weeds and to explore even the most detailed elements of government or what was going on at the time. And so he would send off these memoranda or minutes, as they were called, to his ministers directly - not with any intermediary, not via some secretary. He would send them directly and would explore these minute points. And this had the very interesting effect of putting these ministers on guard because suddenly, the bureaucratic piece of their ministries was being completely upended by this man who clearly had an interest in everything they were doing down to the basic nuts and bolts of their operation. And this really made people stand up and pay attention to what they were doing themselves and really put them on the mark.

DAVIES: So things were going badly in France. English troops would soon be evacuated from the town of Dunkirk. It was a dark time for the British forces. The United States was not in the war. They were prepared to take on Germany alone at this point. Churchill knew that he would have to defend against a German attack either from the air or possibly from the sea, an invasion. What role did he see for the Royal Air Force in the defense of the country, and what was the state of the air force?

LARSON: Well, what's very important to recognize, to understand, is that the fall of France was a huge thing in terms of British strategy. The idea that France would fall had never been conceived, had never been thought of as a possibility by British strategists. Now, suddenly, France had fallen, and the Luftwaffe was able to set up bases on the French coast minutes from Britain. Previous strategy held that this was going to be impossible because the Germans would have to fly all the way from Germany, would not have the fuel capacity for their fighters. If they didn't have the fuel capacity for their fighters, they couldn't send their bombers because they would be sitting ducks in the air.

But Churchill recognized very early on that the fighters were going to be all important because the only way Hitler could launch an invasion across the channel, which is the only way it could be done, was if the Luftwaffe first achieved air superiority. So the top goal of Churchill was to deny air superiority to the Luftwaffe. The only way to do that was through the production and through the effective coordination of fighter aircraft.

DAVIES: Erik Larson's book is "The Splendid And The Vile." We'll talk more after a short break. This is FRESH AIR.

(SOUNDBITE OF THE NEW ENGLAND CONSERVATORY JAZZ REPERTORY ORCHESTRA'S "MY BLUE HEAVEN")

DAVIES: This is FRESH AIR, and we're speaking with author Erik Larson. He has a new book about the leadership and the family life of British Prime Minister Winston Churchill during his first year in office, when Nazi Germany waged a bombing campaign that killed more than 44,000 civilians. Larson's book is "The Splendid And The Vile."

So the German air war begins with a lot of attacks during the daytime, in which the Royal Air Force, the British air force, fighters were pretty effective in knocking down a lot of the aircraft of the German air force, the Luftwaffe. This also presented...

LARSON: Yes.

DAVIES: ...Kind of a show for British citizens. They actually watched a lot of this happen - right? - in the sky.

LARSON: Oh, this is one of the fascinating things to me. I mean, there are accounts of people who - I mean, try to picture this. You know, in one case, there was a - I believe this was Virginia Cowles, who is a writer who was lying in the grass on a cliff at Dover on a beautiful, sunny day. The channel was sparkling below. I mean, it just could be any lovely summer day. And high up above, there is this pitch life-or-death battle between Germans fighters and British fighters. And the novelty of the - seeing these - seeing the spiraling contrails high up in the sky, watching occasionally as one of these things would just, you know, disappear in a blur of smoke and the plane would, you know, crash into the sea was just such an anomalous thing. There you are, you know, essentially picnicking on a clifftop, as she says, you know, watching this battle that could determine the fate of civilizations.

DAVIES: When the Germans went to night bombing, how did that change the equation? How did it affect the approaches of the German bombers, the German fighters and the British air defenses?

LARSON: First of all, the Germans switched to night bombing because when they attacked by day with their bombers, the RAF Spitfires and Hurricanes were very effective at knocking them down. Bombers were quite slow relative to the speed of the fighters. In particular, the Germans were startled to find that one of their aircraft - the so-called Stuka dive bomber, which had been this fearsome weapon in land campaigns - had proven to be uniquely vulnerable to attack by these young and very well-trained and dynamic British pilots.

So they had to give up daytime bombing and went to nighttime bombing. The effect of this was to - first of all, at night, they no longer needed fighter protection because the RAF was essentially, effectively night blind. The Spitfires and Hurricanes - the pilots had no way of effectively locating these bombers in darkness. They had a rough idea because Britain, of course, had established this wonderful, prescient radar system. But this was only effective to a point because by the time the messages got to the control centers about where these planes were, the planes obviously had moved on to different locations.

So the visual sighting of aircraft was a very important part of how the RAF dealt with bombers and also with fighters. At night, this visual aspect was removed. So the bombers were now essentially free to fly over the British Isles at will, and this was very important. Another aspect was that, because now they were free to fly over the British Isles, because they no longer needed fighter escorts - the fighters had very, very short operational stamina, essentially 90 minutes. Now the bombers could stay up for far, far longer. So this very much changed the dynamic.

DAVIES: Right - and made the British industries and public more vulnerable. You note that Hitler, for several months, declined to bomb London because he was still hoping to convince Churchill to see reason and negotiate a peace treaty. Churchill was insisting he would take the fight to Germany. He had his bombers bomb Berlin.

LARSON: Yes.

DAVIES: And that kind of changed things, didn't it?

LARSON: One key element before this, before it became the - before Germany began its first deliberate bombing attacks on London was it was a mistake that the Luftwaffe made on August 24, 1940, when a group of German bombers thought they were over their target. They were not. They were over central London. They dropped their bombs. And this was the first attack on central London. And it was terrifying to the citizens of London who had felt that, for whatever reason, they were not - this was not going - they were not going to be the subject of attack, you know, by Hitler.

This gave Churchill what he would describe as the moral right, then, to turn around and bomb Germany. The RAF was in - bomb Berlin, rather. The RAF was a little bit reluctant to do that as well because of the moral consequences, so they'd have to weigh it, like, and so forth. So now suddenly, you have this rapid escalation that leads to, on September 7, 1940, the first deliberate mass intense bombing of the city of London.

DAVIES: So let's talk about these raids on London in some detail. How big were they? How many planes would be involved? What kind of bombs were dropped?

LARSON: Hundreds of planes were involved. You know, when I was (laughter)...

DAVIES: In a single raid, you mean. Yeah.

LARSON: Yeah, absolutely, in a single said. I mean, up to a thousand planes with bombers would be dispatched from bases along the French coast, not all necessarily arriving at the same time, but these were tremendous, tremendous raids. And when I was doing the research for this book, I would stay for part of the time in London. And I remember standing before my hotel window just looking out at dusk one night and trying to imagine what this would have been like. So on a beautiful blue night, you know, at dusk, you suddenly see these hundreds of bombers coming over the horizon, how terrifying that must have been.

So the first raid that begins on September 7, 1940, the bombers arrive at - as I point out, at teatime. This was a day when, otherwise, Londoners went about their business in a very normal way. It was a hot day for London, which is rare, hot and sunny - temperatures up about 90 degrees. The stores in Piccadilly were packed. People were just living their lives. And suddenly, the air raid sirens sound. Now, this by itself, believe it or not, was not a particularly terrifying thing because air raid sirens were sounding all the time - not all the time, but on sort of a regular basis. But now the alarms began to sound. This is in the afternoon of September 7, 1940. And, you know, the first inclination was to say, OK, these must be just another false alarm.

This time, however, incendiary bombs began to fall. These were typically the first things that the Luftwaffe would drop. These were meant to set fire to structures so that once the structures began to burn and as night fell, these structures would serve as beacons for bombers to follow because, you know, navigation at night was still a problem for the German bombers. They could fly at night readily, but getting to a target, at least in the initial phase of the Blitz, required either moonlight - which was a very important thing; the moon was referred to as the bombers' moon - or what also help us to have these, you know, structures on fire because they guided the bombers to the target.

So suddenly, these incendiaries are falling. Next come the high explosive bombs. And the Germans deployed a variety of weapons from smallish high explosive bombs to giant 4,000-pound bombs that the Germans nicknamed Satan. These bombs began to fall on the city of London in September 7, 1940. And, you know, for Londoners, life as they knew it changed utterly.

DAVIES: Right. One of the little details is that, you know, we hear the whistling sound that bombs would make as they fall. That's not a normal thing for the bombs. That was added to make them more terrifying, right?

LARSON: Yeah, the Germans - and then, eventually, also the British - added what's referred to as the sort of the Jericho trumpet, a device attached to bombs to make them howl as they fell, which was believed to amplify the terror effect. Similar thing was done, by the way, to the Stuka bombers to make them scream as they entered their dives, which was to - believed to enhance the terror of those on the ground.

DAVIES: Right. And you mentioned this, but when people saw a full moon coming, that was even more terrifying, right?

LARSON: Yes. I mean, the full moon was - the nights when there was a full moon, these were deemed to be the nights when air raids were most likely to occur because moonlight was very effective in lighting targets below. On nights when there was a full moon, you know, the so-called bombers' moon, that's when people most feared what would happen and were pretty much assured that there would be a raid.

DAVIES: Erik Larson's new book is "The Splendid And The Vile." After a break, we'll talk more about Winston Churchill's leadership during the German bombing campaign and some of the ways he inspired citizens and sustained their morale. Also, Maureen Corrigan reviews a new book from Emily St. John Mandel, which she says is disturbing but ultimately affirming. I'm Dave Davies, and this is FRESH AIR.

(SOUNDBITE OF GEORGE SHEARING'S "LONDONDARRY AIR")

DAVIES: I'm Dave Davies filling in today for Terry Gross. We're speaking with author Erik Larson. He has a new book about a national leader in a time of crisis. It focuses on British Prime Minister Winston Churchill's first year in office, when his country was fighting virtually alone against Nazi Germany and the German Air Force waged a deadly bombing campaign against British cities. Larson's book is "The Splendid And The Vile."

So these bombings inflicted enormous damage to buildings and people, killed thousands. How did the citizens prepare? How did they respond?

LARSON: At first, there was obviously a good deal of terror. People flocked to shelters. A lot of people had actually built already shelters in their backyards that were referred to as Anderson shelters. These were essentially enclosures that would be buried and that were deemed to be pretty effective against all but a direct hit. But over time, as the raids became - you know, I mean, we're talking here the first phase of blitzes, 57 consecutive nights of bombing, if you can believe it. Over time, a kind of - I won't say a weariness, but sort of a resilience seemed to come into the population.

Now, many Londoners left, but many more stayed. And at first, you know, they would flock to the (inaudible) and so forth. But over time, remarkably, many decided, you know, it's up to fate to determine what's going to happen to me tonight; so I'm just sleeping in my bed, or I'm going down to my basement, or I'm going to be in my living room. It is a myth that most Londoners flocked to the tube stops. They did not. A relatively small percentage of Londoners did so. The rest stayed - typically, stayed home.

And you know, there was a fundamental fatal calculus at work here, and that was that on any given night during a raid, you could not point to a particular individual and say that person is going to die tonight, but what you could say, with 100% accuracy, is that someone would die that night, that dozens would die that night. And this was a very sort of strange kind of thing to think about because what it meant is that you were just as likely as the next guy to be killed that night. There was nothing you could do about it.

DAVIES: What did Churchill do during the raids?

LARSON: Well, Churchill (laughter) - this was one of the things that I also found just so endearing. Churchill loved war. He'd rather be at the center of it than not. When air raids occurred, he was often to be seen on the nearest rooftop watching the raid unfold, when prudence might have suggested that he be elsewhere. There's one raid that I found particularly striking in this respect - and again, this is part, by the way, of what made him such a tremendous leader, is that he understood the power of symbolic acts. He understood the power of seeming to be courageous, that courage is infectious; it really is.

And so Churchill would be very likely to go up to the nearest rooftop to watch the raid unfold. And for one of these raids - you know, he also brought guests, and he brought staff. I mean, this is the kind of guy he was. So on one of these raids, during one particularly intense raid, he brings some guests up to the rooftop, and they're watching this raid unfold. And this is the kind of guy Churchill was. In the midst of this raid, he quotes Tennyson. He quotes Tennyson, a poem "Locksley Hall," which is considered by many to be sort of - to have foretold of the eventual - of the advent of air warfare. So he's quoting Tennyson on this rooftop during this raid, when other people would ordinarily be, you know, cowering in their shelters. That's a rare individual.

DAVIES: You note that the British Royal Air Force was actually pretty ineffective in doing anything about these night German bombing raids. I mean, they really couldn't see them to attack the invading aircraft. I mean, there were anti-aircraft batteries on the ground, but they really couldn't see much to hit anyway. But there's an important decision that Churchill made about how often they would fire, and this is - again, goes to, I think, the value of symbolic actions. Do you want to explain this?

LARSON: Oh, very much so. So the Blitz begins on September 7, 1940. And there are several nights of raids, where one thing that is really striking to the populace of London is that there doesn't seem to be any response by the city's anti-aircraft guns, and this is infuriating. It's like, why are we letting the Nazis, you know, have full access to the skies over London? Why aren't we doing something about it? And the reason was that the - in order to conserve ammunition, these anti-aircraft batteries were under instructions to, really, you know, essentially, not fire till you see the whites of their eyes. You know, don't fire until there is a clear target overhead to fire at. So a lot of these guns remained quiescent during these raids.

But Churchill recognized that this was a problem. So he issues the order that says that henceforth - I think it was September 11 when this began, ironically - he said, henceforth, the guns could fire - were to fire at will, just fire. And sure enough, they did, and this had an amazingly heartening effect on the populace of London. It just thrilled them and cheered them.

DAVIES: In 1940, the idea of a bombing campaign to terrorize and demoralize citizens was a relatively new thing. I mean, there'd been one case of it during the Spanish Civil War. But this was something kind of new. And Hitler and Hermann Goring, the head of the German air force, the Luftwaffe, continued to be astounded that the British public was taking this and Churchill wasn't giving in. And then they expanded the attacks beyond London to some other industrial cities, like Coventry and Bristol. Tell us about what that was like for those towns.

LARSON: Yeah. You know, the raid against Coventry in November of 1940 was a particularly significant raid because the Luftwaffe massed an immense force of aircraft with the idea of obliterating the city of Coventry and, actually, very much succeeded in that act, so much so that afterwards, both on the German side and the British side, Coventry was kind of the gold standard, if you will. The British referred to coventrification. A measure of the effectiveness of a raid was, was it one Coventry, two Coventrys, three Coventrys? So that was a real jarring and amazingly effective - from the German point of view - German raid.

One of the most interesting was what happened in Bristol, England. This is in 1941. Churchill was on his way to Bristol to award honorary degrees as nominal chancellor of Bristol University. And he had his whole entourage with him, various officials in his special train, and they were on their way to Bristol. They paused on a sighting outside the city, happily, because that night a tremendous raid struck the city of Bristol. And as they arrived in town the next morning, you know, the city was aflame at that point. But Churchill goes on and goes ahead with his plans to, you know, award these degrees - arrives at Bristol University. Buildings literally next door to the space in which they're holding the degree ceremony - building next door are on fire. People who - people arrive in the audience who have clearly been up all night fighting fires, digging bodies out of destroyed buildings and so forth.

There in the audience, up on the dais with him are men who have - their clothing is wet and sooty and so forth. But they're still wearing their robes. And this degree ceremony, it still goes on. Afterwards, Churchill gives this wonderful, extemporaneous speech just about the courage of Bristol residents. And it was really, I think, a very amazing and very moving moment, especially for Mary, who just...

DAVIES: His daughter, yeah.

LARSON: Mary, his daughter, yeah - Mary, who just felt her love for her father just become so much more amplified even in that moment.

DAVIES: It is interesting because, you know, Churchill was an inspirational speaker before Parliament and on the radio. But you also say that these visits to bombed-out neighbourhoods in London and the cities throughout the British Islands were also - had an inspirational effect, which is, you know - it can be tricky for an elected leader to go to an area where people have lost their livelihoods and their loved ones and are utterly shattered and shell-shocked. And they see this politician coming in with a nice car and an entourage. It can rub people the wrong way. How did he manage to make it inspirational?

LARSON: Well, you know, this is something that - after that first raid on September 7, 1940, the next day, Churchill went to the very heavily bombed dock district at the East End with an entourage. And one member, Gen. Hastings Ismay - nicknamed Pug because he looked like a pug - Ismay recounts how when they arrived in the East End, he, Ismay, was very concerned that there would be a negative reaction to Churchill arriving after this horrible event, that there might be a lot of recrimination. Like, why were you not able to save us from this thing?

For one reason or another, that was not the case. As they quickly found, the public was - the people there who had been bombed out of their homes and so forth loved it that Churchill had arrived, loved it that he was there. Now, whether that had a lot to do with Churchill himself, you know, it's hard to say. It was a moment when maybe it could have gone either way. But the fact is they embraced Churchill, and Churchill embraced them.

And one thing that endeared him to the public was the fact that he was not afraid to cry. He was deeply moved by this event. So - and that, again, cuts to this idea of the power of recognizing, the power of symbolic acts.

DAVIES: Yeah. There's one moment you describe where - it might have been touring Bristol where such a large crowd gathered that not everyone could see him. He hoists his bowler hat on his cane and lifts it high so that people can see that he's there.

LARSON: Yeah, lifts it high and swirls it around in the air so that people can see that the leader is there. I should say also by the way, that, you know, this is - you know, he was not - this wasn't sort of a desire just to, you know, revel in the adulation of his audiences. That was not it at all. He was deeply, deeply moved by everything that he saw. And it was the case that at Bristol, as he was - after he had delivered this speech and after he had made his way back to the train with this huge crowd of people from the city who had clustered around him and were following his car back to the train, where it could have been, as Mary points out - Mary Churchill, his daughter, in her diary - as she points out, it could have been a festival day in Bristol.

So they arrive at the train. Churchill boards, and he's waving to the crowd, waves to the crowd, waves. He's waving until the train is out of sight of - obviously out of sight of anybody back in Bristol. And then he picks up a newspaper, holds it in front of his head and, behind the newspaper, begins to cry. He's that moved by the situation. I believe it's at that point that he says something to the effect that it is a grave responsibility.

DAVIES: Erik Larson's book is "The Splendid And The Vile." We'll talk more after a short break. This is FRESH AIR.

(SOUNDBITE OF TED NASH'S "WATER IN CUPPED HANDS (AUNG SAN SUU KYI)")

DAVIES: This is FRESH AIR, and we're speaking with author Erik Larson. He has a new book about the leadership and family life of British Prime Minister Winston Churchill during his first year in office, when Nazi Germany waged a bombing campaign that killed more than 44,000 British civilians. The book is "The Splendid And The Vile."

I want to just turn to the subject of crisis leadership here, I mean, since, you know, we're in a crisis right now. And, of course, every national crisis is different, and a viral pandemic is different from 20th century warfare, which is what you write about. But as you reflect on the insights that this research may have given you, I'm wondering what has occurred to you observing President Trump's conduct in handling the challenges of the coronavirus.

LARSON: Oh, my. Well, you know, I come back to the idea of how to approach a situation like this or at least how Churchill would have approached it. You know, the key thing is to embolden, reassure and encourage, I feel. Trump, obviously, has done none of this. No particular moment of actual heroic leadership have I seen. But Churchill, again, would have - he would have been, first of all, very frank about what we're confronting. He would have been very frank about what this pandemic really means and about the importance, yes, of staying home. He would not be talking about the - you know, the potential of chloroquine being a miracle drug or - and he would not have been talking about, you know, we're going to open this country up by Easter because there's a reality that's not going - is not susceptible to this kind of false rhetoric. Churchill would have been very, very sober in his appraisal of what was happening. And again, then he would have come around with reasons for optimism, things that were actually happening that could maybe improve the situation.

He undoubtedly would have talked about how the vast medical research infrastructure of this country was bending itself to solving this problem. And then he would ended with some resounding, heroic thing that, again, would have launched people from their chairs, hopefully only into their kitchens and not outside in the streets; we don't want that today. But he would have done something to really encourage the populace and make them feel like he was in control and things were eventually going to get better.

DAVIES: You know, I'm also struck by how much time and effort Churchill spent studying policy, really getting into the details of every aspect of not just the war but other national policy issues and how important it is for a leader to be empirically grounded, consulting the experts that he knows. And then, obviously, he has to make his own calls, but being immersed in the actual issues.

LARSON: Well, you know, I think that Churchill would absolutely have a deep, fine-grain, down-to-the-nuts-and-bolts understanding of what was happening in part because, honestly, he chose excellent advisers who were not afraid to tell him what the reality was, which is a very important element of Churchill's sense of leadership. Churchill would have absolutely understood the finest points of what was happening in this pandemic.

I think one particular moment is emblematic of his approach. And oddly enough, it was on September 11, 1940, when he gave a speech to the public from a BBC hookup in what we know today as the Churchill War Rooms. And this is the fourth night of absolutely intense bombing, the fourth of what will prove to be 57 consecutive nights of bombing. So he gives this speech to the public from the war rooms. He did not sugarcoat anything. He warned of the clear danger of invasion. He says, you know, we cannot tell when they will come; we cannot be sure that, in fact, they will try it all, but no one should blind themselves to the fact that a heavy, full-scale invasion of this island is being prepared.

Now, imagine hearing that. Imagine the terror of his audience. But then, also, he comes back and he says, you know, this threat - he says, we must regard the next week or so as a very important period in our history. He says the threat ranks with the days of the Spanish Armada, when the Spanish Armada was approaching in the channel and Nelson stood between the Napoleon's Grand Army of Boulogne, and he warns of an outcome of far more consequence to life and future of the world and its civilization than the - than these brave days of the past.

But, you know, in doing so, he made people realize that there was so much more to this story than just a one-night trauma. He ends by saying that Hitler's attacks on London had backfired because they've caused sort of a counterreaction from the public. They've inflamed this heroism among the British because, you know, what he has done is to kindle a fire in British hearts, here and all over the world, which will glow long after all traces of the conflagration he has caused in London have been removed. And he left people really feeling emboldened, even in the midst of this unfathomable tragedy.

DAVIES: Erik Larson, thanks so much for speaking with us.

LARSON: Thank you.

DAVIES: Erik Larson's new book is "The Splendid And The Vile: A Saga Of Churchill, Family, And Defiance During The Blitz." Coming up, Maureen Corrigan reviews a new book from Emily St. John Mandel, which she says is disturbing but ultimately affirming. This is FRESH AIR.

(SOUNDBITE OF KEN PEPLOWSKI QUINTET'S "WHEN I TAKE MY SUGAR TO TEA")

Copyright © 2020 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR's programming is the audio record.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Winston Churchill Pulled Britain Through The Early Years Of WWII

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
subscribe to Fresh Air podcast DAVE DAVIES, HOST: This is FRESH AIR. I'm Dave Davies filling in today for Terry Gross. As the coronavirus pandemic spreads, Americans and citizens of many countries are getting a new look at their national leaders, evaluating their performance in a moment of crisis.

# data[].attributes.headline
How Winston Churchill's Speeches helped to win WW2

# data[].attributes.subject
How Winston Churchill's Speeches helped to win WW2

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Winston Churchill's Speeches helped to win WW2

# data[].attributes.headline
Churchill's Finest Hour- World War II 1939-1945

# data[].attributes.subject
Churchill's Finest Hour- World War II 1939-1945

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
America’s National Churchill Museum | World War II - Winston Churchill’s Finest Hour

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Read about Winston Churchill’s presence and actions during World War II as Britain’s Prime Minister, provided by the National Churchill Museum.

# data[].attributes.headline
How Churchill Led Britain To Victory In The Second World War

# data[].attributes.subject
How Churchill Led Britain To Victory In The Second World War

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
by James Taylor

Winston Churchill became Britain's prime minister on 10 May 1940. As he was later to write: 'I felt...that all my past life had been but a preparation for this hour and for this trial'.

On the very day that Churchill fulfilled his life's ambition, Germany had, that morning, invaded France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg. Britain faced its supreme test. It is for his leadership through these fraught years of 1940-1941 - through Dunkirk, the Battle of Britain and the Blitz - that Churchill is best remembered.

Crucially, he rallied the nation in defiance of Hitler. In the words of Labour politician Hugh Dalton, Churchill was 'the only man we have for this hour'. This view was shared by the overwhelming majority of the British people.

Less obviously, Churchill made planning and decision-making - both political and military - simpler and more efficient. His force of personality was instrumental in cementing the 'Big Three' Alliance with Britain's powerful allies, Russia and the United States. His unbounded energy and determination meant that he was not always easy to work with. But, as Field Marshal Sir Alan Brooke wrote, 'It is worth all these difficulties to have the privilege to work with such a man'.

In July 1945, with Nazi Germany defeated and Japan near to collapse, Churchill's Conservative Party lost a general election in a landslide victory for Labour. An electorate weary of war was looking ahead to a new Britain. Winston Churchill, the man who had done so much to secure eventual Allied victory was, once again, out of office.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Churchill Led Britain To Victory In The Second World War

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Winston Churchill became Britain's prime minister on 10 May 1940. As he was later to write: 'I felt...that all my past life had been but a preparation for this hour and for this trial'. On the very day that Churchill fulfilled his life's ambition, Germany had, that morning, invaded France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg.

# data[].attributes.headline
Activity: Was Britain divided about Indian independence, 1930-47?

# data[].attributes.subject
Activity: Was Britain divided about Indian independence, 1930-47?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Was Britain divided about Indian independence, 1930-47?

By the 1930s Britain had been ruling India for over a hundred and fifty years in one form or another. Most of the subcontinent was ruled directly by British officials while other areas were ruled by princes who were allied to the British. But British rule hadn't gone unopposed. There had been rebellions and other forms of protest. From the 1880s onwards, the Indian National Congress had been campaigning for greater independence for India.

By the 1930s this campaign had gained momentum. The campaign had a high profile and much support in India and across the world, but how did Britain respond to this campaign? What evidence can we find to show different views on the subject of Indian independence and what was the basis of this division? Were there:

1. Ideological reasons - whether imperialism was right or wrong and whether Indians should be allowed to govern themselves?

2. Strategic reasons - whether Britain would be more or less powerful if India became independent?

3. Pragmatic reasons - whether the British could maintain effective rule in India and how much support there was for the independence movement?

Your challenge

We have a box of sources from the Churchill Archive for you to investigate.

Your challenge is to study the sources in the Source Box and use them to explore whether Britain was divided, and why, on the issue of independence for India.

Your teacher will be able to help you with a recording framework and suggestions on how to present your work.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
was britain divided about indian independence

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Was Britain divided about Indian independence, 1930-47?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By the 1930s Britain had been ruling India for over a hundred and fifty years in one form or another. Most of the subcontinent was ruled directly by British officials while other areas were ruled by princes who were allied to the British. But British rule hadn't gone unopposed.

# data[].attributes.headline
Churchill on India (The Churchill Project) 

# data[].attributes.subject
Churchill on India (The Churchill Project) 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
The Churchill Project - Hillsdale College

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learn whether a quotation commonly attributed to Churchill is authentic and accurately depicts the views of Churchill on India

# data[].attributes.headline
Churchill and India: Manipulation or Betrayal?

# data[].attributes.subject
Churchill and India: Manipulation or Betrayal?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
With over 2,000 books on Winston S. Churchill, why another? Here's a good reason: No one has studied the story of Churchill's relationship with India in its entirety. That's the subject of my new book, Churchill and India.

Where did Churchill's bitter hatred for India and Hindus originate? Let's briefly examine why.

Churchill went to India with his cavalry regiment, the 4 th Hussars, from 1896-1899. Spending 22 months "in country," this was Churchill's longest foreign sojourn. From Bangalore, Churchill complained to his mother that the only people he met were soldiers, and they were "as ignorant" about conditions in India as he was. He disliked British "old India hands," like Indian Civil Service officials, who understood the country; many were erudite scholars. Churchill was put off by their social customs such as hierarchy-driven "calling" (exchanges of visits), which were so different from London society's practices. His knowledge of India remained superficial.

Churchill worshiped his father, Lord Randolph. He died in 1895 after a prolonged illness, becoming a lifelong lodestar. Churchill bought wholesale those Victorian values. He then discovered himself through self-study, having missed university education. He thirsted for knowledge. He read voraciously, especially the classics plus books his father had recommended. And he reflected. That forged his core values, including a permanent passion for "defense of Empire."

Random events cast long shadows. In 1897, going nominally as a war correspondent in uniform, Churchill joined in brutal Afghan mountain combat with Pathan tribesmen, even hand-to-hand fighting. This is brilliantly depicted in his first book, Malakand Field Force (1898). He was sent from the frontline to temporary duty with an Indian regiment, composed of Muslim soldiers. At that time Indian troops (under their own British officers) and British regiments were strictly segregated. That became his only exposure to "real India," producing lifelong empathy for Muslims. Later, that morphed into political support for Jinnah and his Muslim League.

Churchill's dealings with Indian servants, moneylenders, and petty merchants were open; he described these with humor. During his 1907 six-month East Africa safari, Churchill showed sympathy for the Indians who had come as laborers and traders. On July 8, 1920, endorsing in Parliament the removal from the Army an officer who led the 1919 massacre at Jallianwala Bagh, he called it a "monstrous event" without parallel.

Churchill's views of India began to change after 1919. British moves after WWI that allowed elections to new entities with limited power drew his antipathy. A key point was the 1921-22 visit to India by the Prince of Wales (later King George V), which coincided with Gandhi's first Satyagraha movement against British rule. It alarmed Churchill. Katherine Mayo's 1927 book Mother India, a one-sided attack on Hindu society and heritage, gave Churchill that sharp edge and vocabulary. It produced prejudice, racism, and hatred for all Hindus ("beastly religion, beastly people"). For him, India's freedom movement personified those defects.

In October 1929, Churchill entered 10 years of political wilderness. Going against his own Tory Party, and other major parties, he stridently attacked India's gradualevolution to self-rule. Four years later, asked why he did not abandon this, Churchill replied: He would not remain in politics or actively participate "if it were not for India." A consequence: his prescient warnings, commencing in 1933, on the rise of Nazi Germany went unheeded.

Britain and the West rightly celebrate Churchill as an inspiring wartime prime minister (between February 1940 and August 1945). But a "dark side" of unreason and denial dominated his India outlook. Fixation on the "Empire" led him to fantasy and misgovernance, plus great pain for India. President FD Roosevelt (FDR) worked hard from 1940 until 1942 to get Churchill to accept the looming postwar reality of self-rule in the colonies. Just before their White House Summit of December 1941, FDR told Eleanor that he would "have to compel" Churchill to give dominion status to India, but that failed. Churchill was unmoved. After extended cajoling, FDR gave up by late 1942.

Unable to counter the Indian freedom movement's high tide, Churchill lapsed into ostrich-like denial. He imprisoned Indian leaders for nearly three years from 1942 until 1945. That sundered political dialogue, which could have offered compromise. With the end of WWII in sight, Churchill refused to consider an orderly transfer of power. And throughout, Jinnah and his Muslim League were patronized, built up to create a new state as a future strategic ally to block Soviet access to the Arabian Sea and safeguard oil supplies.

How can we forget the 1942-1944 Great Indian Famine, which killed three million? It originated with blocked Burmese rice supplies, poor rains, destruction of rice stocks in East India in early 1942 by the British Army (fearing a Japanese invasion), and hoarding of food grains by Indian traders - all compounded by the incompetence of British India officials. Churchill did not heed that crisis. Not one "Action This Today" edict went to an incompetent Viceroy Linlithgow. Futile buck-passing between Delhi and London ensued, over shipping to bring food grains offered by Australia and Canada. It is the darkest event under Churchill's watch.

As for Churchill-Jinnah links, we find tantalizing bits of information, not conclusive in themselves, adding up to a suggestive partial picture. The first bit of Churchill-Jinnah correspondence in the Churchill Archives is from 1945, after Churchill left the premiership. I found in the British National Archives Jinnah's January 2, 1941, letter, and his telegram of January 4, plus Amery's reply on behalf of the PM. The banal tones suggest a mutual familiarity. Churchill-Jinnah exchanges don't figure in the meticulous Amery Diary, clearly an out-of-bounds theme.

In the early 1940s, Churchill predicted a Hindu-Muslim bloodbath at Partition. That became his self-fulfilling legacy after he lost the August 1945 election. Labour PM Clement Attlee pushed through an unprepared, over-hasty but inevitable division of British India.

My new book offers new accounts of known events, with documents and other material confirming Churchill's betrayal of human values.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Churchill and India: Manipulation or Betrayal?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
With over 2,000 books on Winston S. Churchill, why another? Here's a good reason: No one has studied the story of Churchill's relationship with India in its entirety. That's the subject of my new book, Churchill and India . Where did Churchill's bitter hatred for India and Hindus originate?

# data[].attributes.headline
Churchill, the Greatest Briton, Hated Gandhi, the Greatest Indian

# data[].attributes.subject
Churchill, the Greatest Briton, Hated Gandhi, the Greatest Indian

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Exactly a century ago, Mahatma Gandhi began his first all-India movement against British colonial rule. Winston Churchill was, and continued to be, unimpressed by those efforts.

Within his homeland, Winston Churchill's colossal contribution to saving his people from Hitler eclipses all else, and he is widely regarded as the greatest Briton of all time. So it came as something of a surprise when a senior Labour Party politician recently described him as a "villain" for having ordered troops to fire on striking workers in the Welsh town of Tonypandy in 1910. The claim provoked vigorous denunciations from prominent politicians, as well as more sober reflections in op-ed pages. When the dust settles, as it soon must, Churchill will revert to being the figure of sanctity that he has always been.

Within his homeland, that is. Outside the United Kingdom, Churchill has always had a decidedly mixed reputation. This is especially so in India, my own country, where his undying opposition to freedom for Indians is both well known and widely deplored. As is his hatred for Mahatma Gandhi, a figure he repeatedly mocked, calling him (among other things) a "malignant subversive fanatic" and "a seditious Middle Temple lawyer, now posing as a fakir of a type well known in the East, striding half-naked up the steps of the Viceregal palace."

Churchill and Gandhi met once, in November 1906. The Englishman was then the undersecretary of state for the colonies; the Indian, a spokesman for the rights of his countrymen in South Africa. Back then, Gandhi wore a suit and tie, as befitting a lawyer trained in London. It is not clear whether Churchill remembered their meeting when, in the early 1930s, he began attacking Gandhi, whose Salt March had made waves around the world and established him as the preeminent leader of India's struggle for freedom from British rule.
Read: The fading memory of South Asia's partition
At the time, Churchill was out of office and seeking to rebuild his political career by working up British sentiment in defense of the empire. By the time he was prime minister a decade later, leading the fight against the Nazis, he remained implacably opposed to independence for Gandhi's people. His senior cabinet colleague Leo Amery recalled how Churchill had once referred to Indians "as a beastly people with a beastly religion." He might have added that their leader was, in his opinion, the beastliest of them all.

In August 1942, Gandhi launched his last great popular struggle, the Quit India Movement. He was immediately arrested and taken to a prison in Poona (now known as Pune). Churchill also convinced himself that Gandhi was acting on behalf of the Axis powers. Archived British documents show that in September 1942, Churchill wrote to Amery, "Please let me have a note on Mr. Gandhi's intrigues with Japan and the documents the Government of India published, or any other they possessed before on this topic." Three days later, Amery replied, "The India Office has no evidence to show, or suggest, that Gandhi has intrigued with Japan." The "only evidence of Japanese contacts [with Gandhi] during the war," Amery continued, "relates to the presence in Wardha of two Japanese Buddhist priests who lived for part of 1940 in Gandhi's Ashram."

The Quit India Movement was marked by protests across the country. A British government report blamed Gandhi for the violence that followed his arrest. Gandhi was hurt by the accusations, since he had always preached and practiced nonviolence. When the Raj refused to retract the accusations, Gandhi began a three-week fast in prison. Once again, Churchill developed unfounded suspicions about Gandhi, this time convincing himself that the Indian was secretly using energy supplements, and therefore not really fasting.

On February 13, 1943, Churchill wired the viceroy, Lord Linlithgow: "I have heard that Gandhi usually has glucose in his water when doing his various fasting antics. Would it be possible to verify this." Two days later the Viceroy responded, "This may be the case but those who have been in attendance on him doubt it, and present Surgeon-General Bombay (a European) says that on a previous fast G. was particularly careful to guard against possibility of glucose being used. I am told that his present medical attendants tried to persuade him to take glucose yesterday and again today, and that he refused absolutely."

As Gandhi's fast entered its third week, Churchill again wired the viceroy:

Cannot help feeling very suspicious of bona fides of Gandhi's fast. We were told fourth day would be the crisis and then well staged climax was set for eleventh day onwards. Now at fifteenth day bulletins look as if he might get through. Would be most valuable [if] fraud could be exposed. Surely with all those Congress Hindu doctors round him it is quite easy to slip glucose or other nourishment into his food.

By this time, the viceroy was himself exasperated with Gandhi. But no evidence showed that he had actually taken any glucose. So the viceroy now replied to Churchill in a manner that stoked both men's prejudices. "I have long known Gandhi as the world's most successful humbug," Linlithgow fumed, "and have not the least doubt that his physical condition and the bulletins reporting it from day to day have been deliberately cooked so as to produce the maximum effect on public opinion." Then, going against his own previous statement, the viceroy claimed that "there would be no difficulty in his entourage administering glucose or any other food without the knowledge of the Government doctors"-this when the same government doctors had told him exactly the opposite. "If I can discover any firm of evidence of fraud I will let you hear," Linlithgow wrote to Churchill, adding, "but I am not hopeful of this."

This prompted an equally disappointed reply from Churchill: "It now seems certain that the old rascal will emerge all the better from his so-called fast."

In 1943, Lord Wavell replaced Linlithgow as viceroy. The prime minister warned Wavell "that only over his [Churchill's] dead body would any approach to Gandhi take place." Then he joked that Wavell had "one great advantage over the last few Viceroys": They "had to decide whether and when to lock up Gandhi," whereas this viceroy "should find him already locked up."

Wavell, however, stood against Linlithgow and Churchill and believed that India should become independent. He released Gandhi from prison in May 1944. When World War II ended a year later and a Labour government came to power in Britain, Churchill's reactionary policies were set aside, and formal negotiations for a transfer of power began. The British departed the subcontinent in August 1947, dividing it as they left into the separate, sovereign nations of India and Pakistan. Gandhi was murdered by a Hindu fanatic in January 1948.

These facts are well known. What is not is that Churchill's dislike of Gandhi persisted even after British rule in India had ended and his adversary had died.

In 1951, Churchill published an installment of his war memoirs, The Hinge of Fate, and made an astonishing charge against Gandhi. The former prime minister claimed that the Indian had conducted his 1943 fast "under the most favourable conditions in a small palace" and that "the most active world-wide propaganda was set on foot that his death was approaching." Then Churchill wrote, "It was certain, however, at an early stage that he was being fed with glucose whenever he drank water, and this, as well as his own intense vitality and lifelong austerity, enabled this frail being to maintain his prolonged abstention from any visible form of food."

"In the end," Churchill continued, "being quite convinced of our obduracy he abandoned his fast, and his health, though he was very weak, was not seriously affected."

The publication of this volume of The Hinge of Fate created an uproar in India. Gandhi's secretary, Pyarelal, and his doctor, B. C. Roy, wrote angry letters to Churchill, dismissing the Englishman's claims as canards. Gandhi had refused to take glucose at any time during his fast-which Linlithgow had written to Churchill-even though a government doctor had warned him that he might die if he did not. Further, Gandhi had always said that his fast would last exactly three weeks.

The Indian press also responded with fury, archival materials show. The Tribune, a newspaper based in the northern-Indian city of Ambala, said Churchill's charges had been refuted by those who had firsthand knowledge of Gandhi's fast, and put Churchill's baseless attacks in a broader context. "Mr. Churchill's remarks only betray his lack of understanding of the Mahatma's character and his general ignorance about this country," the paper wrote. "Mr. Churchill is a great war-time leader. But no man is more insular in his outlook. He has yet to realise that the people of Asia, Africa and the Middle East are entitled to a life of their own. He still thinks in terms of the hegemony of the world by Anglo-Saxon peoples."
Read: Documenting India's villages before they vanish
Even sharper in its criticism was the now-defunct Indian News Chronicle. Its editorial on September 27, 1951, titled "Churchilliana," said the former British leader's memoirs were full of myths and misstatements, of which the calumnies against Gandhi were representative. Churchill's "entire political career," the paper thundered, "is a record of political opportunism, inconsistency, and downright wickedness." Calling him a "friend of reaction" and "a high priest of British imperialism," the editorial ended:

Mr. Churchill is incorrigible, hopelessly out of date, and is getting unpopular day by day. His memoirs might be read for their grandiloquent phraseology, bombast, and nineteenth century English, but no student of history will find his version of recent history a safe guide. The odds are that these memoirs, in course of time, will be rescinded to the dustbin. And as for his malicious attacks on Mahatma Gandhi, we are certain that they will deceive no one. Long after Churchill and his memoirs have been forgotten, humanity will continue to regard Gandhiji as a beacon of peace; and cherish his memory with reverence even as they cherish the memory of Jesus, Buddha and Socrates.

The Hindustan Times ' response was less polemical, but arguably more effective. The paper was then edited by Gandhi's son Devdas, who dispatched a reporter to locate Major General R. H. Candy, the British doctor who had attended to Gandhi during his prison fast. Asked to comment on Churchill's allegations, Candy, then living in retirement in rural Hampshire, confirmed that he had indeed advised Gandhi to take glucose, but that Gandhi had refused. "From my knowledge of Mr. Gandhi," he said, "I am convinced that he would not willingly have taken glucose or any other form of food" during his fast. Churchill's response to these corrections is unknown.

Recent works by Indians have blamed Churchill for the Great Bengal Famine of 1943, in which more than 2 million people died. As prime minister, Churchill could have done more to ensure speedy supplies of grain to the affected areas. But to call him a war criminal and a mass murderer, as some polemicists have done, is surely hyperbolic.

That said, there is no question that Churchill had an intense dislike of Indians in general, and a pathological suspicion of one Indian in particular. His venomous and long-lasting hatred of Gandhi shows that this great Briton could sometimes think and act like a small-minded parochialist.
This essay has been adapted from Ramachandra Guha's book Gandhi: The Years That Changed the World, 1914-1948.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Churchill, the Greatest Briton, Hated Gandhi, the Greatest Indian

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Exactly a century ago, Mahatma Gandhi began his first all-India movement against British colonial rule. Winston Churchill was, and continued to be, unimpressed by those efforts. Within his homeland, Winston Churchill's colossal contribution to saving his people from Hitler eclipses all else, and he is widely regarded as the greatest Briton of all time.

# data[].attributes.body
An article about Dr Jan Machielsen's book on the Basque Witch Hunt.

# data[].attributes.body
An article which discusses the Holy Roman Empire as the heartland of Early Modern witch-hunting.

# data[].attributes.body
This document contains as much information as we have on those accused as witchcraft in East Anglia 1645-47, as well as, in some cases, details of the legal proceedings against them. Try using 'ctrl F' to search for the names of towns or individuals.

# data[].attributes.body
Links to free ebook copies of Matthew Hopkins' pamphlet, "The Discovery of Witches", written towards the end of the East Anglian Witchcraze.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Discovery of Witches by Matthew Hopkins

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Free kindle book and epub digitized and proofread by volunteers.

# data[].attributes.body
This episode of In Our Time looks into Caxton, who brought the printing press to England.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
J. A. W. Bennett (ed.), 'The Canterbury Tales: A Facsimile Edition of William Caxton's Second Edition' (Cambridge: Cornmarket Reprints, 1972)

N. F. Blake, 'Caxton and his World' (André Deutsch, 1969)

N. F. Blake, 'Caxton: England's First Publisher' (Osprey, 1975)

N. F. Blake, 'Caxton's Own Prose' (HarperCollins, 1973)

Lotte Hellinga, 'Caxton in Focus: The Beginning of Printing in England' (British Library, 1982)

Lotte Hellinga, 'William Caxton and Early Printing in England' (British Library, 2010)

L. Hellinga and J. B. Trapp (ed.), 'The Cambridge History of the Book in Britain, Vol. III: 1400-1557'(Cambridge, 1999)

E. Hodnett (ed.), 'The History and Fables of Aesop translated and printed by William Caxton 1484, reproduced in facsimile' (Scolar Press, 1976)

D. McKitterick, 'Print, Manuscript and the Search for Order'(Cambridge, 2005)

J. C. T. Oates and L. C. Harmer, 'Vocabulary in French and English: a facsimile of Caxton's edition of c.1480' (Cambridge University Press, 1964)

George D. Painter, 'William Caxton: A Quincentenary Biography of England's First Printer' (Chatto & Windus, 1976)

A. Pettegree, 'The Book in the Renaissance' (Yale, 2010)

SCROLL TO BOTTOM OF PAGE FOR FURTHER RELEVANT LINKS

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
BBC Radio 4 - In Our Time, Caxton and the Printing Press

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
J. A. W. Bennett (ed.), 'The Canterbury Tales: A Facsimile Edition of William Caxton's Second Edition' (Cambridge: Cornmarket Reprints, 1972) N. F. Blake, 'Caxton and his World' (André Deutsch, 1969) N. F. Blake, 'Caxton: England's First Publisher' (Osprey, 1975) N. F.

# data[].attributes.body
This episode of In Our Time looks into the Diet of Worms, in which Martin Luther's criticism triggered the start of the Reformation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Melvyn Bragg discusses the Diet of Worms where the Holy Roman Emperor demanded Martin Luther explain his attacks on the Catholic Church. The ensuing arguments helped trigger the Reformation.

Melvyn Bragg and guests discuss the Diet of Worms, an event that helped trigger the European Reformation. Nestled on a bend of the River Rhine, in the South West corner of Germany, is the City of Worms. It's one of the oldest cities in central Europe; it still has its early city walls, its 11th century Romanesque cathedral and a 500-year-old printing industry, but in its centre is a statue of the monk, heretic and founder of the Protestant Reformation, Martin Luther. In 1521 Luther came to Worms to explain his attacks on the Catholic Church to the Holy Roman Emperor, Charles V, and the gathered dignitaries of the German lands. What happened at that meeting, called the Diet of Worms, tore countries apart, set nation against nation, felled kings and plunged dynasties into suicidal bouts of infighting. But why did Martin Luther risk execution to go to the Diet, what was at stake for the big players of medieval Europe and how did events at the Diet of Worms irrevocably change the history of Europe? With Diarmaid MacCulloch, Professor of the History of the Church at Oxford University; David Bagchi, Lecturer in the History of Christian Thought at the University of Hull; Reverend Dr Charlotte Methuen, Lecturer in Reformation History at the University of Oxford.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
BBC Radio 4 - In Our Time, The Diet of Worms

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Melvyn Bragg discusses the Diet of Worms where the Holy Roman Emperor demanded Martin Luther explain his attacks on the Catholic Church. The ensuing arguments helped trigger the Reformation. Melvyn Bragg and guests discuss the Diet of Worms, an event that helped trigger the European Reformation.

# data[].attributes.body
In Our Time investigates the Spanish Inquisition, who were responsible for rooting out heresy in Spain.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Melvyn Bragg and guests discuss the Spanish Inquisition, whose defense of medieval orthodoxy is a story of heresy, torture, courage, imprisonment, exile and death.

Melvyn Bragg and guests discuss the Spanish Inquisition, the defenders of medieval orthodoxy. The word 'Inquisition' has its roots in the Latin word 'inquisito' which means inquiry. The Romans used the inquisitorial process as a form of legal procedure employed in the search for evidence. Once Rome's religion changed to Christianity under Constantine, it retained the inquisitorial trial method but also developed brutal means of dealing with heretics who went against the doctrines of the new religion. Efforts to suppress religious freedom were initially ad hoc until the establishment of an Office of Inquisition in the Middle Ages, founded in response to the growing Catharist heresy in South West France. The Spanish Inquisition set up in 1478 surpassed all Inquisitorial activity that had preceded it in terms of its reach and length. For 350 years under Papal Decree, Jews, then Muslims and Protestants were put through the Inquisitional Court and condemned to torture, imprisonment, exile and death. How did the early origins of the Inquisition in Medieval Europe spread to Spain? What were the motivations behind the systematic persecution of Jews, Muslims and Protestants? And what finally brought about an end to the Spanish Inquisition 350 years after it had first been decreed? With John Edwards, Research Fellow in Spanish at the University of Oxford; Alexander Murray, Emeritus Fellow in History at University College, Oxford;Michael Alpert, Emeritus Professor in Modern and Contemporary History of Spain at the University of Westminster

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
BBC Radio 4 - In Our Time, The Spanish Inquisition

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Melvyn Bragg and guests discuss the Spanish Inquisition, whose defense of medieval orthodoxy is a story of heresy, torture, courage, imprisonment, exile and death. Melvyn Bragg and guests discuss the Spanish Inquisition, the defenders of medieval orthodoxy. The word 'Inquisition' has its roots in the Latin word 'inquisito' which means inquiry.

# data[].attributes.body
This episode of In Our Time analyses whether the witch-hunts were simple misogyny or something more complex.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Melvyn Bragg discusses witchcraft in Reformation Europe; misogynism or a sustained attempt by the Christian Church to root out the last of an ancient religion of Europe?

Melvyn Bragg and guests discuss witchcraft in Reformation Europe. In 1486 a book was published in Latin, it was called Maleus Mallificarum and it very soon outsold every publication in Europe bar the Bible. It was written by Heinrich Kramer, a Dominican Priest and a witchfinder. "Magicians, who are commonly called witches" he wrote, "are thus termed on account of the magnitude of their evil deeds. These are they who by the permission of God disturb the elements, who drive to distraction the minds of men, such as have lost their trust in God, and by the terrible power of their evil spells, without any actual draught or poison, kill human beings.""Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" says Exodus, and in the period of the Reformation and after, over a hundred thousand men and women in Europe met their deaths after being convicted of witchcraft.Why did practices that had been tolerated for centuries suddenly become such a threat? What brought the prosecutions of witchcraft to an end, and was there anything ever in Europe that could be truly termed as a witch?With Alison Rowlands, Senior Lecturer in European History at the University of Essex; Lyndal Roper, Fellow and Tutor in History at Balliol College, University of Oxford; Malcolm Gaskill, Fellow and Director of Studies in History at Churchill College, Cambridge.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Melvyn Bragg discusses witchcraft in Reformation Europe; misogynism or a sustained attempt by the Christian Church to root out the last of an ancient religion of Europe? Melvyn Bragg and guests discuss witchcraft in Reformation Europe. In 1486 a book was published in Latin, it was called Maleus Mallificarum and it very soon outsold every publication in Europe bar the Bible.

# data[].attributes.body
This podcast is a mixture of history & comedy, and is a way to test & enhance your understanding of the witchcrazes.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
BBC Radio 4 - You’re Dead To Me, The Witch Craze

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Enter into the dark days of the European Witch Craze, where no woman was safe.

# data[].attributes.headline
Witchcrazes (2.2 especially, but good for the whole topic)

# data[].attributes.subject
Witchcrazes (2.2 especially, but good for the whole topic)

# data[].attributes.body
This online sourcebook links to Levack's book (recommended on the reading list), but you can look at it whether you've read Levack's book or not! The interactive timeline & map are particularly useful for consolidating your understanding.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
G. Regional and National Studies--1500 to the Present

Baschwitz, Kurt. Der Massenwahn: Ursache und Heilung des deutschen Hasses. Munich 1932.

Baumgarten, Achim R. Hexenwahn und Hexenverfolgungen im Naheraum. Frankfurt, 1987.

Behringer, Wolfgang. "Allemagne, 'Mère de tant de sorcières' au cour des persécutions," in Magie et sorcellerie en Europe, ed. R. Muchembled. Paris, 1994, pp. 59-98.

___________________ (ed). Hexen und Hexenprozesse in Deutschland. Munich, 1988.

___________________. Hexenverfolgung in Bayern. Munich, 1988.

___________________. Kinder "Kinderhenexprozesse: Zur Rolle von Kindern in der Geschichte der Hexenverfolgungen," Zeitschrift für historische Forschung 16 (1989): 31-47.

___________________. Witchcraft Persecutions in Bavaria: Popular Magic, Religious Zealotry and Reason of State in Early Modern Europe. trans. J. C. Grayson and D. Lederer. Cambridge, 1998.

Bever, Edward. "Witchcraft, Fears and the Suppression of Magic in Early Modern Württemberg", Princeton Ph. D. Diss. (1983).

Binz, Carl. Doctor Johann Weyer. Bonn, 1885; rev. Berlin, 1896.

Brauner, Sigrid. Fearless Wives and Frightened Shrews: the Construction of the Witch in Early Modern Germany. Amherst, 1995.

Burr, George L. The Fate of Diedrich Flade. N. Y., 1891,

Decker, Rainer. "Die Haltung der römischen Inquisition gegenüber Hexenglauben und Exorzismus am Beispiel der Teufelsaustreibungen in Paderborn 1657," in Das Ende der Hexenverfolgung, ed. S. Lorenz and D. R. Bauer (Stuttgart, 1995): 97-115.

_____________."Die Hexenverfolgungen im Herzogtum Westfalen," Westfälische Zeitschrift 131/132, (1981-2): 339-86.

_____________. "Die Hexenverfolgungen im Hochstift Paderborn," Westfälische Zeitschrift 128 (1978): 315-56.

Degn, Christian, Hartmut Lehmann, and Dagmar Unverhau (eds.). Hexenprozesse: Deutsche und scandinavische Beiträge. Neumünster,1983.

Dienst, Heide. "Magische Vorstellungen und Hexenverfolgungen in den österreichen Alpenländern (15-18 Jahrhundert) in E. Zöllner (ed.), Wellen der Verfolgungen in der österreichischen Geschichte. Vienna,1986.

Johannes Dillinger, Böse Leute: Hexenverfolgungen in Schwäbish-Österreich und Kurtrier im Vergleich. Trierer Hexenprozesse Band 5, 1999.

________________. "Evil People": A comparative Study of Witch Huntsd in Swabian Austria and the Electorate of Trier Trans. Laura Stokes. Charlotteesville, 2009.

Durrant, Jonathan. Witchcraft, Gender and Society in Early Modern Germany. [Studies in Medieval and Reformation Traditions 124], Leiden, 2007.

Gebhardt, Horst Heinrich. Hexenpozesse im Kurfürstum Mainz des 17 Jahrhunderts. Aschaffenburg, 1989.

Görres, Johann. Mystik, magie und dämonie. Munich, 1927.

Gross, Johann. Die grosse Ohnmacht des Fürsten der Finsterniss. Leipzig, 1734.

Haas, A. "Über das pommersche Hexenwesen im 16 und 17 Jahrhundert", Baltische Studien 34 (1932): 158-202.

Heberling, R. "Zauberei- und Hexenprozesse in Schleswig-Holstein-Lauenburg", Zeitschrift der Geselschaft für Schleswig-Holsteinishce Geschichte 45 (1915): 116-247.

Herzig, Tamar. Christ Transformed into a Virgin Woman: Lucia Broadelli, Heiruch Institoris, and the Defense of the Faith. Rome, 2013.

Honegger, Claudia."Die Hexen in der Neuzeit", in Honegger, ed. Die Hexen der Neuzeit.. Frankfort, 1978.

Hoppstätdler, K. "Die Hexenverfolgungen in Saarländischen Raum", Zeitschrift für Geschichte der Saargegund 9 (1959), 210-67.

Jahn, Ulrich. Hexenwesen und Zauberei in Pommern. Stettin, 1886.

Kampfen, Peter J. Hexen und Hexenprozess in Wallis. 1867.

Kiesewetter, Karl. Faust in der Geschichte und Tradition; mit besonderer Berücksichtigung des occulten Phänomenalismus ... Leipzig, 1893.

Kunstmann, H. H. Zauberwahn und Hexenprozess in der Reichstadt Nürnberg. Nürnberg, 1970.

Kunze, Michael. Der Prozess Pappenheimer. Elsbach, 1981.

_____________. Highroad to the Stake: A Tale of Witchcraft. Chicago, 1987.

Labouvie, Eva. Zauberei und Hexenwerk. Ländliche Hexenglaube in der frühen Neuzeit. Frankfurt, 1987.

____________."Männer im Hexenprozess: zur Sozialanthropologie eines 'männlichen' Verständnisses von Magie und Hexerei," Geschichte und Gesellschaft 16 (1190): 56-78.

Lehmann, Hartmut. "Hexenverfolgungen und Hexenprozesse in Alten Reich zwischen Reformation und Aufklarung," Jahrbuch de Instituts für Deutsche Geschichte 7 (1978), 13-70.

______________. "The Persecution of Witches as Restoration of Order: the Case of Germany, 1590s-1650s," Central European History 21 (1988), 107-121.

Leutenbauer, S. Hexerei- und Zaubereidelikt in der Literatur von 1450 bis 1550. Berlin, 1972.

Liebelt, K. "Geschichte des Hexenprozess in Hessen-Kassel", Zeitschrift des Vereins für Geschichte und Landekunde 58 (1932), 1-144.

Lorenz, Sönke. Aktenversendung und Hexenprozesz. Dargestellt am Beispiel der Juristfakultäten Rostock und Greifswald (1570/82-1630). 2 vols. Frankfurt am Main, 1982-83.

_____________. "Johann Georg Goedelmann--Ein Gegner des Hexenwahns? in R. Schmidt, Beiträge zur Pommerschen und mecklenberischen Geschichte (Marburg, 1981), pp. 61-105.

_____________ and Jürgen Michael Schmidt, Wider alle Hexerei und Teufelswerk: Die Europaische Hexenverfolgung und Ihre Auswirkungen auf Süddeutschland. Ostfildern, 2007.

Meili, David. Hexen in Wasterkingen: Magie und Lebensform in einem Dorf des fruhen 18. Jahrhunderts. Basel, 1980.

Meinhold, W. Mary Schweidler, the amber witch, The most interesting trial for witchcraft ever known. trans. Lady Duff Gordon.London, 1846.

Merzbacher, F. Die Hexenprozesse in Franken. Munich, 1970.

Midelfort, H. C. E. Witch hunting in Southwestern Germany,1562-1684. Stanford,1972.

_______________ "Witch hunting and the Domino Theory", in James Obelkevich (ed.) Religion and the People. (1979).

_______________. "Heartland of the witchcraze: central and northern Europe", History Today 31 (1981).

Paulus, Nikolaus. Hexenwahn und Hexenprozess, vornehmlich im 16. Jahrhundert. Freiburg-im-Breisgau, 1910.

Pohl, Herbert. Hexenglaube und Hexenverfolgung im Kurfürstentum Mainz. Geschichliche Landeskunde 32. Stuttgart, 1988.

Reich, Felix. Hexenprozess in Danzig und in den westpreussischen Grenzgebieten. Munich,1940.

Reizler, S. Geschichte des Hexenprozess in Bayern. Stuttgart,1896.

Rinscheid, J. "Die Hexenwahn im Wildenburger Lande", Mitteilungen der Westdeutschen Gesellschaft für Familienkunde 21 (3-4) (1963):, 203-76.

Robisheaux, Thomas. The Last Witch of Langenburg: Murder in a German Village. New York, 2009.

_________________. "The German Witchcraft Trials," in Oxford Handbook of Witchcraft in Early Modern Europe and Colonial America, ed. Brian P. Levack, pp. 178-98.

Roper, Lyndal. "Stealing Manhood: Capitalism and Magic in Early Modern Germany," Gender and History 3 (1991:, 4-22.

_____________"Witchcraft and Fantasy in Early Modern Germany," History Workshop 32 (1991):19-43.

_____________. Oedipus and the Devil: Witchcraft, Sexuality and Religion in Early Modern Europe. London and New York, 1994.

______________. Witch Craze: Terror and Fantasy in Baroque Germany. New Haven and London, 2005.

Rummel, Walter. Bauern, Herren und Hexen: Studien zur Sozialgeschichte sponheimischer und kurtrierischer Hexenprozesse, 1574-1664. Göttingen, 1991.

Sabean, David W. Power in the Blood: Popular Culture and Village Discourse in Early Modern Germany. Cambridge, 1984.

Schormann, Gerhard. Hexenprozesse in Deutschland. Göttingen, 1981.

__________________. Hexenprozesse in Nordwestdeutschland. Hildesheim, 1977.

__________________. Der Krieg gegen die hexen: Das Ausrottungsprogramm des Kurfürsten von Köln. Göttingen, 1991.

Schwarzwälder, Herbert. "Die Formen des Zauber- und Hexenglaubens und seiner Umgebung, vor allem während des 16. und 17. Jahrhunderts," Heimat und Volkstum. Bremer Nachträge zur niederdeutschen Volkskunde (1958): 3-68.

_____________________. "Die Geschichte des Zauber- und Hexenglaubens in Bremen", Bremisches Jahrbuch 46 (1959):156-233 and 47 (1961): 99-142.

Swerhoff, Gerd. "Zentrum und treibende Kräfte der frühneuzeitlichen Hexenverfolgung: Sachse im regionalen Vergleich," Neues Archiv für sächsische Geschichte 79 (2008), 61-100.

Scribner, Bob. "Witchcraft and Judgement in Reformation Germany," History Today 40 (April, 1990), 12-19.

Siebel, Friedrich W. Die Hexenverfolgung in Köln. Ph. D. dissertation, Bonn 1959.

Stokes, Laura. Demons of Urban Reform: Early European Witch Trialsand Criminal Justice, 1430-1530. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011.

Trusen, Winfried. "Rechtliche Grundlagen der Hexenprozesse und ihrer Beendigung," in Das Ende der Hexenverfolgung, ed. S. Lorenz and D. R. Bauer (Stuttgart, 1995): 213

Unverhau, Dagmar. "Aufruhr und Rebellion im Amt Bergedorf wegen eines Zauberers und dreier Zauberinnen im Jahr 1612," Zeitschrif des Vereins für Hamburgische Geschichte 68 (1982): 1-22.

_________________. "Kieler Hexen und Zauberer zur Zeit der groszen Verfolgungen (1530-1676)," in Mitteilungen der Gesellschaft für Kieler Stadtgeschichte 68 (1981), 41-96.

_________________, "Akkusationsprozess-Inquisitionsprozess. Indikatoren für die Intensität der Hexenverfolgung in Schleswig-Holstein," in C. Degn, H. Lehman and D. Unverhau, Hexenprozesse: Deutsche und Skandinavische Beiträge (Studien zur Volkskunde und Kulturgeschichte Schleswig Holsteins 12). (Neumünster, 1983): 59-142

Valentinitsch, H. (ed.) Hexen und Zauberer. Graz, 1987.

van Oorschot, Theo G.M. "Ihrer Zeit voraus: Das Ende der Hexenverfolgung in der Cautio Criminalis," in Das Ende der Hexenverfolgung, ed. S. Lorenz and D. R. Bauer (Stuttgart, 1995)

Walinski-Kiehl, Robert S. "Godly States: Confessional Conflict and Witch-Hunting in Early Modern Germany," Mentalité-Mentalities 5 (1988)

Williams, Gerhild Scholz. Defining Dominion: The Discourses of Magic and Witchcraft in Early Modern France and Germany. Ann Arbor, 1995.

Volk, Franz. Hexen in der Langvogtei Ortenau und der Reichstadt Offenburg. Lahr, 1882.

Wunde, Heidi. "Hexenprozesse im Herzogtum Preussen während des 16 Jahrhunderts," in Christian Degn, Hartmut Lehman and Dagmar Unverhau, Hexenprozesse: Deutsche und Skandinavische Beiträge (Studien zur Volkskunde und Kulturgeschichte Schleswig Holsteins 12). Neumünster, 1983.

Wüst, Wolfgang. "Inquisitionsprozess und Hexenverfolgung in Hochschrift Augsburg im 17 und 18 Jahrhundert," zeitschrift für Bayerische Landesgeschichte 50 (1987): 109-26.

Zwetsloot, Hugo, S. J. Friedrich Spee und die Hexenprozesse. Trèves, 1954.
2. France and the Low Countries
Attfield, Robin, "Balthasar Bekker and the Decline of the Witch-Craze: the Old Demonology and the New Philosophy," Annals of Science 42 (1985): 383-395.

Barbery D'Aurevilly, Jules A. Bewitched. N. Y., 1928, 276 p. 843 B 233e Tw.

_________________________. The Diaboliques. N. Y., 1925. Also a 1964 ed.

Baudrillart, H. J. Bodin et son temps ... Paris, 1853. Bavoux, François. "Les caractères originaux de la sorcellerie dans le Pays de Montbéliard", Mémoires de la Société pour l'histoire du droit et des institutions des anciens pays bourguignons, comptais et romands 20 (1958-59).

________________. Hantises et diableries dans la terre abbatiale de Luxeuil d'un procès de l'Inquisition (1529) à l'épidémie démoniaque de 1628-1630. Monaco: Ed. du Rocher, 1956.

________________. Les Procès inédits de Boguet en matière de sorcellerie dans la grande judicature de Saint-Claude. Dijon, 1958.

________________. La Sorcerie au pays de Quingey. Besançon, 1947.

________________. La Sorcerie en Franche Comté. Monaco, 1954.

Baxter, Christopher. "Jean Bodin's De la Démonomanie des Sorciers: The Logic of Prosecution," in The Damned Art. Ed. S. Anglo, London, 1977.

Bertin, P. "Une affaire de sorcellerie dans un village d'Artois au XVIe siècle", Bulletin

Beckman, Jacques. "Une épidémie de sorcellerie à Novilles-les-Bois au début du XVIIe siècle," Annales de la société Archéologique de Namur 54 (1968), 425-469. trimestriel de la société academique des antiquaires de la Morinie 18 (1957), pp. 609-17.

________. La sorcellerie en Franche-Comté. Monaco, 1954.

Bila, Constantin. La croyance à la magique au XVIIIe siècle en France dans les contes, romans et traites. Paris, 1925. 158 Bouisson, Maurice. Magic: its Rites and History. London, 1960, 319 pp. From the French.

Braun, Pierre. "La Sorcellerie dans les lettres de rémission du Trésor des Chartres," Etudes sur la sensibilité au Moyen Age. Actes du 102e Congrès national des Sociétés savantes. Linoges, 1977, Paris, 1979.

Briggs, Robin. Communities of Belief: Cultural and Social Tension in Early Modern France. Oxford, 1989. 3 chapters on witchcraft.

_____________. Witchcraft and Popular Mentality in Lorraine, 1580-1630," in Occult and Scientific Mentalities in the Renaissance, ed. Brian Vickers. Cambridge, 1984, pp. 337-49.

_____________. "Women as Victims? Witches, Judges and the Community," French History 5 (1991), 438-50.

_____________. Witches and Neighbors: The Social and Cultural Context of European Witchcraft. New York and London, 1996.

_____________. The Witches of Lorraine. Oxford, 2007.

Brouette, E. La sorcellerie dans le Compté de Namur au début de l'époque moderne (1509-1646). Gembloux, 1954.

Chanou, P. "Le fin des sourciers", Annales E. S. C. 24 (1969): 895-911.

Chastain, André. Un convive du "Diner d'athees" de Barbey d'Aurevilly. 1958.

de Cauzons, Th. La magie et la sorcellerie en France. 4 vols. Incl. materials about the inquisitions on Toulouse. 133 C 313m.

Clark, Stuart, "The 'Gendering' of Witchcraft in French Demonology: Misogyny or Polarity?," French Studies 5 (1991), 426-37.

Delacroix, Frederic. Les procès de sorcellerie au XVIIe siècle. Paris, 1894.

Delcambre, Étienne. Le Concept de la sorcellerie dans le duché de Lorraine aux XVI e-XVIIe siècles. 3 vols. Nancy, 1848-51.

Denis, A. La sorcellerie à Toul aux XVI e et XVII e siècles. Toul, 1888.

Dintzer, Lucien. Nicolas Rémy et son oeuvre démonologique. Lyon, 1936.

Dupont-Bouchat, Marie-Sylvie. "La Répression de la sorcellerie dans le duché de Luxembourg aux XVIe et XVIIe siècles", in Dupont-Bouchat et. al., Prophètes et sorciers dans les Pays-Bas XVIe-XVIIIe siècles. Paris, 1978.

Durkheim, E. Les formes élémentaires de la vie religieuse. Paris, 1912. Also an Eng. translation, 1915.

Fatio, Olivier. "Lambert Daneau," in Shapers of Religious Traditions in Germany, Switzerland and Poland, 1560-1660, ed. Jill Raitt. New Haven, 1981.

Favret-Saada, Jeanne Les mots, la mort, les sorts. La sorcellerie dans la Bocage. Paris, 1977. trans. as Deadly Words: Witchcraft in the Bocage. New York, 1980. Febvre, Lucien. "Sorcellerie: sottise ou révolution mentale?," Annales E. S. C. 3 (1948), 9-15., trans. K. Folca as "Witchcraft: Nonsense or a Mental Revolution? in A New Kind of History from the Writings of Febvre, ed. Peter Burke. London, 1973, pp. 185-92.

Fix, Andrew. Fallen Angels: Balthasar Bekker, Spirit Belief, and Confessionalism in the Seventeenth-Century Dutch Republic. Dordrecht, 1999.

Foucault, Maurice. Les procèss de sorcellerie dans l'ancienne France devant les jurisdictions séculières. Paris, 1907.

Gijswijt-Hofstra, Marijke. "The European Witchcraft Debate and the Dutch Variant," Social History 15 (1990), 181-94.

_______________________"Witchcraft in the Northern Netherlands," in Arina Angerman et al. (eds.), Current Issue in Women's History. London, 1989, pp. 75-92.

Gijswijt-Hofstra and Frijhoff, Willem, eds. Witchcraft in the Netherlands: from the fourteenth to the twentieth century. Rotterdam, 1991.

______________________. Nederland betoverd. Toverij en hekserij van de veertiende tot in de twintingste eeuw. Amsterdam, 1987.

Gilbert, L. "La Sorcellerie au pays messin," Pays Lorrain (1907).

Golden, Richard M. "Notions of Social and Religious Pollution in Nicholas Remy's Demonolatry," in Politics, Ideology and the law in Early Modern Europe: Essays in Honor of J. H. M Salmon, ed. Adrianna E. Bakos. Rochester, 1994, pp. 21-33.

Huxley, Aldous. The Devils of Loudon. New York, 1952.

Jeanton, Gabriel, "Un procès de sorcellerie à Mâcon au XVIIe siècle," Revue de folklore français 2 (1931): 317-27.

Klaits, Joseph (1982) "Witchcraft Trials and Absolute Monarchy in France," in Church, State and Society under the Bourbon Kings of France , ed. R. Golden (Lawrence, Kans.), 148-72.

Krause, Virginia. Witchcraft, Demonology nd Confession in Early Modern France. Cambridge, 2015.

Lange, Ursula. Untersuchungen zu Bodins Démonomanie. Frankfort, 1970.

Lavanchy, J. M. "Sabbats ou Synagogues sur les Bords du Lac d'Annecy," Mémoires et Documents Publiés par L'Académie Salésienne 8 (1885), 381-440.

Le Nail, J.-F. "Procedure contre des sorciéres de Seix en 1562," Société ariègoise, sciences, lettres et arts 31 (1976), 155-232.

Le Roy Ladurie, Emmanuel. Jasmin's Witch. London, 1987.

McGowan, Margaret. "Pierre de Lancre's Tableau de l'Inconstance dss Mauvais Anges et Demons," in The Damned Art. ed. S. Anglo. London, 1977.

Maes, L. th. "Un procèss de sorcellerie en 1642, évalué à la lumière de recentes études européennes et d'après la legislation et la theorie du droit du XVIIe siècle", Studia Mechliniensia 79 (1975): 243-68.

Mandrou, Robert. Magistrats et sorciers en France au XVIIe siècle. Paris,1968.

Marchou, G. "La sorcellerie dans le Médoc", Tour Saint Jaques 11-12 (supplement July-Oct 1957), 51-6.

Martin, X. "Aspects de la sorcellerie en Anjou,"in Histoire des faits de sorcellerie

Marx, Jean. L'Inquisition en Dauphiné. 1914.

Maury, Alfred. La magie et l'Astrologie dans l'antiquité et au Moyen Age ou étude sûr les superstitions paiennes qui se sont perpetuées jusqu'a nos jours. Paris, 1877. 133.4 M 448m.

Mellot, Jean, "La Sorcellerie en Berry," Tour Saint Jacques 11-12 (1957).

Michelet, Jules Satanism and Witchcraft. From the French. Orig. Paris, 1867.

_____________ La Sorcière. Paris, 1862.

Mollenauer, Lynn Wood. Strange Revelations: Magic, Poison and Sacrilege in Louis XIV"s France. Penn State, 2007.

Monter, E. William. "French and Italian Witchcraft", History Today 30 (Nov, 1980).

_________________. Witchcraft in France and Switzerland: The Borderlands during the Reformation. Ithaca, 1976.

_________________. "Inflation and Witchcraft: The Case of Jean Bodin", in Action and Conviction in Early Modern Europe , T. K. Rabb and J. E. Siegel (eds.), Princeton, 1969, pp. 371-89.

_________________. "The Pedestal and the Stake: courtly love and witchcraft", in R. Bridenthal and C. Koonz (eds), Becoming Visible: Women in European History. Boston, 1977.

__________________. " Witchcraft Trials in France," in Oxford Handbook of Witchcraft in Early Modern Europe and Colonial America, ed. Brian P. Levack, pp.218-31.

Muchembled, Robert. Les Derniers bûchers.: Un Village de Flandre et ses sorcières sour Louis XIV.Paris, 1981.

___________________. Popular Culture and Elite Culture in France, 1400-1750. Baton Rouge, La., 1985.

___________________ Sorcières, justice et société aux XVIe et XVIIe siècles. Paris, 1987.

___________________"Sorcellerie, culture populaire et christianisme au XVIe siècle, principalement en Flandres et en Artois", Annales E. S. C. (Jan.-Feb. 1973): 264-84.

___________________"The witches of the Cambrésis: the acculturation of the rural world in the 16 and 17 centuries", in James Obelkevich (ed.), Religion and the People, 800-1700. Chapel Hill, 1979.

Oates, Caroline. "The Trial of a Teenage Werewolf, Bordeaux, 1603." Criminal Justice History 9 (1988), 1-29.

Ostorero, Martine. Folâtrer avec les démons: Sabbat et chasse aux sorciers à Vevey (1448) (Cahiers Lausannois d'Histoire Médiévale , 15) Lausanne, 1995.

Oudin, "Un procès de sorcellerie au dix-septième siècle," Mémoires de'lAcadémie des sciences, des lettres, et des arts d'Amiens 35 (1988).

Pearl, Jonathan L. "Witchcraft in New France in the Seventeenth Century: The Social Aspect, " Historical Reflections 4 (1977), 191-205.

_______________. The Crime of Crimes: Demonology and Politics in France, 1560-1620. Waterloo, Ontario, 1999.

Pfister, C. "Nicolas Rémy et la sorcellerie en Lorraine à la fin du XVIe siècle", Revue Historique 93 (1907).

Rapley, Robert. A Case of Witchcraft: The Trial of Urbain Grandier. Montreal, 1998.

Régné, Jean, "La sorcellerie en Vivarais et la répression inquisitoriale ou séculière du XVe au XVIIe siècle," in Mélanges...offerts à Charles Bemont. Paris,1913.

Rowlands, Alison. Witchcraft Narratives in Germany: Rothenburg, 1561-1652. Manchester, 2003.

Sinninghe, J. R. W. "De eerste heksenprocessen en heksenvervolgingen in Nederland, XVe eeuw", Historia 15 (1950): 170-3.

Simon, Maryse. Les affairs de sorcellerie dans le val de Lièpvre (XVIe et XVIIe siècles). Société Savante de Alsace, 2006.

_____________. "Frontières de la sorcellerie entre Alsace et Lorraine: entrelacs jurisdictionneles et variations contexuelles," Revue d'Alsace 134 (2008), 195-212.

Soman, A. F. "La Décriminalisation de la Sorcellerie en France," Histoire, Économie et Société 4 (1985), 179-203.

___________ "The Parlement of Paris and the Great Witch Hunt (1565-1640)", Sixtenth Century Journal 9 (1978).

___________ "Les procès de sôrcellerie au Parlement de Paris (1565-1640)", Annales E. S. C. July-Aug. 1977, 790-814.

___________ "Le Rôle des Ardennes dans la décriminalisation de la sorcellerie en France," Revue historique ardennaise 23 (1988), 23-45.

___________. Sorcellerie et justice criminelle: Le Parlement de Paris (16e-18e siècles). Hampshire, 1992.

___________ "Trente Procès de Sorcellerie dans le Perche (1566-1624), L'Orne Littéraire 8 (1986): 42-57.

___________. "Witch Lynching at Juniville," Natural History 95 (1986): 8-15.

Tuetey, A. La Sorcellerie dans la pays de Montbéliard au XVIIe Siècle. Dôle, 1886.

Villette, P. Abbé. "La sorcellerie dans le Nord de la France du milieu du XVe siècle à la fin du XVIIIe siècle", Mélanges de Science Réligieuse, 13 (1956), 39-62, 129-56.

_______________. "La sorcellerie à Douai", Mélanges de Science Réligieuse, 8 (1956): 123-73.

________________. La sorcellerie et sa répression dans le Nord de la France. Paris,1976.

Waite, Gary K. "Between the Devil and the Inquisitor: Anabaptists, diabolical conspiracies and magical beliefs in the sixteenth-century Netherlands." Pp. 120-140 in Radical Reformation Studies: Essays presented to James M. Stayer. Edited by W. O. Packull and G. L. Dipple. Brookfield VT,1999.

Walker, Anita and Edmund H. Dickerman."Magdeleine des Aymards: demonism or child abuse in early modern France," Psychohistory Review 24 (1996): 329-64.

Walker, D. P. Unclean Spirits: Possession and Exorcism in France and England in the Late 16th and Early 17th Centuries. Philadelphia, 1981.

Wilkins, Kay S. "Attitudes to Witchcraft and Demonic Possession in France during the Eighteenth Century," Journal of European Studies 3 (1973): 349-60.

Williams, Gerhild Scholz. The Discourses of Magic and Witchcraft in Early Modern France and Germany. Ann Arbor, 1995.
3. Switzerland
Bader, Guido. Die Hexenprozesse in der Schweiz. Affolteren, 1945.

Blauert, Andreas. Frühe Hexenverfolgungen. Hamburg, 1989.

Broye, Christian. Sorcellerie et superstitions à Genève XVIe-XVIII siècles. Geneva, 1990.

Dettling, A. Die Hexenprozesse im Kanton Schwyz. 1907. Film 2730, reel 162.

Fischer, Friedrich. Die Basler Hexenprozesse in dem 16. und 17. Jahrhunderts. Basel,1840.

Kamber, Peter. "La Chasse aux sorciers et aux sorcières dans la Pays de Vaud," Revue historique vaudoise, (1982): 21-33.

Monter, E. William. "La sodomie à l'epoque moderne en Suisse romande", Annales E. S. C. 29 (1974): 1030-1.

_________________."Patterns of Witchcraft in the Jura", Journal of Social History 5 (1971-72): 1-25.

_________________."Witchcraft in Geneva, 1537-1662", Journal of Modern History 43 (1971), 179-204.

__________________Witches in France and Switzerland: The Borderlands during the Reformation. Ithaca, 1976.

__________________. "Poursuites Précoces la Sorcellerie en Suisse," in Magie et Sorcellerie en Europe, ed. R. Muchembled. Paris, 1994, pp. 47-58.

Schacher, Joseph. Das Hexenwesen im Kanton Luzern (1400-1675). Lucerne, 1947.

Trechsel, F. "Das Hexenwesen im Canton Bern," Berner Taschenbuch 19 (1870): 149-234.
4. Italy
Accati, Louisa. "The Spirit of Fornication: Virtue of the Soul and Vrtue of the Body in Friuli, 1600-1800," in Sex and Gender in Historical Perspective, ed Edward Muir and Guido Ruggiero. Baltimore, 1990, pp. 110-140.

Aconcio, Giacomo. Satan's Strategems. San Francisco, 1940, 2 vols.

Albergamo, Francesco. Mito e magia. Naples, 1970,

Barberi. The Life of Joseph Balsamo, commonly called Cagliostro. London, 1791,

Bonomo, Guiseppe. Caccia alle Streghe. Palermo, 1959.

Brucker, Gene. "Sorcery in Early Renaissance Florence", Studies in the Renaissance 10 (1963): 7-24.

Burke, Peter. "Witchcraft and Magic in Renaissance Italy: Gianfresco Pico and his Strix, in The Damned Art. Ed. S. Anglo. London, 1977.

Decker, Rainer. Die Päpste und die Hexen: Aus den geheimen Akten der Inquisition. Darmstadt, 2003.

____________. Witchcraft and the Papacy: An Account Drawing on the Formerly Secret Records of the Roman Inquisition, trans. Erik Midelfort. Charlottesville, 2008.

Deutscher, Thomas. "The Role of the Episcopal Tribunal of Novara in the Suppression of Heresy and Witchcraft, 1563-1615," Catholic Historical Review 77 (1991), 403-21.

Gebhart, Emile. Mystics and Heretics in Italy at the end of the Middle Ages. London, 1922.

Ginzburg, Carlo. The Night Battles: Witchcraft and Agrarian Cults in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries. tr. John and Anne Tedeschi. Baltimore, 1983.

______________. "Witchcraft and Popular Piety: Notes on a Modenese Trial of 1519," in Clues, Myths and the Historical Method, trans. John and Anne C. Tedeschi. Baltimore, 1989, pp. 1-16.

Herzig, Tamar. Christ Transformed into a Virgin Woman: Lucia Broadelli, Heiruch Institoris, and the Defense of the Faith. Rome, 2013.

____________. "Witchcraft Prosecutions in Italy," in Oxford Handbook of Witchcraft in Early Modern Europe and Colonial America, ed. Brian P. Levack, pp. 249-67.

Martin, Ruth. Witchcraft in Venice 1550-1650. Oxford, 1989.

Monter, E. William. "Witchcraft in France and Italy", History Today 30 (1980).

Monter, E. William and J. A. Tedeschi. "Toward a Statistical Profile of the Italian Inquisitions, Sixteenth to Eighteenth Centuries," in The Inquisition in Early Modern Europe, ed. G. Henningsen and J. Tedeschi. Dekalb, IL, 1986, pp.130-57.

Mormando, Franco. The Preacher's Demons: Bernardino of Siena and the Social Underworld of Early Renaissance Italy. Chicago, 1999.

__________________. "Bernardino of Siena, Popular preacher and Witch-Hunter: A 1426 Witch Trial in Rome," Fifteenth-Century Studies 24 (1998),

Odorici, Federico. Le streghe valtellina e la santa inquisizione. Milan, 1861.

O'Neil, Mary. "Magical Healing, Love Magic and the Inquisition in Late Sixteenth-Century Modena," in Inquisition and Society in Early Modern Europe, ed. Stephen Haliczar. Totowa, NJ, 1987, pp. 88-114.

Seitz, Jonathan. Witchcraft and Inquisition in Early Modern Venice. Cambridge, 2011.

Simplicio, Oscar di. Inquisizione Stregoneria Medicina: Siena e il stato (1580-1721). Siena, 2000.

Scully, Sally. "Marriage or a Career? Witchcraft as an Alternative in Seventeenth-Century Venice," Journal of Social History 28 (1995): 857-76.

Tedeschi, John. "Inquisitorial Law and the Witch," in Early Modern European Witchcraft, ed. B. Ankarloo and Gustav Henningsen. Oxford, 1990, pp. 83-118.

_____________. "Preliminary Observations on Writing a History of the Roman Inquisition", in F. F. Church and T. George (eds.) Continuity and Discontinuity in Church History. Leiden, 1979.

______________. "The Roman Inquisition and Witchcraft: San Early Seventeenth-Century Instruction on Correct Trial Procedure," Revue de l'histoire des religions 200 (1983), 163-80.
5. Spain, Portugal and Latin America
Bennassar, B. L'inquisition espagnole XV e-XIX e siècle. Paris, 1979.

Bethencourt, Francisco. "Portugal: A Scrupulous Inquisition," in Early Modern European Witchcraft, ed. B. Ankarloo and G. Henningsen. Oxford, 1990, pp. 403-422.

Corrêa de Melo, Maria Christina. "Witchcraft in Portugal during the eighteenth century, analysed through the accusations of the Tribunal Santo Oficio de Évora," Studies in Voltaire and the Eighteenth Century, 303 (1992), 573-8.

Caro Baroja, Julio. Los peublos del norte de la peninsula iberica. Madrid, 1943.

________________. El Senor inquisidor y otras por oficio. Madrid, 1968.

________________. Vidas mágicas e Inquisición . Madrid, 1967, 2 vols.

Cervantes, Fernando."The Devils of Querétaro: Scepticism and Credulity in Late Seventeenth-Century Mexico, Past & Present 130 (1991): 51-69.

_________________ The Idea of the Devil and the Problem of the Indian. London, 1991.

________________. The Devil in the New World: The Impact of Diabolism in New Spain. New Haven, 1994.

Cirac Estopañán, Sebestián Los procesos de hechicerias en la Inquisición de Castilla la Nueva. Madrid, 1942.

Darst, D.H. "Witchcraft in Spain: The Testimony of Martin de Casteñega's Treatise on Superstition and Witchcraft (1529)," Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 123 (1979): 298-322.

Dedieu, Jean-Pierre. L'Administration de la foi: L'Inquisition de Toléode (XVIe-XVIIIe siècle). Madrid, 1989.

Fuero juzgo en latin y castellano, cotejado con los mas antiguos y preciosos codices por la Real Academia Española. Madrid, 1815.

Gareis, Iris (ed.): Entidades maléficas y conceptos del mal en las religiones latinoamericanas / Evil Entities and Concepts of Evil in Latin American Religions. (Bonner Amerikanistische Studien, Vol.45). Aachen, 2008.

____________. "Merging Magical Traditions: Sorcery and Witchcraft in Early Spanish and Portuguese America," in Oxford Handbook of Witchcraft in Early Modern Europe and Colonial America, ed. Brian P. Levack, pp. 412-28..

Gari Lacruz, Angel. "Variedad de Competencias en el delito de brujeria 1600-1650 en Aragon," in La Inquisición Española: Nueva visión, nuevos horizontes. Madrid, 1980, pp.319-327.

Greenleaf, R. E. Zumarraga and the Mexican Inquisition 1536-1543. Washington, 1962.

_____________. The Mexican Inquisition of the 16th Century. Albuquerque, 1969.

Henningsen, Gustav. "El 'Banco de datos' del Santo Oficio: Las relaciones de causas de la Inquisición española," Boletín de la real acadamia de la historia de la inquisiicon medieval y moderno 74 (1977). 547-70. Also in Dansk Folkemindesampling. Studier No. 12 Copenhagen, 1978. With English summary.

_____________. "The Papers of Alonso de Salazar Frias, A Spanish Witchcraft Polemic, 1610-1614", in Temenos 5 (1969): 85-106.

_____________. The Witches' Advocate: Basque Witchcraft and the Spanish Inquisition, 1609-1614. Reno, 1980.

Kamen, Henry. Inquisition and Society in Spain in the 16th and 17th Centuries. Bloomington, Ind., 1985.

______________ The Spanish Inquisition. N. Y., 1965.

Knutsen, Gunnar. Sevants of Satan and Masters of Demons. Oslo, 2004.

Lafuente y Zamalloa, Modesto. La Brujeria en Barcelona. Barcelona, n. d..

Lea, Henry. Chapters from the rReligious History of Spain, connected with the Inquisition. Philadelphia, 1890.

__________. A History of the Inquisition in Spain. New York,1907, 1922. 4 vols.

__________. The Inquisition in the Spanish Dependencies. N. Y., 1908.

Llorca, Bernadino. La inquisition en España. Barcelona, 1946.

Marchena, Abbe. Jurisprudencia inquisitorial.Montpellier, 1819.

Mello e Souza, Laura de. O diabo e a terra de Santa Cruz. Sao Paulo, 1987.

___________________. The Devil and the Land of the Holy Cross: Witchcraft, Slavery, and Popular Religion in Colonial Brazil. Austin, 2003.

Menedez y Pelago, M. Historia de los heterdoxes españoles. 7 vols.

Metcalf, Alida C. Families of planters, peasants and slaves: strategies for survival in Santana de Parnaiba, Brazil, 1720-1820. University of Texas PhD, 1983.

Monter, William. Frontiers of Heresy: The Spanish Inquisition from the Basque Lands to Sicily. Cambridge, 1990.

_______________. "The New Social History Meets the Spanish Inquisition", Journal of Social History (1984).

_______________. "Witchcraft in Iberia," in Oxford Handbook of Witchcraft in Early Modern Europe and Colonial America, ed. Brian P. Levack, pp. 268-82.

Morgado Garcia, Arturo. Demonios, magos y brujas en la España modern. Cadiz, 1999.

Paiva, José Pedro. Práticas e crençcas mágicas. O medo e a necessidade dos mágicos na diocese de Coimbra (1650-1740). Coimbra, 1992.

Palacios, Modesto Laza. El laboratio de celestina. Malaga, 1958.

Palmer, Colin A. "Religion and Magic in Mexican Slave Society, 1670-1650". in S. Engerman and E. Genovese (eds), Race and Slavery in the Western Hemisphere: Quantitative Studies. Princeton, 1975.

Pavia, Mario N. Drama of the siglo de oro; a study of magic, witchcraft, and other occult beliefs. N. Y., 1959,

Pladevello, Antoni. Persecutio de les bruizes a les comarques de vic a principis del seale XVII. Barcelona, 1974.

Redden, Andrew. Diabolism in Colonial Peru 1560-1750. London, 2007.

Spence, Lewis. Arcane Secrets and Occult Lore of Mexico and Mayan Central Ameria: A Treasury of Magic, Astrology, Witchcraft, Demonology and Symbolism. 1930, reprint.

Silverblatt, Irene. Moon, Sun and Witches: Gender Ideologies and Class in Inca and Colonial Peru. Princeton,1987.

Tausiet, Maria. Ponzoña en los ojos: Brujería y superstición en Aragón en el siglo XVI, Saragossa, 2000; Madrid, 2004..

___________. Urban Magic in Early Modern Spain: Abracadabra Omnipotens. Basingstoke, 2014.

Villaneuva, Joquin Perez (ed.). La Inquisición Española: Neuva Vision, Nuevos Horizontes. Madrid, 1980.
6. England, Wales and the Channel Islands
Almond, Philip C. England's First Demonologist: Reginald Scot & 'The Discoverie of Witchcraft'. London and New York, 2011

Anderson, A. and R. Gordon. "Witchcraft and the Status of Women: The Case of England", British Journal of Sociology 29 (1978).

Anglo, Sydney. "Reginald Scot's Discoverie of Witchcraft: Scepticism and Sadduceeism," in The Damned Art, Ed. S. Anglo. London, 1977.

Baine, Rodney M. Daniel Defoe and the Supernatural. Athens, Ga. 1968.

Balleine, G.R. "Witch Trials in Jersey," Société Jersiase, Bulletin 13 (1939), 379-398.

Barry, Jonathan. Witchcraft and Demonology in Southwest England, 1640-1789. Basingstoke, 2012.

Bostridge, Ian. "Witchcraft Repealed," in Witchcraft in Early Modern Europe: Studies in Culture and Belief, eds. J. Barry, M. Hester G. Roberts. Cambridge, 1996, pp. 309-334.

_____________. Witchcraft and Its Transformations, c.1650-c.1750. Oxford, 1997.

Bragge, Francis. A full and impartial account of the discovery of sorcercy and witchcraft, practis'd by Jane Wenham of Hertfordshire ... London, 1712.

Brand, John. History and antiquities of Newcastle. 2 vols. London,1789.

Brann, Noel. "The Conflict between Reason and Magic in 17th Century England: A Case Study of the Vaughan-More Debate", Hunt Lib. Quarterly XLVII (1980): 103-26.

Briggs, Katherine M. Pale Hecate's Team: An Examination of the Beliefs on Witchcraft and Magic among Shakespeare's Contemporaries. London, 1962,

Carnochan, W. B. "Witch-Hunting and Belief in 1751: The Case of Thomas Colley and Ruth Osborne", Journal of Social History 4 (1970-71): 388-403.

Clark, Stuart and P. T. Morgan. "Religion and Magic in Elizabethan Wales: Robert Holland's Dialogue on Witchcraft," Journal of Ecclesiastical History 27 (1976): 31-46.

______________. A short discoverie of the unobserved dangers ... London, 1612.

Coudert, Allsiojn. Henry More and Witchcraft," in Henry More (1614-1687): Tercentenary Studies, ed. Sarah Hutton Dordrecht, 1990, pp. 114-136.

Crawford, Jane. "Evidences for Witchcraft in Anglo-Saxon England," Medium Aevum 32 (1963): 99-116.

Curtis, S. Crey. "Trials for Witchcraft in Guernsey." La Société guernesaise: Reports & Transactions, 13 (1937): 109-43.

Dalton, Michael/ The countrey justice: containing the practice of the JP's out of their sessions. London, 1677.

Darrel, John. A true narration of the ... vexation by the devil of 7 persons in Lancashire. London, 1600.

Davies, Owen. "Newspapers and Popular Belief in Witchcraft and Magic in the Modern Period," Journal of British Studies 37 (1998): 139-165.

___________. Witchcraft, Magic and Culture, 1736-1951. Manchester, 1999.

Davies, R. Trevor. Four centuries of witch beliefs. London, 1947.

Deacon, Richard. Matthew Hopkins: Witch-Finder General. London, 1976.

Dewar, Stephen. "Witchcraft and the Evil Eye in Guernsey," Guernsey Historical Monograph 3 (1968): 3-12.

DeWindt, Anne Reiber. "Witchcraft and Conflicting Visions of the Ideal Village Community," Journal of British Studies 34 (1995), 427-463.

Durston, Gregory.. Witchcraft and Witch Trials: a History of English Witchcraft and its Legal Perspectives, 1542 to 1736, London, 2000.

Elmer, Peter. "Saints or Sorcerers': Quakerism, Demonology and the Decline of Witchcraft in Seventeenth-Century England," in Witchcraft in Early Modern Europe: Studies in Culture and Belief, eds. J. Barry, M. Hester G. Roberts. Cambridge, 1996, pp. 145-79.

_________. "Towards a Politics of Witchcraft in Early Modern England," in Languages of Witchcraft: Narrative, Ideology and Meaning in Early Modern Culture, ed. Stuart Clark. Basingstoke, 2001, pp. 101-118.

Estes, Leland. "Good Witches, Wise Men, Astrologers and Scientists: William Perkins and the Limits of the European Witch Hunts," in Hermeticism and the Renaissance. Ed. I. Merkel and A. Debus. Washington, DC, 1988, pp. 154-165.

____________. "Reginald Scot and his Discoverie of Witchcraft: Religion and Science in the Opposition to the European Witchcraze," Church History 52 (1983): 444-56.

Ettrick, WIlliam. Witchcraft at Toner's Puddle, Nineteenth Century, from the Diary of Rev. WIlliam Ettrick. Ed. Christine Hole. Dorchester, 1964.

Ewen, Cecil H. L'Estrange. Witchcraft and demonianism. London, 1933.

_______________________ Witchcraft in the Norfolk Circuit. Privately printed, 1939.

_______________________ Witchcraft in the Star Chamber. Privately printed, 1938.

_______________________ Witch Hunting and witch trials, 1559-1736. London, 1929.

Flower, Margaret. The wonderful discoverie of the witchcrafts of M. amd P. Flower. London, 1619, 1972.

Gaskill, Malcolm. "Attitudes to Crime in Early Modern England, with special reference to witchcraft, coining and murder." Ph.D. thesis, University of Cambridge, 1994.

______________. Crime and Mentalities in Early Modern Enland. Cambridge, 2000.

______________. "Witchcraft and Evidence in Early Modern England," Past and Present 198 (2008), 33-70.

______________. "Witchcraft and Power in Early Modern England: the case of Margaret Moore, " in Kermonde, Jenny and Garthine Walker, eds. Women, Crime and the Courts in Early Modern England. Chapel Hill, 1994, pp. 125-45.

_______________. "Witchcraft in Early Modern Kent: stereotypes and the background to accusations," in Witchcraft in Early Modern Europe: Studies in Culture and Belief, eds. J. Barry, M. Hester G. Roberts. Cambridge, 1996, pp. 257-287.

_______________, "The Devil in the Shape of a Man: Witchcraft, conflict and belief in Jacobean England," Historical Research 71 (1998): 142-171.

_______________. Witchfinders: A Seventeenth-Century English Tragedy. London, 2005.

Geis, Gilbert. "Lord Hale, Witches and Rape", British Journal of Law and Society, 5 (1978): 26-44.

___________ and Ivan Bunn. "Sir Thomas Browne and Witchcraft," International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 4 (1981): 1-11.

___________. A Trial of Witches: A Seventeenth-Century Witchcraft Prosecution. London,1997.

Gibson, Joyce. Hanged for Witchcraft: Elizabeth Lowys and her Successors. Canberra,1988.

Gibson, Marion. Reading Witchcraft: Stories of Early English Witches. London, 1999.

_____________ (ed.) Witchcraft and Society in England and America, 1550-1750. Ithaca, 2003.

Gregory, Anabel. "Witchcraft, Politics and "''Good Neighbourhood' in Early Seventeenth-Century Rye," Past & Present 133 (1991): 31-66.

Guskin, Phyllis J. "The Context of Witchcraft: The Case of Jane Wenham (1712)," Eighteenth Century Studies 15 (1981): 48-71.

Haining, Peter (ed.). The Witchcraft Papers. Secaucus, NJ, 1974. (Reprints of witchcraft pamphlets.0

Hester, Marianne. Lewd Women and Wicked Witches: A Study of the Dynamics of Male Domination. London: Routledge, 1992.

Hitchcock, James. "George Gifford and Puritan Witch Beliefs." Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 58 (1967), 90-99.

Hole, Christina. Witchcraft in England. N. Y., 1947.

Holmes, Clive. "Popular Culture? : Witches, Magistrates and Divines in Early Modern England," in Understanding Popular Culture: Europe from the Middle Ages to the Nineteenth Century, ed. S. Kaplan. Berlin , NY and Amsterdam, 1984, pp. 85-111.

____________. "Women: Witnesses and Witches," Past & Present 140 (1993): 45-78.

____________."Witchcraft and the Decline of Belief," Eighteenth-Century Life 22 (1998), 139-47.

Jackson, Louise. "Witches, Wives and Mothers: Witchcraft Persecutions and Women's Confessions in Seventeenth-Century England," Women's History Review 4 (1995): 63-83.

Kennett, White. The Witchcraft of the present rebellion: sermon preached. 1715.

Kittredge, George L. Witchcraft in Old and New England. Cambridge, MA: Harvard, 1929; New York, 1972.

Landon, Rane Eve. Religion, Witchcraft and the Supernatural in Elizabethan England. Harvard PhD dissertation.

Levack, Brian P. "Possession, Witchcraft and the Law in Jacobean England," Washington and Lee University Law Review 52 (1996): 1613-1640.

Lodge, Thomas. Wits Miserie and the World's Madnesse. London, 1596.

McCormick, D. The Hell-Fire Club. 942.575 M137h.

_____________. Murder by Witchcraft: A Study of the Lower Quinton and Hagley Wood Murders. London, 1968.

Macfarlane, Alan. Witchcraft in Tudor and Stuart England. London, 1970.

MacDonald, Michael. Mystical Bedlam: Madness, Anxiety, and Healing in Seventeenth-Century England. Cambridge, 1981.

__________________. Witchcraft and Hysteria in Elizabethan London. London, 1990.

MacLachlan, Hugh V. and J. K. Swales, "Lord Hale, Witches and Rape," British Journal of Law and Society 5 (1978): 251-61.

Marshburn, J. H. Murder and Witchcraft in England 1550-1640. Norman Okla, 1971.

Mason, James. The Anatomy of Sorcerie. (1612). Film STC reel 853.

Middleton, Paul. "Seventeenth-Century Witchcraft in Northumberland," Archaeologia Aeliana 45 (1967), 161-6.

Newton, John and Jo Bath (eds.), Witchcraft and the Act of 1604. London, 2008.

Notestein, Wallace. A History of Witchcraft in England from 1558-1718. New York, 1968,

Oates, Titus. The Witch of Endor, or the Witchcrafts of the Roman Jesebel. 1679

Pitts, John Linwood (ed.). Witchcraft and Devil Lore in the Channel Islands. Guernsey, 1886.

Pollock, Adrian. "Social and Economic Characteristics of Witchcraft Accusations in 16th and 17th Century Kent," Archaeologia Cantiana 95 (1979): 37-48.

Peel, E,. and Southern, Pat. The Trials of the Lancashire Witches.

Poole, Robert (ed.). The Lancashire Witches: Histories and Stories. Manchester, 2002.

Prior, M.E. "Joseph Glanvill, Witchcraft and Seventeenth-Century Science, " Modern Philology 30 (1932), 167-93.

Purkiss, Diane. "Desire and Its Deformities: Fantasies of Witchcraft in the English Civil War, Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies 27 (1997): 103-132.

_____________. The Witch in History: Early Modern and Twentieth-Century Representations. London, 1996.

Rickert, Corinne. The Case of John Darell: Minister and Exorcist. (U. of Florida, 1962).

Rosen, Barbara (ed.). Witchcraft. Stratford on Avon, 1969. A collection of pamphlets.

Rowse, A. L. The Elizabethan Renaissance. chapt IX: "Mentality and Belief: Witchcraft and Astrology", pp. 258-304.

Rushton, Peter. "A Note on the Survival of Popular Christian Magic," Folklore 91 (1980): 115-118.

______________. "Women, Witchcraft and Slander in Early Modern England: Cases from the Church Courts of Durham, 1560-1675," Northern History 18 (1982): 116-132.

Sawyer, Ronald C. "'Strangely Handled in All Her Lyms': Witchcraft and Healing in Jacobean England," Journal of Social History, 22 (1989), 461-85.

Sharpe, J. A. Instruments of Darkness. London 1996.

___________ "Women and Witchcraft in Seventeenth-Century England: Some Northern Evidence," Continuity and Change 6 (1991): 179-199.

___________. Witchcraft in Seventeenth-Century Yorkshire: Accusations and Counter Measures. Borthwick Papers, no. 81. York, 1992.

___________. "Women Witchcraft and the Legal Process," in Kermonde, Jenny and Garthine Walker, eds. Women, Crime and the Courts in Early Modern England. Chapel Hill, 1994, pp. 106-124.

Victoria Silver, '"Wonders of the invisible world": the trial of the Lowestoft witches', in Reid Barbour and Calire Preston (eds.), Sir Thomas Browne: The World Proposed (Oxford, 2009), pp. 118-45.

Smith, Constance I. "Northamptonshire in the History of Witchcraft", Northamptonshire Past and Present 6 (1971-2).

Stoyle, Mark. The Black Legend of Prince Rupert's Dog: Witchcraft and Propaganda during the English Civil War. Exeter, 2011.

Suggett, Richard. "Witchcraft dynamics in early modern Wales," in Women and Gender in early modern Wales. Ed. Michael Roberts and Simone Clarke. Cardiff , 2000, pp. 75-103.

Swain, J.T. "The Lancashire Witchcraft Trials of 1612 and 1634 and the Economics of Witchcraft," Northern History 30 (1994), 64-85.

Teall, J. L. "Witchcraft and Calvinism in Elizabethan England", in Journal of the History of Ideas, 23 (1962) 22-36.

Thomas, Keith. Religion and the Decline of Magic. London, 1971.

Tyler, P. "The Church-Courts at York and Witchcraft Prosecutions 1567-1640", Northern History 4 (1969): 84-109.

Unsworth, C. R. "Witchcraft Beliefs and criminal procedure in Early Modern England," in Legal Record and Historical Reality, ed. Thomas G. Watkin (London, 1989), pp. 71-98.

Valletta, Frederick. Witchcraft, Magic and Supersition in England, 1640-70. 2000.

Walker, D. P. Unclean Spirits: Possession and Exorcism in France and England in the late 16 and early 17th Centuries. Philadelphia, 1981.

Willis, Deborah. Malevolent Nurture: Witch-Hunting and Maternal Power in Early Modern England. Ithaca, 1995.

______________"Shakespeare and the English Witch-Hunts: Enclosing the Maternal Body," in Enclosure Acts: Sexuality, Property, and Culture in Early Modern England, ed. R. Burt and J. M. Archer. Ithaca, 1994, pp. 96-120.

Wright, Thomas. A dialogue concerning witches and witchcraft. London, 1842. Taken from the 1603 edition of George Gifford.

Yates, F. A. The Occult Philosophy in the Elizabethan Age. London, 1979.

Young, Alan R. "Elizabeth Lowys: Witch and Social Victim," History Today 22 (1972): 879-85.
7. Scotland
Adam, Isobel. Witch Hunt. London, 1978.

Adams, W. H. D. Witch, warlock and magician. Historical sketches of magic and witchcraft in England and Scotland. (London, 1889)

Black, G. F. "Witchcraft in Scotland 1510-1727", in Bulletin of the New York Public Library 41, ii (Nov, 1937), 811-47, 917-936; 42 (1938), 34-74

___________Calendar of Cases of Witchcraft in Scotland 1510-1727. N. Y., 1938, 1971.

___________ Some Unpublished Scottish Witchcraft Trials. New York, 1940.

Brims, John. "The Ross-shire Witchcraft Case of 1822," Review of Scottish Culture 5 (1989)

Campbell, John. Witchcraft and Second-Sight in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland. Glasgow, 1902.

Clark, Stuart. "King James's Daemonologie: Witchcraft and Kingship," in The Damned Art. Ed. S. Anglo. London, 1977.

Cowan, Edward."The Darker Vision of the Scottish Renaissance", in I. B.Cowan and D. Shaw (eds.), The Renaissance and Reformation in Scotland. Edinburgh, 1983.

Ferguson, John. "Bibliographical Notes on the Witchcraft Literature of Scotland," Proceedings of the Edinburgh Bibliographical Society 3 (1899)

GoodareJulian (ed.) The Scottish Witch-Hunt in Context, Manchester, 2002.

______________."The Framework for Scottish witch-hunting in the 1590s," Scottish Historical Review 81 (2002): 240-50.

_____________. "Women and the Witch-Hunt in Scotland," Social History 23 (1998): 288-308.

______________."The Scottish Witchcraft Act," Church History 74 (2004): 39-67.

______________."John Knox aon Demonology and Witchcraft," Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte, 96 (2005), 221-45.

____________ _,"The Scottish Witchcraft Panic of 1597" in Goodare, ed., The Scottish Witch-hunt in Context, Manchester, 2002, pp. 51-72.

_____________, James VI, King. Daemonologie (1597), ed. G.B. Harrison, London, 1924.

Keiller, Alexander. The Personnel of the Aberdeenshire Witchcraft Covens. London, 1922.

Larner, Christina. "The Crime of Witchcraft in Scotland," in Larner, Witchcraft and Religion. Oxford, 1984, pp. 23-33.

_______________. Enemies of God: The Witch Hunt in Scotland. Baltimore, 1981.

_______________. "James VI and I and Witchcraft", in The Reign of James VI and I, ed. A. G. R. Smith. London, 1973. Also in Larner, Witchcraft and Religion. Oxford, 1984, pp. 3-22.

________________. "Witch Beliefs and Accusations in England and Scotland," History Today 31 (1981); also in Larner, Witchcraft and Religion, Oxford, 1984, pp. 69-78.

Larner, C., C. H. Lee and H. V. McLachlan. Source-Book of Scottish Witchcraft. Glascow, 1977.

Legge, F. "Witchcraft in Scotland," The Scottish Review 18 (1891), 257-88.

Levack, Brian P. "The Great Scottish Witch Hunt of 1661-1662," Journal of British Studies 20 (1980), 90-108.

_____________. "The Decline and End of Scottish Witch-hunting," in Goodare (ed.), The Scottish Witch-hunt in Context, Manchester 2002, pp. 166-181.

_____________. Witch-hunting in Scotland: Law, Politics and Religion. London, 2008.

MacDonald, S W. "The Devil's Mark and the Witch-Prickers of Scotland," Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 90 (1997)

Macdonald, Stuart. The Witches of Fife: Witch-hunting in a Scottish Shire, 1560-1710. East Linton, 2002.

MacDonald, S.A. Thom and A. Thom, "The Bargarran Witch Trial: A Psychiciatric Reassessment," Scottish Medical Journal 41 (1996)

Maxwell-Stuart, Peter G. "The Fear of the King is Death: James VI and the Witches of East Lothian," in W.G. Naphy and P. Roberts, Fear in Early Modern Society (1997).

__________________. Satan's Conspiracy: Magic and Witchcraft in Sixteenth-Century Scotland. East Linton, 2001.

__________________. An Abundance of Witches: the Great Scottish Witch-Hunt. Stroud, 2005.

McLachlan, Hugh and J. K. Swales. "Scottish Witchcraft: Myth or Reality?" Contemporary Review 260 (1992), 79-84.

McLachlan, Hugh and Kim Swales. "The Bewitchment of Christian Shaw: A Reassessment of the Famous Paisley Witchcraft Case of 1697," in Twisted Sisters: Women, Crime and Deviance in Scotland since 1400, ed. Yvonne Galloway Brown and Rona Ferguson. East Linton, 2002, pp. 54-83.

Millar, John. A History of the Witches of Renfrewshire. Paisley, 1809.

Murray, George, M. R. Apted and Ian Hodkinson, "Prestongrange and its Painted Ceiling," Transactions of the East Lothian Antiquarian and Field Naturalists' Society 10 (1966).

Neill, W. N. "The Professional Pricker and his Test for Witchcraft," Scottish Historical Review 19 (1922), 205-13.

Nelson, George. "A Sermon on Witchcraft in 1697," Scottish Historical Review 7 (1910): 390-399.

Newes from Scotland (London, 1591) ed. G. B. Harrison, London, 1924.

Normand, Lawrence and Gareth Roberts (eds.), Witchcraft in early Modern Scotland: James VI's Demonology and theNorth Berwick Witches. Exeter, 2000.

A Relation of the Diabolical Practice of above twenty Wizards and Witches of the Sheriffdom of Renfrew. London, 1697.

Roughead, William. "The Witches of North Berwick," in The Riddle of the Ruthvens and Other Essays. New ed. Edinburgh: Moray Press, 1936, pp. 144-66.

Scott, Sir Walter. Witchcraft Letters Addressed to J. G. Lockhart, Esq. New York, 1970.

Seth, Ronald. In the Name of the Devil. 1969.

Sharpe, Charles K. Historical Account of the Belief in Witchcraft in Scotland. London and Glasgow, 1894.

Stevenson, David. "Major Weir: a Justified Sinner," Scotttish Studies 16 (1972)

Strafford, Helen. "Notes on Scottish Witchcraft Cases 1590-91", in Essays in Honor of Conyers Read. ed. N. Downs, Chicago, 1953.

Truckell, A. E. "Unpublished Witchcraft Trials," Dumfriesshire and Galloway Natural History and Antiquarian Society 51-52 (1975-6), 48-58, 95-108.

A True Narrative of the Sufferings and Relief of a Young Girl. Edinburgh, 1698.

A True and Full Relation of the Witches of Pittenweem. Edinburgh, 1704.

Webster, David (ed.). Collection of Rare and Curious Tracts on Witchcraft and Second Sight. Edinburgh, 1820.

Yeoman, Louise. "The Devil as Doctor: Witchcraft, Wodrow and the Wider World," Scottish Archives 1 (1995)
8. Ireland
Bourke, Angela. The Burning of Bridget Cleary: A True Story. Harmondsworth,2001.

Byrne, Patrick. Witchcraft in Ireland. Cork, 1975.

Croker, Thomas C. Fairy legends and traditions of the south of Ireland. London, 1862, Lapoint, Elwyn C. "Irish Immunity to Witch-Hunting," Eire-Ireland 30 (1989): 76-92.

Lapoint, E.C.'Irish Immunity to Witch-Hunting: 1534-1711', Eire-Ireland 27(1992): 76-92,

Seymour, St. John. Irish Witchcraft and Demonology. Dublin, 1913.

McAuliffe, Mary. 'Gender, History and Witchcraft in Early Modern Ireland: A Re-reading of the Florence Newton trial', in Gender and Power in Irish History, ed. M. A. Gialenella Valiulis, (Dublin, 2009): 39-58.

Sneddon, Andrew. Posssesssed by the Devil Dublin, 2013.

_______________. "Witchcraft Beliefs and Trials in Early Modern Ireland," Irish Economic and Social History 29 (2012): 1-25.

Spence, Lewis. The Magic Arts in Celtic Britain. N. Y., 1945, Wright Thomas. Fairy Legends and Traditions of the South of Ireland. London, 1862.

9. Colonial North America and the United States

Adler, Margot. Drawing down the Moon: Witches, Druids, Goddess-Worshippers and Other Pagans in America Today. Boston, 1979.

Allen, Neal W., Jr. "A Maine Witch," Old-Time New England 61 (1971): 75-81.

Beard, George M. Psychology of the Salem Witchcraft Excitement of 1692. New York, 1882.

Boas, Ralph and Louise. Cotton Mather, Keeper of Puritan Conscience. N. Y. 1928.

Booth, Sally. The Witches of Early America. N. Y., 1975.

Boyer, Paul. and Nissenbaum, Stephen. Salem Possessed: The Social Origins of Witchcraft. Cambridge, Mass, 1974.

___________________________. Salem Village Witchcraft: A Documentary Record of Local Conflict in Colonial New England. Belmont, CA, 1972.

Breslaw, Elaine. Tituba, Reluctant Witch of Salem: Devilish Indians and Puritan Fantasies. New York, 1996.

Briggs, Katherine. "Some Seventeenth-Century Books on Magic," British Journal of Folklore 64 (1953): 445-62.

Brown, David C. "The Case of Giles Corey," Essex Institute Historical Collections 121 (1985): 282-299.

Burr, George L., ed. Narratives of the Witchcraft Cases. 1648-1706. N. Y., 1914.

_________________ "New England's Place in the History of Witchcraft", in Proceedings of the American Antiquarian Society, new series 21 (1911): 185-217.

Butler, Jon. "Magic, Astrology and the Early American Religious Heritage 1600-1760", Amercian Historical Review 84 (1979): 317-346.

Caporeal, Linda S. "Ergotism: the Satan Loosed in Salem," Science 192 (1976): 21-26.

Cardoza, A. Rebecca. "A modern American witch-craze," in Marwick, Max (ed.). Witchcraft and Sorcery. London, 1970.

Condon, David F. Witchcraft Trials in the Seventeenth Century," in Legal Record and Historical Reality. London, 1989, pp. 99-10.

Craker, Wendel, "Spectral Evidence, Non-Spectral Acts of Witchcraft and Confessions at Salem in 1692," Historical Journal 40 (1997)

Cross, Tom Pete. "Witchcraft in North Carolina," Studies in Philology 16 (1919): 217-87.

Davis, Richard Beale. "The Devil in Virginia in the 17th Century," Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 65 (1957): 131-49; also in Literature and Society in Early Virginia 1608-1840. Baton Rouge, 1973.

Demos, John P. Entertaining Satan: Witchcraft and the Culture of Early New England. New York, 1982.

_____________."John Godfrey and his Neighbors: Witchcraft and the Social Web in Colonial Massachusetts," William and Mary Quarterly 33 (1976): 242-65.

_____________."Underlying Themes in the Witchcraft of Seventeenth-Century New England", American Hist. Review 75 (1970): 1311-26.

Drake, Frederick C. "Witchcraft in the American Colonies 1647-1662," American Quarterly 20 (1968), 694-725.

Drake, Samuel G. Annals of Witchcraft in New England and Elsewhere in the U.S. New York, 1967.

Erikson, Kai. Wayward Puritans. New York, 1966.

Fox, Sanford. Science and Justice: The Massachusetts Witchcraft Trials. Baltimore,1968.

Fuess, Charles M. "Witches at Andover," Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society 70 (1953): 14.

Games, Alison. (ed.). Witchcraft in Early North America. Lanham, Md., 2010.

Godbeer, Richard. The Devil's Dominion: Magic and Religion in Early New England. Cambridge,1992.

______________. "Witchcraft in British America," in Oxford Handbook of Witchcraft in Early Modern Europe and Colonial America, ed. Brian P. Levack, pp. 393-411.

Gummere, Amelia M. Witchcraft and Quakerism: A Study in Social History. Philadelphia,1908.

Hale, John, A modest enquiry into the nature of witchcraft. Boston, 1702.

Hall, David D. "Witchcraft and the Limits of Interpretation," New England Quarterly 58 (1985).

___________. ed. Witch-Hunting in Seventeenth-Century New England: A Documentary History, 1638-1692. Boston, 1991.

____________. Worlds of Wonder, Days of Judgment: Popular Religious Belief in Early New England. Cambridge, Ma., 1990.

Harley, David. "Explaining Salem: Calvinist Psychology and the Diagnosis of Possession." American Historical Review 101 (1996): 307-330.

Heyrman, Christine L.. "Specters of Subversion, Societies of Friends: Dissent and the Devil in Provincial Essex County, Massachusetts" in Saints and Revolutionaries, ed. David Hall. New York, 1984, pp. 38-74.

Hansen, Chadwick. Witchcraft at Salem. New York, 1969.

Hansen, Chadwick. "Andover Witchcraft and the Causes of the Salem Witchcraft Trials," in The Occult in America: New Historical Perspectives, ed. Howard Kerr and Charles L. Crow. Urbana, 1983, pp. 38-57.

Hoffer, Peter. The Devil's Disciples: The Makers of the Salem Witchcraft Trials. Baltimore, 1996.

____________. The Salem Witchcraft Trials: A Legal History. Lawrence, KS, 1997.

Hoadly, Charles J. "A Case of Witchcraft in Hartford," The Connecticut Magazine 5 (1899): 557-61.

Karlsen, Carol F. The Devil in the Shape of a Woman: Witchcraft in Colonial New England. New York, 1987.

Keeney, Steven H., "Witchcraft in Colonial Connecticut and Massachusetts: An Anotaded Bibliography", Bulletin of Bibliography 33 (1976): 61-72.

Kences, James E. "Some Unexplored Relationships of Essex County Witchcraft to the Indian Wars of 1675 and 1689," Essex Institute Historical Collections 120 (1984): 179-212.

Kibbey, Ann. "Mutations of the Supernatural: Witchcraft, Remarkable Providences and the Power of Puritan Men." American Quarterly 34 (1982): 125-48.

Kittredge, George L. Witchcraft in Old and New England. Cambridge, MA, 1929.

Konig, David. Law and Society in Puritan Massachusetts. Chapel Hill, 1980.

LaPlante, Eve. Salem Witch Judge: The Life and Repentance of Samuel Sewall. New York, 2007.

Lawson, Deodat, "Christ's Fidelity the Only Shield against Satan's Malignity Asserted in a Sermon...1692,"in Jahrbuch für Amerikastudien 9 (1964): 228-270.

Levermore, C.H. "Witchcraft in Connecticut," New Englander 44 (1885), 792-812.

McMillan, Timothy J. "Black Magic: Witchcraft, Race, and Resistance in Colonial New England," Journal of Black Studies 25 (1994), 99-117.

Mappen, Marc (ed.) Witches and Historians: Interpretations of Salem Witchcraft. Huntington, N.Y., 1979.

Mather, Increase. Cases of conscience concerning evil spirits ... Boston, 1693.

Matossian, Mary. "Ergot and the Salem Witchcraft Trials," in Mary Matossian Poisons of the Past. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989.

Middlekauff, Robert. The Mathers: Three Generations of Puritan Intellectuals, 1596-1596-1728. N. Y., 1971.

Miller, Perry. The New England Mind: From Colony to Province. Cambridge, Mass. 1953.

Moore, George H. "Notes on the Bibliography of Witchcraft in Massachusetts," Proceedings of the American Antiquarian Society n.s. 5 (1888) 249-72.

__________________. "Notes on the History of Witchcraft in Massachusetts," Proceedings of the American Antiquarian Society, n.s. 2 (1882), 162-81.

Nevins, Winfield S. Witchcraft In Salem Village in 1692. Salem, 1916, 273 pp. 973.25 N 417W 1916.

Norton, Mary Beth. In the Devil's Snare : the Salem witchcraft crisis of 1692. New York, 2002.

Orion, Loretta. Never Again the Burning Times: Paganism Revived. Prospect Heights, Il. 1995.

Owen, Dennis E. "Spectral Evidence: The Cosmology of Salem Village in 1692," in Essays in the Sociology of Perception, ed. Mary Douglas. London, 1982, pp. 275-301.

Parke, F. N. "Withchcraft in Maryland", Maryland Historical Magazine 31 (1936), pp. 271-98.

__________." Witchcraft in New York, New York Historical Society Collections (1869), 273-76.

Poole, William F. Cotton Mather and witchcraft: two notices of Mr. Upham, his reply. Boston, 1875, 30p. Z 818 M 42Bp.

Recantation of Confessors of Witchcraft. Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society, 2nd ser., 3 (1815), 221-25.

Records of Salem Witchcraft, Copied from the Original Documents. Ed. by W. E. Woodward. N. Y., 1969. Orig. 1864-65. 133.4 R 245W 1969.

Reis, Elizabeth. Damned Women: Sinners and Witches in Puritan New England. Ithaca, 1997.

_____________, ed. Spellbound: Women and Witchcraft in America. Wilmington, 1998.

Rosenthal, Bernard. Salem Story: Reading the Witch Trials of 1692. Cambridge, 1993.

Sewall, Samuel. Diary. 1927, 272 pp.

Stahlman, William D. "Astrology in Colonial America: An Extended Query," William and Mary Quarterly 3rd ser. 13 (1956), 551-63.

Starkey, Marion L. The Devil in Massachusetts: a Modern Inquiry into the Salem Witch Trials. N. Y., 1949.

Strandness, T. B. Samuel Seward: a Puritan Portrait. Michigan, 1967, 188 pp.

Tapley, Charles S. Rebecca Nurse. Boston, 1930.

Taylor, John Metcalf. The Witchcraft Delusion in Colonial Connecticut. N. Y., 1908.

Thomas, M. Wynn. "Cotton Mather's Wonders of the Invisible World: Some Metaphorphoses of Salem Witchcraft," in The Damned Art., ed. S. Anglo. London, 1977.

Turell, Ebenezer. "Detection of Witchcraft," Massachusetts Historical Society Collections, 2nd ser. 10, 6-22.

Upham, Caroline E. Salem Witchcraft in Outline. Salem, 1895,

Upham, Charles W. Lectures on Witchcraft, comprising a history of the delusion in Salem in 1692. Boston, 1831.

_________________. Salem Witchcraft. N. Y., 1959. 2 vols.

Wendell, Barrett. "Were the Salem Witches Guiltless?" Essex Institute Historical Collections 29: 129-47.

Werking, Richard H. "'Reformation is Our Only Preservation': Cotton Mather and Salem Witchcraft," William and Mary Quarterly 29 (1972): 281-90.

Willard, Samuel. Some miscellany observations on our present debates concerning witchcraft. 1692 . microprint 3 631. Reprinted in Jahrbuch für Amerikastudien 9 (1964): 271-82.

Weisman, Richard. Witchcraft, Magic and Religion in 17th-Century Massachusetts. Amherst, 1984.
10. Nordic Countries
Alver, Bente G. Heksetro og Trolddom: Et Studie i Norsk Heksevaesen. Oslo, 1971.

Ankarloo, Bengt. "Sweden: The Mass Burnings (1688-1676)," Early Modern European Witchcraft, ed. B. Ankarloo and G. Henningsen. Oxford, 1990, pp. 285-317.

_______________. Witchcraft prosecutions after the end of the of the Witch Trials: A Contribution to Danish Ethnology," ARV 44 (1988), 103-53.

_______________ Trolldomprocesserna i Sverige [The Witchcraft Trials in Sweden]. Stockholm, 1971. Contains an English summary.

Dahlsgard, Inga. "Witch Hunts and Absolutism in Ancient Denmark," Cultures 8 (1982): 32-40.

Degn, Christian, Hartmut Lehmann, and Dagmar Unverhau (eds.). Hexenprozesse: Deutsche und scandinavische beiträge. Neumünster, 1983.

Gentz, Lauritz. "Vad förorsakede de stora häxprocesserna" [What Caused the Great Trials for Witchcraft?], Arv 10 (1954), 1-39. With English summary.

Hastrup, Kirsten. "Iceland: Sorcerers and Paganism," in Early Modern European Witchcraft, ed. B. Ankarloo and G. Henningsen. Oxford, 1990, pp. 383-401.

Heikkinen, Antero. Paholaisen Liittolaiset. Helsinki, 1969. Contains an English summary, pp. 374-94.

Heikkinen, Antero and Timo Kervinen, "Finland: The Male Domination," in Early Modern European Witchcraft, ed. B. Ankarloo and G. Henningsen. Oxford, 1990, pp. 319-338.

Henningsen, Gustav. "Hekseforfølgelse efter 'hekseprocessernes tid'. Et bidrag til dansk ethnohistorie", Folk og Kultur (1975): 98-151. With English summary.

___________________."Witch Persecution after the Era of the Witch Trials," ARV-Scandinavaian Yearbook of Folklore 44 (1988): 103-153.

Jacobsen, J. C. Danske Domme i Trolddomssager [Danish Judgements in Sorcery Cases]. Copenhagen, 1966.

Johansen, Jens Christian V. "Denmark: The Sociology of Accusations," in Early Modern European Witchcraft, ed. B. Ankarloo and G. Henningsen. Oxford, 1990, pp.339-65.

_______________________. "Hexen auf Mittelalterlichen Wandmalereien: zur genese der hexenprozesse in Dänemark," in Ketzer, zauberer, hexen, ed. Andreas Blauert. Franfort, 1990, pp. 217-40.

_______________________"Witchcraft in Elsinore, 1625-1626," in Mentalities-Mentalités (Hamilton, Nouvelkle-Zélande), 3, no. 1-2 (1985): 1-8.

_______________________. Witchcraft, Sin and Repentance: The Decline of Danish Witchcraft Trials," Acta Ethnographica Acad. Sci. Hungarica 37 (1992): 413-23.

Knutsen, Gunnar W. "A Central Periphery? Witchcraft Trials in Southeastern Norway," in S. Sogner, ed. Fact, Fiction and Forensic Evidence. (1997) 63-74.

_______________. "Norwegian Witchcraft Trials: A Reassessment," Continuity and Change, 18 (2003): 185-200.

______________. Trolldomsprosessene på Østlandet. Oslo, 1998.

Monter, E. William. "Scandinavian Witchcraft in Anglo-American Perspective," in Early Modern European Witchcraft, ed. B. Ankarloo and G. Henningsen. Oxford, 1990, pp. 425-434.

Naess, Hans Eyvind. "Norway: The Criminological Context," in Early Modern European Witchcraft, ed. B. Ankarloo and G. Henningsen. Oxford, 1990, pp. 367-82.

__________________ Trolldomsprosessene i Norge pa 1500-1600-tallet. Oslo, 1982.

Nenonen, Marko. Noituus, taikuus ja noitavainot: Ala-Satakunnan, Pohjois-Pohjanmaan ja Viipurin Karjalan maaseudulla vuosina1620-1700 [Witchcraft, Magic and Witch Trials in rural Lower Satakunta, Northern Ostrobothnia and Viipuri Carelia, 1620-1700.] With English summary, pp. 430-450. Suomen Historiallinen Seura, Historiallisia Tutkimuksia 165.Helsinki, 1992.

Rafnsson, M. The Witch-hunts in Iceland. Hólmavik, 2003.

Toivo, Raisa Maria. Witchcraft and Gender in Modern Society: Finland and the Wider European Experience. Aldershot, 2008.

Tørnsø, Kim. Djaevletro og folkemagi: Trolddomsforføgelse i 1500- og 1600-tallets Vestjylland. Aarhus,1986.

Weirs-Jenssen, Hans. Anne Pedersdotter: A Drama in Four Acts. trans. John Masefield. Boston, 1917. HRC

Willumsen, L.H. "Witches of the High North: The Finnmark Witchcraft Trials in the Seventeenth Century," Scandinavian Journal of History, 3 (1997): 199-221.

_____________. Witches of the North: Scotland and Finmark. Leiden, 2013.
11. Eastern Europe
Baranowski, B. Procesz czarownic w Polsce w XVII i XVIII wieku. Lodz, 1952.

Bylina, S. "Magie, sorellerie, et cultue populaire en Pologne aux XVe et XVIe siècles," Ethnographica Hungaria 37 (1991/2): 173-90.

Byloff, Fritz. Hexenglaube und Hexenverfolgung in den österreichischen Alpenländern. Berlin and Leipzig, 1934.

Evans, R. J. W. The Making of the Hapsburg Monarchy, 1500-1700. Oxford, 1979.

Klaniczay, Gábor. "Benandante-kresnik-zduhac-táltos", in Ethnographia 94 (1983).

___________. "Decline of Witches and Rise of Vampires in 18th-Century Habsburg Monarchy," Ethnologia Europaea 17 (1987), 165-80.

____________ "Hungary: The Accusations and the Universe of Popular Magic," in Early Modern European Witchcraft, ed. B. Ankarloo and G. Henningsen. Oxford, 1990, pp. 219-55.

___________. "Shamanistic Elements inCentral European Witchcraft," in Shamanism in Eurasia, ed. Mihaly Hoppál. Göttingen, 1984., pt. II, 404-22.

___________. "Witch-Hunting in Hungary: Social or Cultural Tensions?" Acta Ethnographica Acad. Sci. Hungar. 37 (1991-2),

___________ and Éva Pocs "Witch Beliefs and Witch Hunting in Central and Eastern Europe," Acta Ethnographica Hungarica 37 (1991-2)

__________. The Uses of Supernatural Power. Princeton 1990.

Kivelson, Valerie A. "Through the Prism of Witchcraft: Gender and Social Change in Seventeenth-Century Muscovy," in Russia's Women: Accommodation, Resistance, Transformation, ed. B. E. Evans, B. A. Engel and C. D. Worobec. Berkeley, 1991, pp. 74-94.

________________. Desperate Magic The Moral Economy of Witchcraft in Seventeenth-Century Russia. Ithaca, 2013.

Körner, Támás, "Boszorkányszervezeetek Magyarországon [The Hungarian Witch Organization] Ethnographia 80 (1969): 196-211, with German summary.

Kovács, Zoltán. "Die Hexen in Russland," Acta Ethnographica Acad. Sci. Hungarica 22 (1973): 51-87.

Kristóf, Ildikó. "'Wise Women', Sinners and the Poor: the social background in a 16th-18th-Century Calvinist City of Eastern Hungary," Acta Ethnographica Acad. Sci. Hungarica 37 (1991-2), pp. 93-119.

____________. "Witch Hunting in Early Modern Hungary," in Oxford Handbook of Witchcraft in Early Modern Europe and Colonial America, ed. Brian P. Levack, pp.334-54

Levack, Brian P. "Witch-Hunting in Poland and England: Similarities and Differences," in Britain and Poland-Lithuania: Contacts and Comparisons from the Middle Ages until 1795, ed. Rihard Unger (Leiden, 2008), pp. 233-41.

Lorint, F. E. and J, Bernabé. La sorcellerie paysane. Approche anthropologique de l'Homo Magus, avec une étude sûr la Roumanie. Brussels, 1977.

Ostling, Michael. Between the Devil and the Host: Imagining Witchcraft in Earl Modern Poland. Oxford, 2011

______________. "Witchcraft in Poland: Milk and Malefice," in Oxford Handbook of Witchcraft in Early Modern Europe and Colonial America, ed. Brian P. Levack, pp 318-33.

Pilaszek, Małgorzata. Procesy o czary w Polsce w wiekach XV-XVIII. Lodz: 2008.

Ryan, W.F. The Bathhouse at Midnight: Magic in Russia. University Park, 1999.

________. "The Witchcraft Hysteria in Early Modern Europe: Was Russia an Exception?"Slavonic and East European Review 76 (1998): 66-75.

Schiffmann, Aldona Christina. "The Witch and Crime: the persecution of witches in twentieth-century Poland." ARV 43 (1987): 147-167.

Schram, Ferenc. Magyarországi Boszokány perek 1529-1768. 2 vols Budapest, 1970.

Szendrey, A. "Hexe-Hexendruck", Acta Ethnographica Hungarica. 4 (1955): 129-68.

Tazbir, Janusz. "Hexenprozesse in Polen," Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 71 (1980): 280-307.

Várkonyi, Agnes. "Connections between the Cesation of Witch Trials and the Transformation of the Social Structure Related to Hygiene," Acta Ethnographica Acad. Sci. Hungaricae 37 (1991-2): 425-77.

Wijaczka, Jacek. Procesy o czary w Prusach Ksiazecych w XVI-XVII wieku. [Witch Trials in Ducal Prussia in the 16th and 17th centuries. Torun, 2007.

Wislicz,"The Township of Kleczew and Its Neighbourhood Fightting the Devil (1624-1700)," Acta Poloniae Historica 89 (2004): 65-95.

Worobec, Christine D. "Witchcraft Beliefs and practices in Prerevolutionary Russian and Ukrainian Villages," Russian Review 54 (1995): 165-87.

________________. Possessed: Women, Witches and Demons in Imperial Russia. Dekalb, 2001.

Zguta, Russell. "The Ordeal by Water (Swimming Witches) in the East Slavic World," Slavic Review 36 (1977): 220-30.

____________ "Witchcraft and Medicine in Pre-Petrine Russia," Russian Review 37 (1978): 438-48.

____________. "Witchcraft Trials in 17th-century Russia", American Historical Review 82 (1977): 1187-1207.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
G. Regional and National Studies--1500 to the Present Baschwitz, Kurt. Der Massenwahn: Ursache und Heilung des deutschen Hasses. Munich 1932. Baumgarten, Achim R. Hexenwahn und Hexenverfolgungen im Naheraum. Frankfurt, 1987. Behringer, Wolfgang. "Allemagne, 'Mère de tant de sorcières' au cour des persécutions," in Magie et sorcellerie en Europe, ed. R.

# data[].attributes.body
This episode discusses many issues surrounding the Salem trials. There are also other books and links that you can look at on the page.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Susan Castillo Street at King's College London Simon Middleton at the University of Sheffield Marion Gibson at the University of Exeter Salem Witchcraft Trials: 1692 Salem Witch Trials: Documentary Archive and Transcription Project Salem witch trials - Wikipedia READING LIST:
Christopher Bigsby, Arthur Miller (Harvard University Press, 2009)

Paul Boyer and Stephen Nissenbaum, Salem Possessed: The Social Origins of Witchcraft (Harvard University Press, 1974)

Elaine Breslaw, Tituba, Reluctant Witch of Salem: Devilish Indians and Puritan Fantasies (New York University Press, 1995)

Maryse Conde, I, Tituba, Black Witch of Salem: A Novel (Faber & Faber, 2000)

John Demos, Entertaining Satan: Witchcraft and the Culture of Early New England (Oxford University Press, 1982)

Nathaniel Hawthorne, The Scarlet Letter (W. W. Norton & Co, 1988)

Nathaniel Hawthorne, Selected Tales and Sketches (Penguin, 1987), especially 'Alice Doane's Appeal' and 'Young Goodman Brown'

Nathaniel Hawthorne (ed. Milton Sterne), The House of Seven Gables (Penguin, 1982)

Frances Hill, A Delusion of Satan: The Full Story of the Salem Witch (Doubleday, 1995)

Carol Karlsen, The Devil in the Shape of a Woman: Witchcraft in Colonial New England (W. W. Norton & Co, 1988)

Arthur Miller, The Crucible (Penguin, 2000)

Mary Beth Norton, In the Devil's Snare: The Salem Witchcraft Crisis of 1692 (Alfred A. Knopf, 2002)

Elizabeth Reis, Damned Women: Sinners and Witches in Puritan New England (Cornell University Press, 1997)

Bernard Rosenthal, Salem Story: Reading the Witch Trials of 1692 (Cambridge University Press, 1993)

Stacy Schiff, The Witches: Salem 1692 (Little, Brown and Company, 2015)

William Carlos Williams, Many Loves and Other Plays (New Directions, 1961), especially 'Tituba's Children'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
BBC Radio 4 - In Our Time, The Salem Witch Trials

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Susan Castillo Street at King's College London Simon Middleton at the University of Sheffield Marion Gibson at the University of Exeter Salem Witchcraft Trials: 1692 Salem Witch Trials: Documentary Archive and Transcription Project Salem witch trials - Wikipedia READING LIST: Christopher Bigsby, Arthur Miller (Harvard University Press, 2009) Paul Boyer

# data[].attributes.body
This online archive provides maps, court transcripts and many other documents to help you understand what happened in Salem.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Project Director: Benjamin Ray. Technical Development: Scholars' Lab.
© Copyright 2018 by Benjamin Ray and

The material presented in the Salem Witch Trials Documentary Archive is provided freely for non-commercial educational purposes. All other uses require advance permission from the project originators. The University of Virginia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
danvers; salem; witchcraft trials; witch trials; 1692; the witchcraftvictims' memorial; rebecca nurse

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Project Director: Benjamin Ray. Technical Development: Scholars' Lab. © Copyright 2018 by Benjamin Ray and The material presented in the Salem Witch Trials Documentary Archive is provided freely for non-commercial educational purposes. All other uses require advance permission from the project originators. The University of Virginia

# data[].attributes.body
This documentary summarises the story of the Salem witch-hunts of 1692.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
National Geographic Documentary 2015 Salems Witch Trial Witchcraft & Witchhunt Full Documentary HD

# data[].attributes.body
A set of films about Stalin - login details:

Username: CSFHISTORY

Password: student123

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Film: Stalin - Early Life / A-Level Topic Guide: Russia and the USSR / Historical Association

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
You don’t have permission to view this page.

# data[].attributes.body
A BBC podcast on the October Revolution. If you don't have a BBC sounds account you can create one for free.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The History Hour - The Russian Revolution: The Bolsheviks Take Control - BBC Sounds

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Catch up on your favourite BBC radio show from your favourite DJ right here, whenever you like. Listen without limits with BBC Sounds.

# data[].attributes.body
A documentary about the Romanovs - Episode 8 tells the story of the end of the dynasty.

# data[].attributes.body
An extract from Figes, "Revolutionary Russia" on the Power Struggle.

# data[].attributes.headline
Nicholas II's rule & The 1917 Revolutions

# data[].attributes.subject
Nicholas II's rule & The 1917 Revolutions

# data[].attributes.body
A documentary charting Lenin & Nicholas' lives up to the 1917 Revolution.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Discovery Channel Documentary :The Russian Revolution of 1917 HD

# data[].attributes.body
A documentary on Stalin's life.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Joseph Stalin - Communism's Man of Steel Documentary

# data[].attributes.body
A documentary on Lenin's life.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Lenin & The Russian Revolution Documentary

# data[].attributes.body
An extract from Robert Service, "The Russian Revolution" on the NEP.

# data[].attributes.body
A documentary on the Russian Civil War.

# data[].attributes.body
From Peter Waldron, "The End of Imperial Russia" - on the February Revolution & the actions of the Provisional Government.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
2.4 - Waldron extension reading (from purple sticky note to end)

# data[].attributes.body
From Orlando Figes, "Revolutionary Russia" - on the impact of World War One up to the February Revolution.

# data[].attributes.headline
HOW CHARLES DE GAULLE SAW THE “ANGLO-SAXON” RELATIONSHIP

# data[].attributes.subject
HOW CHARLES DE GAULLE SAW THE “ANGLO-SAXON” RELATIONSHIP

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Churchill Proceedings - How Charles de Gaulle Saw the “Anglo-Saxon” Relationship

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Finest Hour 157, Winter 2012-13 Page 52 By Antoine Capet 28TH INTERNATIONAL CHURCHILL CONFERENCE, LONDON, ENGLAND, OCTOBER 2011 The complexities and ambiguities of the three-cornered special relationship between Britain, France and the United States were nothing new in 1940. Arguably they can be tra…

# data[].attributes.headline
LION OF BRITAIN, CROSS OF LORRAINE: CHURCHILL AND DE GAULLE

# data[].attributes.subject
LION OF BRITAIN, CROSS OF LORRAINE: CHURCHILL AND DE GAULLE

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
May 25, 2010

" THE CROSS OF LORRAINE IS PART OF THE HERALDIC ARMS OF LORRAINE IN EASTERN FRANCE. IT WAS ORIGINALLY HELD TO BE A SYMBOL OF JOAN OF ARC, RENOWNED FOR HER PERSEVERANCE AGAINST FOREIGN INVADERS (IN HER CASE,THE ENGLISH)....DURING WORLD WAR II, THE CROSS WAS ADOPTED AS THE OFFICIAL SYMBOL OF THE FREE FRENCH FORCES UNDER GENERAL CHARLES DE GAULLE." -WIKIPEDIA

by Terry Reardon

Finest Hour 138, Spring 2008
In honor of our first Churchill Symposium in France ("Churchill and France," 6-7 June 2008), Finest Hour is pleased to offer two articles on the topic, the first being an overview by FH contributor Terry Reardon of ICS Canada.
Charles André Joseph Marie de Gaulle was born on 22 November 1890 in Lille, France. He graduated from the French military academy in 1912, was wounded three times in World War I, and spent thirty months as a prisoner of war, making repeated but unsuccessful escape attempts.

The interwar years saw de Gaulle make rapid strides in the army thanks to a mentor, Marshal Philippe Pétain, head of the French army. Pétain brought de Gaulle into his inner circle in 1925 and after two years as a battalion commander de Gaulle was promoted to the secretariat of the Council Superior of National Defence, where he was involved in a planning capacity from 1932 to 1937. His criticisms of the Army's lack of new ideas, such as tank brigades, were frostily received by the High Command, which was committed to the illusory and incomplete Maginot Line. ¹

One high-profile member of the French Parliament, Paul Reynaud, agreed with de Gaulle's concerns, and de Gaulle bombarded him with sixty-two letters over the next four years. Reynaud became Prime Minister in March 1940, and in May promoted Major de Gaulle to temporary General, commanding a tank division. Summoned back to Paris, he was given the position of Under Secretary of State, over the objections of Pétain and French Army head General Maxime Weygand. ²

On 9 June 1940, with France reeling under the German assault, Reynaud sent de Gaulle to London to request more assistance from the British Air Force. Of his first meeting with Churchill at Downing Street de Gaulle later wrote: "Mr. Churchill seemed to me to be equal to the rudest task, provided it also had grandeur....The humour, too, with which he seasoned his acts and words, and the way in which he made use, now of graciousness, now of anger, contributed to make one feel what mastery he had of the terrible game in which he was engaged." ³

On 16 June, accompanied by de Gaulle, France's war production liaison in London, Jean Monnet, implored Churchill to expend all his remaining air squadrons in the battle of France. Churchill wrote later: "I told him there was no possibility of this being done....My two French visitors then got up and moved towards the door, Monnet leading. As they reached it, de Gaulle, who had hitherto scarcely uttered a single word, turned back, and, taking two or three paces towards me, said in English: 'I think you are quite right.'" ⁴

Churchill flew to France four times in May and June, trying to bolster the French leadership. De Gaulle supported the British War Cabinet's offer of "indissoluble union" between the two nations, transmitted to Reynaud on 16 June, together with Churchill's proposal to meet Reynaud in Brittany the next day. But the French Council, led by Weygand and Pétain, was hostile to the proposal, saying that "in three weeks England will have her neck rung like a chicken." A union with Britain, Pétain added, would be "fusion with a corpse." ⁵

With the collapse of France, and the formation of a quiescent if not collaborationist government at Vichy, the only member of the Government who decided to carry on the fight from England, who thus became the spokesman for free France, was Charles de Gaulle.

In mid-June de Gaulle obtained Churchill's permission to use the BBC to broadcast an appeal of resistance to his countrymen. "France does not stand alone," he said. "Behind her is a vast empire and she can make common cause with the British Empire which commands the seas and is continuing the struggle....The flame of French resistance must not and shall not die." ⁶

Reynaud had now resigned and his successor Pétain sought an armistice with Hitler, whose terms prescribed that the French Fleet "shall be collected in ports to be specified and there demobilised and disarmed under German or Italian control." Although the German government had solemnly declared that it had no intention of using the French fleet, this was not believed by the British War Cabinet. Thus the Cabinet took in Churchill's words "a hateful decision, the most unnatural and painful in which I have ever been concerned....But no act was ever more necessary for the life of Britain and for all that depended upon it." ⁷ The British action on 3 July focused on the French fleet in Mers-el-Kebir and Oran in North Africa.

The French fleet was given several options: joining the British fleet in the war, sailing to a French port such as Martinique for demilitarization, or scuttling. With no satisfactory response, the Royal Navy commenced hostilities and the bulk of the fleet was sunk or disabled.

De Gaulle was not informed of the action until it had commenced and his initial reaction was anger, but when General Spears, British Liaison Officer to the former French government, met with him two days later, he found de Gaulle "astonishingly objective." On 8 July de Gaulle broadcast to France: "...the government at Bordeaux had agreed to place our ships at the enemy's discretion....one day the enemy would have used them against England or against our own empire. Well, I say without hesitation that it is better they should have been destroyed....Our two ancient nations, our two great nations, remain bound to one another. They will either go down both together or both together they will win." ⁸

On 24 August 1940 Churchill spoke in the House of Commons "Our old comradeship with France is not at an end. In General de Gaulle and his gallant band that comradeship takes an effective form. These Free Frenchmen have been condemned to death by Vichy, but the day will come, as surely as the sun will rise tomorrow, when their names will be held in honour, and their names will be graven in stones in the streets and villages of a France restored in a liberated Europe, to its full freedom and its ancient fame." ⁹

Dakar, the capital of the French colony of Senegal, was controlled by Vichy, and Churchill pressured the British Chiefs of Staff to mount an operation with the Free French to take the port, which would be useful as a base in the battle of the Atlantic. The attack, between 23 and 25 September 1940, was a disaster, with Vichy forces mounting a strong defence. Vichy and German propaganda took advantage of their victory, and the British and American press were also highly critical. ¹⁰

While Dakar did not diminish Churchill's confidence in de Gaulle, their relationship rapidly deteriorated. Although in late 1940 de Gaulle's forces consisted of an army of 140 officers and 2109 men, and a navy of 120 officers and 1746 ratings, his attitude and deportment were those of a major player in the war. ¹¹

In November 1940, without advising Churchill or the British Government, de Gaulle announced an Empire Defence Council, with the wording of the manifesto reading like a declaration of war on Vichy. He included an unrealistic and arrogant offer to the United States of air and naval bases in the French possessions of the Western hemisphere, which were administered by Vichy. ¹²

The next few months saw many incidents of anti-British actions and comments by de Gaulle, but in June 1941 came a serious disruption. Two countries in the Levant, Syria and Lebanon, had been mandated to France after World War I, and after the armistice were governed by Vichy. In June 1941 an allied force of mainly Free French troops commenced an offensive, and in July Vichy asked for a cease-fire and an armistice. De Gaulle laid down his conditions, but these were ignored by the British, and the Free French were not permitted to have any contact with the Vichy forces, which were granted "full honours of war." ¹³

Beside himself with rage, de Gaulle vented his anger on General Spears and the British Minister of State in the Middle East, Oliver Lyttelton, who in his memoirs admitted that the Free French should have been consulted. Lyttelton wired Churchill that "de Gaulle worked himself into a state of bitter hostility to everything English" and "was rude and offensive." ¹⁴

Churchill replied: "I am sorry you are having all this trouble with de Gaulle....It might be well if you could let him see the gulf on the edge of which he is disporting himself." Churchill also telegraphed de Gaulle suggesting he return to England "in order that I may discuss with you personally the difficulties which have arisen."

De Gaulle ignored the suggestion. When on 27 August 1941 a reporter for the Chicago Daily News asked him why Britain had not formally recognized the Free French as a government-in-exile, he replied: "England is carrying on a wartime deal with Hitler in which Vichy serves as a go-between. Vichy serves Hitler by keeping the French people in subjection and selling the French Empire piecemeal to Germany....Britain is exploiting Vichy in the same way as Germany; the only difference is in her purposes. What happens in effect is an exchange of advantages between hostile powers which keeps the Vichy Government alive as long as both Britain and Germany agree it should exist." ¹⁵

Realizing he had gone too far, de Gaulle tried to stop the publication, and after this failed, claimed he had been misinterpreted. He finally returned to London on 1 September; but the day before, Churchill had issued a directive that no person in authority was to see him, and that "he is to stew in his own juice."

On 12 September de Gaulle met with Churchill, who was determined to put him in his place. Churchill informed his private secretary, John Colville, that he would speak only through an interpreter (see James Lancaster's following article).

"An hour slipped away and I began to fear violence," Colville wrote. "I had decided it was my duty to burst in, perhaps with a bogus message....I went in to find the two of them sitting side by side with amiable expressions on their faces. De Gaulle, no doubt for tactical purposes, was smoking one of the Prime Minister's cigars....The Entente was Cordiale again, at least temporarily." ¹⁶

On 7 December 1941 the United States entered the war. Roosevelt had been supportive of Vichy and Marshal Pétain, and negative toward the Free French, especially its erratic and explosive leader. The invasion of the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon on 24 December 1941 ( FH 136: 18-22) reinforced the U.S. government's disdain for de Gaulle, which continued throughout the war.

In 1942 things didn't get any better. In May, British forces landed on the Vichy-controlled island of Madagascar without Free French participation or any warning to de Gaulle. The general, again furious, cabled his commanders in Africa and the Levant, stating that they must have no relations with the invaders. ¹⁷ De Gaulle backed off after another meeting with Churchill, but he was soon again to be out of step with "Les Anglo-Saxons."

"Torch," the invasion of North Africa, was set to commence in November 1942. Churchill had written to Roosevelt stating his intention to advise de Gaulle the day before the landing; but Roosevelt demanded that he not be told until after a successful landing. When eventually informed, de Gaulle roared: "I hope the Vichy people will fling them into the sea! You don't get France by burglary!" ¹⁸

Again, however, de Gaulle calmed down, and at lunch at Chequers that same day he politely listened while Churchill explained the reasons for the secrecy. But de Gaulle interpreted this as stemming from the pro-Vichy American stance.

De Gaulle further entrenched the American negative opinion when he refused to fly to Casablanca in January 1943 to discuss power sharing with French General Henri Giraud, who had recently escaped from a German prison. His attitude was that this was purely a French affair.

The Americans, of course, were certain that Giraud was a better bet than de Gaulle, but with Churchill expressing the opposite opinion, they agreed to a sharing of power. Roosevelt cabled WSC: "We'll call Giraud the bridegroom, and I'll produce him from Algiers, and you have the bride, de Gaulle, down from London, and we'll have a shotgun wedding." ¹⁹

The President, somewhat perversely enjoying Churchill's discomfort, cabled to Secretary of State Cordell Hull: "We delivered our bridegroom, General Giraud, who was most cooperative on the impending marriage, and I am sure was ready to go through with it on our terms. However our friends could not produce the bride, the temperamental Lady de Gaulle." ²⁰

Ultimately, under pressure from his Free French National Committee, de Gaulle relented and arrived in Casablanca on 22 January; he and Giraud could not agree, but they did issue a statement on their mutual objective: the liberation of France. 21 De Gaulle's stubbornness left Churchill "in a white fury" according to Robert Murphy, American representative in Algiers. However, at the request of Roosevelt, de Gaulle did agree to shake hands with Giraud for the benefit of the cameramen, and the photographs received a wide circulation. ²²

When Churchill and de Gaulle arrived back in England, Churchill gave orders that "the monster of Hampstead" (where de Gaulle lived) was not to be allowed to leave the country and stir up trouble abroad. The two did not meet again until 2 April 1943. De Gaulle began by saying that he was a prisoner and would be sent to the enemy alien prison on the Isle of Man (which he pronounced "eel-o-mon"). Churchill responded, "No, you are very distinguished, and so would go to the Tower of London!" But WSC did agree to allow de Gaulle to travel back to Algiers. ²³

Agreement could still not be reached with Giraud, and Churchill laid the blame on de Gaulle. When meeting with the U.S. Senate on 19 May 1943, Churchill said that he had "raised de Gaulle as a pup...now he bit the hand that fed him." ²⁴

With further pressure from Washington Churchill was close to a split with de Gaulle, but Anthony Eden and most of the British Cabinet interceded. Of an Algiers meeting with Eden on 25 May, de Gaulle recounted: "Mr. Eden good-humouredly said 'Do you know that you have caused us more difficulties than all our other European allies put together?' 'I don't doubt it,' I replied, smiling also. 'France is a great power.'" ²⁵

On 3 June 1943 an agreement of sorts was reached between de Gaulle and Giraud, although soon after de Gaulle was able to manoeuvre his rival out of the joint leadership. Harold Macmillan, Allied Minister in North Africa and a future prime minister, recalled a 3 1/2 hours drive with de Gaulle to the Algerian seaside on 14 June 1943, and bathing naked with de Gaulle sitting "in a dignified manner on a rock, with his military cap, his uniform and his belt...It is very difficult to know how to handle him....I'm afraid he will always be difficult to work with. He is by nature an autocrat. Just like Louis X1V or Napoleon. He thinks in his heart that he should command and all others should obey him. It is not exactly 'Fascist' (an overworked word), it is authoritarian." ²⁶

The anglophobic actions of de Gaulle continued, although these did not reflect his respect and admiration for Churchill, and some light moments were recorded. On 13 January 1944 Churchill and de Gaulle lunched in Marrakesh, with British Ambassador to the French Committee of Liberation Alfred Duff Cooper, and after lunch Churchill decided that if he spoke French it would add a lighter touch to the occasion. He remarked to Duff Cooper, "I'm doing rather well, aren't I? Now that the General speaks English so well, he understands my French perfectly." Everyone including de Gaulle burst out laughing. ²⁷

A clash occurred over D-Day, where the details were again withheld from de Gaulle beforehand. Invited to London from Algiers, de Gaulle took his time and eventually arrived on 4 June. Churchill met with him and after discussing the invasion passed him on to General Eisenhower, who gave specific information on the operation and asked him to broadcast after the landing. When Eisenhower said he too would be broadcasting, de Gaulle responded that he would not take second place in the broadcast and that Eisenhower had no right to instruct the French people on civil administration matters, which was part of his speech. Churchill, already in an agitated state over the impending landing, flew into a rage, only slightly lessened when informed that de Gaulle would speak, but not immediately after Eisenhower.

Then the question was broached as to vetting the draft of the speech beforehand. In the end it was not done and de Gaulle gave a magnificent speech exhorting "the sons of France, whoever they may be, wherever they may be, the simple and sacred duty is to fight the enemy with every means in its power." De Gaulle went on to give heartfelt thanks to the British for their effort in the liberation of France. On hearing him, tears welled up in Churchill's eyes. Noticing a certain skepticism in his Chief of Personal Staff, General Ismay, he said: "You great tub of lard! Have you no sentiment?" ²⁸

With the Normandy bridgehead established, de Gaulle left England on 16 June and wrote to Churchill, "Upon leaving Great Britain, to which you kindly invited me at a moment of decisive importance to the successful conclusion of this war, I would like to extend my sincerest thanks for the welcome extended to me by His Majesty's Government....I have been able to see and feel that the courage and power of the people of Great Britain were of the highest order and that their feelings of friendship for France were stronger than ever. I can assure you, in return, of the deep confidence and unbreakable attachment which France feels towards Great Britain." ²⁹

While the balance of the war still saw skirmishes between the two men, there were now more occasions of warmth and mutual admiration. On 10 November 1944 Churchill flew to Paris. He was met at the airport by de Gaulle and driven to the Quai d'Orsay, where he was to stay. The accoutrements were of the highest class. Churchill's included a golden bath, prepared by Goering for his own use; Churchill was still more delighted to find that Anthony Eden's bath was only of silver. ³⁰

The following day, Armistice Day, de Gaulle conducted Churchill in an open car across the Seine and the two men walked the Champs Elysees, teeming with thousands of cheering Parisians. The diarist and MP Harold Nicolson stated that Eden told him that "not for one moment did Winston stop crying, and that he could have filled buckets by the time he received the Freedom of Paris." He said, "they yelled for Churchill in a way that he has never heard any crowd yell before." ³¹

At an official luncheon de Gaulle said, "It is true that we would not have seen [the liberation] if our old and gallant ally England, and all the British dominions under precisely the impulsion and inspiration of those we are honouring today, had not deployed the extraordinary determination to win, and that magnificent courage which saved the freedom of the world. There is no French man or woman who is not touched to the depths of their hearts and souls by this."

It was General Spears, not Churchill, who remarked, "the hardest cross I have to bear is the Cross of Lorraine," though WSC certainly shared those sentiments. So why did he not abandon de Gaulle after so many provocations? The answer is in Churchill's own words. In France's darkest hour Churchill had whispered to him, "L'homme du destin." ³²

At Casablanca in 1943, he said of de Gaulle: "His country has given up fighting, he himself is a refugee, and if we turn him down he's finished. Well just look at him! He might be Stalin, with 200 divisions behind his words....France without an army is not France. De Gaulle is the spirit of that Army. Perhaps the last survivor of a warrior race." ³³

Churchill added in August 1944, " I have never forgotten, and can never forget, that he stood forth as the first eminent Frenchman to face the common foe in what seemed to be the hour of ruin of his country and possibly, of ours...."34

Of Churchill's dismissal following the 1945 British general election, de Gaulle wrote: "To minds inclined towards sentimentality this disgrace suddenly inflicted by the British Nation upon the great man who had so gloriously led her to salvation and victory might seem surprising. Yet there was nothing in it that was not in accordance with the order of human affairs....[Churchill's] nature, identified with a magnificent undertaking, his countenance chiselled by the fires and frosts of great events, had become inadequate in this era of mediocrity." ³⁵

On 6 November 1958 in Paris, Churchill was presented with the Croix de la Libération by de Gaulle, now French President, who remarked: "I want Sir Winston to know this. Today's ceremony means that France remembers what she owes him. I want him to know this: the man who has just had the honour of bestowing this distinction upon him values and admires him more than ever." ³⁶

Upon Churchill's death on 24 January 1965 de Gaulle wrote to Queen Elizabeth, "In the great drama he was the greatest of all." 37 ✌

Endnotes

1. Kersaudy, François, Churchill and De Gaulle (New York: Atheneum, 1983), 22.

2. Lacoutre, Jean, De Gaulle The Rebel 1890-1944 (London: Collins Harvill, 1990), 190.

3. De Gaulle, Charles, The Call to Honour (New York: Viking, 1955), 57-58.

4. Churchill, Winston S. The Second World War, vol. 3, Their Finest Hour (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1949), 215.

5. Ibid., 213.

6. De Gaulle, op. cit., 84.

7. Churchill, op. cit., 232.

8. Lacoutre, op. cit., 249-50.

9. Kersaudy, op. cit., 87

10.Ibid., 100-02.

11. Berthon, Simon, Allies At War (New York: Carroll & Graf, 2001), 46.

12. Kersaudy, op. cit., 115-16.

13. Ibid., 139.

14. Berthon, op. cit., 125.

15. Ibid., 136.

16. Colville, John, Footprints in Time (London: Collins, 1976), 113-15.

17. Berthon, op. cit., 169.

18. Lacoutre, op. cit., 397.

19. Berthon, op. cit., 234.

20. Kersaudy, op. cit., 243.

21. Berthon, op. cit., 246.

22. Kersaudy, op. cit, 255.

23. Ibid, 267.

24. Ibid, 273.

25. Ibid, 280-81.

26. Macmillan, Harold, The Blast of War 1939-45 (London: Macmillan, 1967), 345-46.

27. Kersaudy, op. cit., 310.

28. Berthon, op. cit., 311.

29. Kersaudy, op. cit., 358.

30. Ibid., 374.

31. Nicolson, Harold, Diaries and Letters 1939-1945 (London: Collins, 1967), 412.

32. Churchill, op. cit., 182.

33. Moran, Lord, Churchill Taken from the Diaries of Lord Moran (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1966), 88.

34. Churchill, Winston S., The Dawn of Liberation (Toronto: McClelland & Stewart, 1945), 206.

35. Kersaudy, op. cit., 413.

36. Ibid., 424.

37. Ibid., 428.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Lion of Britain, Cross of Lorraine: Churchill and de Gaulle

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"THE CROSS OF LORRAINE IS PART OF THE HERALDIC ARMS OF LORRAINE IN EASTERN FRANCE. IT WAS ORIGINALLY HELD TO BE A SYMBOL OF JOAN OF ARC, RENOWNED FOR HER PERSEVERANCE AGAINST FOREIGN INVADERS (IN HER CASE,THE ENGLISH)....DURING WORLD WAR II, THE CROSS WAS ADOPTED AS THE OFFICIAL SYMBOL OF THE FREE FRENCH FORCES UNDER [...]

# data[].attributes.headline
“CHURCHILL AND ROOSEVELT: THE STRUGGLE OVER D-DAY ALTERNATIVES”

# data[].attributes.subject
“CHURCHILL AND ROOSEVELT: THE STRUGGLE OVER D-DAY ALTERNATIVES”

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
June 3, 2019

By Edward E. Gordon and David Ramsey

The special relationship between Great Britain and the United States was key to the development and execution of the Normandy campaign. It began with the close collaboration of Prime Minister Winston Churchill and President Franklin D. Roosevelt even before America's entrance into the war. During 1940 and 1941 the two countries developed very close ties as German victories threatened all of Europe. Their joint military and logistical planning foreshadowed their ultimate alliance. ¹

The Debate Begins

D-Day's seeds were first planted on Dunkirk's beaches. Almost from the day in 1940 when the British and French forces were evacuated from France, the British began to consider where, when, and how they would return to free northwestern Europe from Nazi occupation. Much of this speculation was premature. Only when the United States dropped its neutrality would the combined manpower and firepower of Britain and America be available to guarantee the success of such a massive amphibious invasion of northwestern Europe. However it still remained very difficult for the Allies to decide on when and where to launch this invasion.

Soon after Japan's surprise attack on Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941, Britain's Prime Minister Winston S. Churchill called Franklin D. Roosevelt. "Mr. President, what's this about Japan?" "It's quite true he replied.... We are all in the same boat now." Churchill immediately proposed travelling to Washington D.C. so that, "We could review the whole war plan in the light of reality." On 14 December 1941, he left for America. Churchill spent Christmas with Roosevelt as his guest at the White House. ²

In their wide-ranging discussions,Roosevelt and Churchill made several unprecedented decisions that had a broad impact on future military operations. First, in order to unify Anglo-American strategy, they agreed that one Supreme Commander would be appointed in each theater of operations with final authority over all British/American land, sea, and air operations. Secondly, a new Combined Chiefs of Staff based in Washington, D.C., would be appointed with representatives from the British and American chiefs of staff to coordinate joint strategic military decisions. They also decided that the Allies should be called the "United Nations" instead of "Associated Powers." ³

Achieving this complete unification of military operations proved to be easier said than done. It set the stage for the future Allied invasion of France to become an enormous friction-filled event extending to the war's final conclusion.

Why Are We Trying To Do This?

From the first day of the war, America's leaders were determined to speedily confront and defeat the German army by invading northwestern Europe. But because the British had recently been decisively defeated by German forces at Dunkirk and in Norway and Greece, Churchill and the British Armed Forces Chiefs of Staff were much more cautious. They also remembered the slaughter of an entire generation in Flanders field battles of the Somme and Passchendaele during the First World War. As Winston Churchill recounted,

While I was always willing to join with the United States in a direct assault across the Channel on the German sea-front in France, I was not convinced that this was the only way of winning the war, and I knew that it would be a very heavy and hazardous adventure. The fearful price we had to pay in human life and blood for the great offensives of the First World War was graven in my mind. ⁴

Britain's war leaders also harbored grave doubts about the battle readiness of U.S. soldiers and thought that American generals lacked combat experience. From December 1941 to June 1944 this British foreboding cast a pall over the very idea of mounting a successful cross-channel invasion. "Why are we trying to do this?" Churchill was shouting even as late as February 1944. Almost up to the day of the actual Normandy landings, Churchill continually bombarded the Americans and his own generals with alternatives such as invading Norway, Portugal or the Balkans. This continued insistence on these diversionary maneuvers weakened his relationships with the American commanders. ⁵

The British Chief of the Imperial General Staff, Sir Alan Brooke, voiced similar doubts about a Normandy invasion. Overall Brooke did not believe that the Wehrmacht would be sufficiently weakened before 1944. Furthermore he doubted that US war production would be able to turn out the huge quantity of goods required for an invasion and that America could train an adequate number of troops before this date. ⁶

In spite of the Pearl Harbor debacle and the growing number of Japanese victories across the Pacific, the US government reaffirmed its prewar policy of defeating Germany first. To the relief of the British, both President Roosevelt and General George C. Marshall, the Chief of Staff of the US Army, acknowledged that Germany's war-making capacity was far more dangerous. They agreed that Japan's defeat would soon follow the collapse of the Third Reich. The most contentious issue between Britain and America became how to best defeat Germany. ⁷

Operation RANKIN was the British chiefs of staff plan to implement this peripheral strategy with attacks in the Mediterranean region, the Balkans, Norway, and elsewhere. These thrusts would help to wear down the Nazi empire in Europe until it collapsed. Perhaps it was all wishful thinking on their part, but as late as November 1943 the British chiefs still considered the possibility of implementing RANKIN as an alternative to a major landing in Normandy.

In June 1942 Churchill had persuaded Roosevelt to issue a joint veto for a 1942 Allied landing in France. Instead Alan Brooke offered his own plan, Operation GYMNAST, a joint Anglo-American invasion of French North Africa.

Marshall and Admiral Ernest J. King, Chief of Staff of the US Navy, were angry at being forced by Roosevelt to commit to GYMNAST. This was one of the few times during the World War II that Roosevelt intervened in a military decision. Marshall and King perceived it as a "sideshow" operation in the Mediterranean much more in line with British Imperial interests than Allied strategic goals. ⁸

Much the Greatest Thing

At the Casablanca Conference (January 1943) the British were able to secure the postponement of a cross-channel attack and substitute an agreement to mount Operation Husky, the invasion of Sicily. To appease the Americans, Churchill suggested appointing a commander for the invasion of northwestern Europe. He proposed that a member of the British Chiefs of Staff be named as a temporary deputy commander.

Marshall liked the idea. While Churchill thought this was a harmless consolation prize, Marshall perceived that appointing a deputy commander or a chief of staff gave the invasion planning a new lease on life. On 22 January 1943, the Combined Chiefs of Staff ordered the appointment of the British Lieutenant General Frederick Morgan and American Brigadier General Ray Barker as his deputy. ⁹

Morgan assembled an Anglo-American staff that became known as COSSAC, taken from the first letters of his new title (Chief of Staff to the Supreme Allied Commander). They were to complete a detailed invasion plan by 1 August 1943. At that point the plan needed a new code name. The British Inter Service Security Board had the role of assigning clearly differentiated names for each of the numerous Allied operations then underway. Unfortunately the only name available was "MOTHBALL."

When Morgan presented Operation MOTHBALL to Churchill, he went right through the roof. "Do you mean to tell me that those bloody fools want our grandchildren 50 years from now to be calling the operation that liberated Europe Operation Mothball? If they can't come up with a better code name for our landing than that, I damn well will pick the code name myself." Morgan said that Churchill "glowered for a moment" and then shouted, "Overlord. We shall call it Overlord." 10 That is how the greatest D-Day of them all came to be known to posterity as Operation Overlord. It was one of Churchill's most important personal contributions to the invasion plan.

After World War II ended, Morgan wrote to British historian Liddell Hart about these and many other issues he faced during COSSAC's lifespan. One of his most unsettling comments might help us better understand some of the Normandy campaign's command dilemmas. Morgan observed that as the size of the US commitment to Overlord grew in manpower, aircraft, ships, etc. so did the signs that the British were developing an inferiority complex. He thought that this situation was "frightening." ¹¹

During the autumn and winter of 1943, preparation for Overlord advanced. Yet behind the unified Allied front, the British grew increasingly apprehensive. In a cable to Marshall, Churchill stated, "We are carrying out our contract, but I pray God it does not cost us dear." ¹²

On 11 November, a British Chiefs of Staff memo recorded, "We must not regard Overlord on a fixed date as the pivot of our whole strategy ... The German strength in France next Spring may ... be something that makes Overlord impossible [or] Rankin not only practicable but essential." ¹³

At about the same time Churchill wrote to Roosevelt cautioning him that, "It is arguable that neither the forces building up in Italy [the Allied landing occurred in September 1943] nor those available for a May OVERLORD are strong enough for the tasks set them." Churchill added his strongest objection to a cross-channel attack. "My dear friend this is much the greatest thing we have ever attempted, and I am not satisfied that we have yet taken the measures necessary to give it the best chance of success." ¹⁴

Overlord Decision Point

The British finally had driven the Americans to their breaking-point. Roosevelt and Marshall were determined to force the British into a final non-revocable commitment to Overlord.

This opportunity presented itself at the Teheran Conference in Iran (28 November-1 December 1943). This was first joint meeting of the "Big Three" - Joseph Stalin, Winston S. Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Stalin was impatient for major military relief on the Eastern Front through the long-promised Anglo-American second front in France. The Tehran Conference gave Stalin and his generals a chance to pin down Churchill on his OVERLORD commitment.

At Teheran the Allies finally agreed to an OVERLORD launch date sometime in May 1944 and a supporting operation in the south of France. The naming of the supreme commander was promised in the near future. On 7 December, Roosevelt broke the news to General Eisenhower that he was to be appointed to this position.

Churchill had been backed into a corner by the Russians and Americans and finally ran out of maneuvering room. Major General John Kennedy, a British planner, later conceded, "Had we had our way, I think there can be little doubt that the invasion of France would not have been done in 1944." ¹⁵

Even after the Tehran Conference, Churchill tried to get OVERLORD postponed for some more assaults "around the ring." In April 1944, he told an American general that if he were planning OVERLORD, it would not be executed until the Allies had retaken Norway, invaded the Aegean islands, and secured Turkey's support. ¹⁶

After interminable delays all the Allies had finally accepted the OVERLORD concept. The die was cast! It had been a hard, bruising process.

Result: Pursuit of a Common Goal

Churchill sought to maintain Britain's dominant position in Europe, preserve her colonial empire, and contain the menace posed by Soviet expansionism in Eastern Europe. American leaders did not foresee the post-war power struggle in Europe created by the rapid resurgence of the Soviet Union from horrendous war losses and the weakened ability of Britain and its allies to cope with this Communist threat.

The Americans were not naïve. They understood the political reasoning behind Churchill's war policies. But if these did not accomplish America's military interests, the US chiefs of staff would not support them. ¹⁷

Due to American political exigencies, Roosevelt and the US chiefs of staffs sought to avoid a protracted war in Europe and to pursue a swift victory over Japan. US political and military leaders demanded the quickest and least costly road to victory. General George C. Marshall summarized this scenario when he said, "a democracy cannot fight a Seven Years War." ¹⁸

Here two fundamentally opposing conceptions of war - the indirect versus direct approach - collided. For the British an invasion of northwestern Europe would come only as a final knockout blow. First the German Wehrmacht had to be worn out by fighting on many fronts. The Americans contended that the Allies should be using the Clausewitzian principle of concentration of their forces at the decisive point. Their dispute was never resolved and repeatedly hampered the successful course of the Normandy campaign and the onset of the Cold War in Europe. ¹⁹

Yet even with these limitations, the combined Allied Supreme Headquarter Allied Expeditionary Force (SHAEF) that planned and executed Operation OVERLORD contrasted sharply with the confused German (OKW) armed forces high command. "Alongside the command structure of their enemies, that of the Allied Force was a masterpiece of reason and understanding," asserts historian Max Hastings. ²⁰

The pursuit of a common goal - the defeat of the Axis at times held a difficult partnership together. The "sheer depth, scale and scope of the alliance," says Niall Barr, "between Britain and the United States ... is hard to comprehend even now." ²¹

In the final analysis it was Churchill who highlighted why the Allies achieved the final victory through the OVERLORD campaign. "There is only one thing worse than fighting with allies, and that is fighting without them!" ²²

Edward E. Gordon and David Ramsay are co-authors of Divided on D-Day: How Conflicts and Rivalries Jeopardized the Allied Victory at Normandy (Prometheus Books, 2017).

Endnotes

1. Edward E. Gordon and David Ramsey, Divided on D-Day: How Conflicts and Rivalries Jeopardized the Allied Victory at Normandy (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2017), p. 321.

2. Martin Gilbert, Finest Hour: Winston S. Churchill, 1939-1941 (London: Heinemann, 1983), p. 1269.

3. Lynne Olson, Citizens of London (New York: Random House, 2010), p.149. Lewis E. Lehrman, Churchill, Roosevelt and Company (Guilford, CT: Stackpole Books, 2017), p. 279.

4. Winston S. Churchill, Closing the Ring, vol. 5, The Second World War (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1951), p. 582.

5. Max Hastings, Overlord: D-Day and the Battle for Normandy (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1984), p. 19. Lehrman, Churchill, Roosevelt and Company, p. 290.

6. David Fraser, Alanbrooke (Feldman, UK: Hamlyn Paperbacks, 1982), pp. 424, 528. Alan Brooke, War Diaries, 1939-1945, eds. Alex Danchev and Daniel Trodman (London: Phoenix Press, 2001), p. 554.

7. Gordon and Ramsay, p. 21.

8. Hastings, Overlord, pp. 22-25. William F. Moore, "Overlord: The Unnecessary Invasion," Air War College Research Report (Maxwell Air Force Base, AL: Air University, US Air Force, March 1986), https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAFNoOverlord/index.html (accessed April 4, 2017).

9. Hastings, Overlord, p. 21. Craig L. Symonds, Neptune: The Allied Invasion of Europe and the D-Day Landings (New York: Oxford University Press, 2014), p. 105.

10. Larry Collins, The Secrets of D-Day (Beverly Hills, CA: Phoenix Books, 2006), pp. 3-4. Frederick Morgan, Overture to Overlord (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1950), p. 72.

11. Carlo D'Este, Decision in Normandy (Old Saybrook, CT: Konecky and Konecky, 1994), p. 38.

12. Quoted in Hastings, Overlord, p. 22.

13. Quoted in John Keegan, Six Armies in Normandy (New York: Penguin Books, 1994), p. 54.

14. Quoted in Robert Dallek, Franklin D. Roosevelt: A Political Life (New York: Penguin Books, 2017), p. 533.

15. John Kennedy, The Business of War (London: Hutchinson, 1957), pp. 301-305.

16. Samuel Eliot Morison, The Two-Ocean War: A Short History of the United States Navy in the Second World War (Atlantic Monthly Press, 1963), p. 385.

17. Gordon and Ramsay, Divided, pp. 322-323.

18. Quoted in Maurice Matloff, Strategic Planning for Coalition Warfare 1943-1944 (Washington, DC: Center of Military History, US Army, 1990), p. 5, http://www.history.mil/html/books/001/1-4/CMH_Pub_1-4.pdf (accessed June 4, 2017).

19. Symonds, Neptune, pp. 101-102. Correlli Barnett, Engage the Enemy More Closely: The Royal Navy in the Second World War (New York: W.W. Norton, 1991), p. 622.

20. Hastings, Overlord, p. 28.

21. Niall Barr, Eisenhower's Armies: The American-British Alliance during World War II (New York: Pegasus Books, 2015), p. 1.

22. International Churchill Society, Chapters, 1 April 1945, https://winstonchurchill.org/uncategorised/quotes-slider/2014-11-3-16-25-06/.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
"Churchill and Roosevelt: The Struggle over D-Day Alternatives"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By Edward E. Gordon and David Ramsey The special relationship between Great Britain and the United States was key to the development and execution of the Normandy campaign. It began with the close collaboration of Prime Minister Winston Churchill and President Franklin D. Roosevelt even before America's entrance into the war.

# data[].attributes.body
This article gives you some background to Nicholas II & his relationship with the Tsarina.

# data[].attributes.body
A reading on the 1905 Revolution from Orlando Figes, "Revolutionary Russia".

# data[].attributes.headline
DAVID PETRAEUS ON CHURCHILL’S ‘IRON CURTAIN’ SPEECH

# data[].attributes.subject
DAVID PETRAEUS ON CHURCHILL’S ‘IRON CURTAIN’ SPEECH

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Skip to content

News

David Petraeus on Churchill's 'Iron Curtain' Speech

April 8, 2017

Churchill gave his famous 'Iron Curtain' Speech in 1946

These events took place at the Church of St. Mary the Virgin, Aldermanbury and the National Churchill Museum on the campus of Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri. It was on the campus of Westminster College on 5 March 1946 that Winston Churchill gave his famous 'Iron Curtain' speech.

During his 37-year career in the U.S. Army, General Petraeus was widely recognized for his command of the organization that produced the U.S. Army's counterinsurgency manual and overhauled all aspects of preparing U.S. Army leaders and units for deployment to combat. Before his retirement in 2011, his commands included the leadership of the Surge in Iraq and for his command of forces in Afghanistan. Upon retirement from the U.S. Army, he became Director of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency.

Join us for the 40th International Churchill Conference. Edinburgh Scotland, 5-7 October 2023

More

These speeches were given in conjunction with the Churchill Weekend, and the first ever meeting at the National Churchill Museum by the board members of Washington D.C.-based International Churchill Society.

A tribute, join us

#thinkchurchill

Subscribe

WANT MORE?

Get the Churchill Bulletin delivered to your inbox once a month.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
David Petraeus on Churchill's 'Iron Curtain' Speech

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Churchill gave his famous 'Iron Curtain' Speech in 1946 These events took place at the Church of St. Mary the Virgin, Aldermanbury and the National Churchill Museum on the campus of Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri. It was on the campus of Westminster College on 5 March 1946 that Winston Churchill gave his famous [...]

# data[].attributes.body
An article giving you some more detail about what happened in the ill-fated Dumas...

# data[].attributes.headline
“COMRADES AND BROTHERS” CHURCHILL, STALIN AND THE MOSCOW CONFERENCE OF 1942

# data[].attributes.subject
“COMRADES AND BROTHERS” CHURCHILL, STALIN AND THE MOSCOW CONFERENCE OF 1942

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
September 24, 2019

By Joshua Greenberg

Columbia University
Department of History
UN3011
The Second World War
Professor Paul Chamberlin
Final Research Paper

Much has been written about Winston Churchill, his travels, and the relationships which he built during the Second World War. Whilst historiography of intra-allied relations has paid the brunt of its attention to the meetings of the 'Big Three', little has been said of the way in which these relationships were originally constructed. In particular, limited historiography is dedicated to the way in which bilateral relationships, often of a very personal nature, ultimately created the working alliance between three different nations. This analysis seeks to explore this much-neglected angle of the Second World War's historiography by focusing on the relationship created between Britain and the USSR.

The alliance forged between Great Britain and the Soviet Union during the Second World War is one unlike any that policy makers in the early 1930's could have predicted; the two countries had been at odds with each other since the October Revolution of 1917 which toppled the three-century old Romanov Dynasty. They practiced polar opposite economic systems. One was, a template for democracy and the rule of law, while the other was a communist monolith known in the 1930's for its authoritarian policies, political persecution and limits on individual freedom. The Second World War brought the Soviet Union into an unlikely alliance with Great Britain and the United States which over time developed into a close political and military relationship in a conflict unlike any which the world had seen. One, often overlooked event in August 1942 stands out in the history of the foundation of the Grand Alliance. A fateful and secretive mission to Moscow by Winston Churchill to meet for the first time with Joseph Stalin, would lay the groundwork for the wartime coalition now known as the 'Big Three'. In the historiography of the Second World War, much more attention has been paid to the meetings of the Big Three at Teheran, Yalta and Potsdam. Historians have argued that these meetings were more important in the grand scheme of the Second World War. However, without Churchill's establishing a personal relationship with Stalin, it is doubtful that future conferences would prove to be fruitful. The Moscow Conference of 1942 preceded any meetings of the Big Three and formed a basis for future interaction between the UK, USA and USSR. Furthermore, Churchill's personal involvement in the conference was crucial to building a wartime alliance with Stalin. Without Churchill's involvement, it could have been the case that the allies would have fought on each front as a separate conflict with little cooperation or coordination between their armies. Through careful diplomacy, Churchill, a staunch anti-communist, was able to embrace Stalin and the USSR as close allies, even 'comrades', leading to closer future relations. As this paper seeks to demonstrate, the Moscow Conference of 1942 was decisive in forging the Grand Alliance and the outcome of the Second World War as we know it today.

Aside from analyzing the historical significance of the 1942 summit between Churchill and Stalin, this paper seeks to emphasize the significance of Churchill's personal role in forging the Anglo-Soviet alliance. First, it must be argued that Churchill's decades-long journey from firebrand anti-communist to pragmatic politician was a crucial factor in the successful creation of an Anglo-Soviet alliance. While Churchill was repulsed by many aspects of the Soviet system, as the Nazi threat loomed in the 1930's, he ironically and swiftly became an early advocate for the normalization of ties with the Soviet Union in order to present a united bulwark against Hitler's expansionist ambitions. Second, this analysis seeks to explore the skill and delicacy of Churchill's diplomacy in maintaining Soviet cooperation in the war effort. Churchill's efforts in consistently tempering Stalin's high expectations and demands of his allied partners - while also assuaging Stalin's infamous suspicion and paranoia - cannot be understated.

Following the Russian Revolution and throughout the interwar years, Winston Churchill was known for his fervent opposition to communism. He compared Lenin's arrival in Moscow to a "culture of typhoid"[1], and feared the potential that communism had to throw the entirety of Europe into even more turmoil than it already faced in 1917. Following Russia's withdrawal from the war, Churchill publicly supported a combined British, French and American intervention in the Russian Civil War on the side of the White Russian Army, arguing that "infant Bolshevism should have been strangled in its cradle."[2] Such a mission did in fact take place in 1918, yet proved to be futile with the majority of allied troops leaving Russian soil by 1919. Appointed Secretary of State for War in January 1919, it was under Churchill that the order to evacuate British troops from Northern Russia was given, an operation which was completed by September 1919. In a letter published in 1920, Churchill explained the decision to order a British withdrawal, stating, "We have had enough of war and more than enough. It is not, however, the British who are making war, but the Russian Bolsheviks."[3] Churchill continued the letter with a scathing attack on the Bolsheviks' foreign policy, writing that "Their avowed intention is to procure by violence a revolution in every country... My sole object has been and will be to keep such hateful foreign oppressors far from our native land."[4] From public statements such as these (in this case a letter to a Leicester Trade Council, later published in a British Army newspaper) it can be seen that to Churchill, saw Bolshevism as a considerable threat to Great Britain, and he was adamant to stop it from spreading farther than the borders of Russia.

By end of the First World War, Churchill had encountered enough of Russia and its international role to form a firm opinion as to her nature in the international arena. From his experience as a young lieutenant in India, he witnessed firsthand the challenges of the 'Great Game' and the power struggle between the British and Russian Empires in the Middle East. In his role as First Lord of the Admiralty during the First World War, he took responsibility for the failure of the Gallipoli Campaign, an offensive with the intent of weakening the Ottoman Empire and taking control of the straits which provided a much-needed supply route to Russia. It was then an abrupt disappointment to Churchill when after the October Revolution, the Bolsheviks "betrayed their country and falsified its engagements to its Allies, and whereby they liberated more than 1,000,000 Germans to come over and attack our people in the West."[5] Prior to the revolution, it can be argued that Churchill was a Russophile and a defender of the Russian Empire; unafraid to challenge it when it came to social issues and the lavish life of the Tsars, but also declaring that "there is no Power fighting on our side to whom we feel a deeper debt of gratitude than to the great Empire of Russia."[6] Churchill's denouncement and contempt of Bolshevism certainly stemmed from fear and loathing of its political system, yet more so from a sense of deep betrayal following Russia's withdrawal from the First World War, leaving England and her allies to fight alone on the Western Front. In a speech entitled 'The Bolshevik Menace', given in 1919, Churchill claimed that "Every British and French soldier killed last year was really done to death by Lenin and Trotsky"[7] and that "Of all tyrannies in history the Bolshevist tyranny is the worst, most destructive, and the most degrading."[8] Given Churchill's own aristocratic heritage, the argument could be made that his bloodline was a reason for his avid hatred of Bolshevism. Ye, there is little evidence to support such an allegation made by David Lloyd George that Churchill's "ducal blood revolted against the wholesale elimination of Grand Dukes in Russia."[9] In 1919, Churchill would argue that "The miseries of the Russian people under the Bolshevists far surpass anything they suffered even under the Tsar."[10] Later, in a speech in the Commons in 1920, he would state that "my hatred of Bolshevism... arises from the bloody and devastating terrorism which they practice in every land into which they have broken, and by which alone their criminal regime can be maintained."[11] Suffice it to say, prior to the Second World War, Churchill saw the Soviet Union and the doctrines of Communism as the greatest threat to world stability and was adamant in his pursuit of stopping their spread.

Churchill's anti-Bolshevik sentiment persisted throughout the 1920's. Though he saw intervention in the ongoing Russian Civil War as a lost cause, Churchill was insistent in his fear that communism could spread to Great Britain, and would devote his rhetoric to making this clear. In November 1920, he made this point in a speech at the United Wards Club Luncheon, stating that "We can at any rate make sure that in our life and time the deadly disease which has struck down Russia should not be allowed to spring up here and poison us as it is poisoning them."[12] By 1925, Churchill had 'crossed the floor' and changed his allegiance from the Liberal to the Conservative Party. As Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer, Churchill continued his bearish view on Russia, both because of personal opinions but also since these views helped him to re-integrate into the Conservative Party. As Chancellor, in a speech outlining Conservative policy, Churchill declared that the parliament which he joined was "elected above and beyond all other matters on the issue of Anti-Bolshevism,"[13] showing that anti-Soviet sentiment was a broadly agreed upon topic and not just limited to the policies of the Conservative party. In 1927, he stated that "Socialism and liberty cannot coexist."[14] From statements such as these it is evident that Churchill's stance on Bolshevism only hardened in the years following the Russian Revolution. Though some of this rhetoric was pinned at undermining the Labour party, there is no doubt, that Churchill felt it a personal mission to hinder the progress of socialism from spreading in England. Nevertheless, as seen in his attitude prior to the Revolution, Churchill did, at times speak out in support of the Russia of old. The final tome of his account of the First World War, 'The World Crisis', was dedicated "To Our Faithful Allies and Comrades in the Russian Imperial Armies,"[15] a tribute to the soldiers who Churchill knew to fight so well, but who were betrayed by both the revolution and the "misfortunes and mismanagement of the War"[16] by the Tsar.

By 1933, with the rise of Hitler, Churchill's focus shifted to confronting the growing threat of Nazi Germany and less so on the follies of Bolshevism, which he had previously referred to as a "philosophy of hatred and death."[17] During the early stages of the period known as his 'Wilderness Years', a time when Churchill found himself out of government and frowned on by Britain's political establishment for opposition to issues such as greater independence for India, the issue of Russia and the Bolsheviks came up increasingly infrequently in his rhetoric and published works. At a debate in parliament in July 1934, Churchill brought up the question of the "reassociation of Soviet Russia with the Western European system"[18], arguing that if elements in the British government were to advocate for the return of Germany to the League of Nations, he did not see any reason as to why Russia could not be included as well, even when holding "the greatest prejudices against the political and social philosophy and system of government which the Russian people have."[19] This was a remarkable comment for Churchill to make, given that he had spent the previous fifteen years advocating extremely hawkish views on Russia. By 1934, Churchill was well into his diatribe over the threat posed by Nazi Germany. In a speech broadcast that year on the radio, he warned of a "nation of nearly seventy millions of the most educated, industrious, scientific, disciplined people in the world who are being taught from childhood to think of war as a glorious exercise and death in battle as the noblest fate for man."[20] Yet, his opinions on India and early warnings against Germany led him to be the "odd man out in British politics,"[21] with little hope of a return to government. At the same debate in July 1934, Churchill continued his speech stating that, "Russia is most deeply desirous of maintaining peace at the present time"[22] and commented that Russia had the potential to "become a stabilising force in Europe and to take her part with other countries whose danger she feels herself to share."[23] Though Churchill's attitude to Russia had changed significantly in a few short years, it was not in any way a placation of his views on communism, but a pragmatic approach to a country which he recognized would be a major player in both world and European affairs in the years to come.

In 1932, the diplomat Ivan Maisky was appointed as Soviet Ambassador to the Court of St James. His appointment, which would continue until 1943, when Maisky returned to Moscow to be promoted to Deputy Commissar of Foreign Affairs, coincided with an increasingly visible shift in Churchill's approach to what was by then known as the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). Writing in his diary on New Year's Eve 1934, Maisky acknowledged that 1934 was a year in which Anglo-Soviet relations took a monumental turn. He mentioned the July debate in parliament, calling it 'astonishing', and speculated that the Soviet Union had now become "such a major and stable international force that... even the most incorrigible Conservative beasts can ignore us no longer."[24] In his biography of Maisky, published in 1944, the journalist George Bilainkin would argue that July 18 th 1934 was the start of the thaw in 'Anglo-Soviet frost'. In his first, lengthy meeting with Lord Vansittart, the British Permanent Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs, Maisky would express that "in modern Russia's cupboard there were no plans that need in any way clash with Britain's"[25] and that "Russia and Great Britain could, must, gladly join and hold hands in the interests of world peace."[26] Churchill and Maisky first met at a dinner in June 1935 hosted by Vansittart. During their meeting, Churchill reportedly told Maisky that he was "abandoning his protracted struggle against the Soviet Union"[27] as he did not see it to pose a threat to Great Britain in the near future, and that the combined efforts of both nations should now be focused to preventing the rise of Nazi Germany. Churchill's interactions with Maisky would continue throughout the 1930's, highlighting his vision for increased Anglo-Soviet cooperation in the face of Nazi Germany. In November 1937, at a State Dinner hosted by George VI in honor of King Leopold of Belgium, Churchill and Maisky entered into an "animated and extended conversation"[28] during which Churchill explicitly stated that "We need a strong, very strong Russia."[29] Churchill scolded the Anti-Comintern Pact of 1936, arguing that that it was directed at the British Empire as well as the USSR, and in a hushed tone, quizzed Maisky as to the strength of the USSR's armed forces in the wake of what Maisky described as the "old wives tales... about the effect of the 'purge' on the general condition of the USSR."[30] Whilst there is no doubt that Maisky was lying to himself in his diary by referring to Stalin's purges as an 'old wives tale', his conversation with Churchill was something unlike Churchill had ever previously stated in public, let alone to an Ambassador of the Soviet Union. In September 1938, Churchill invited Maisky to visit his family home, Chartwell, in Kent. Maisky was astonished when Churchill, in conversation about his wine collection, referenced a bottle he had in his cellar from 1793 which he was saving for a special occasion. When asked as to what occasion he was referring to, Churchill declared "We'll drink this bottle together when Great Britain and Russia beat Hitler's Germany!"[31] Whilst Maisky did not note anything else of importance from this meeting, which was a social call and not an official visit, it is astonishing to see Churchill's swift change of opinion on the Soviet Union, which just a few years prior, he considered the greatest threat to peace and stability in Europe as well as the wider world. As his future rhetoric and actions would demonstrate, Churchill's nurturing of his relationship with Maisky would prove to be useful in the coming years.

By 1938, with German forces on the march and the Anschluss with Austria, Churchill's attitude towards the USSR continued to shift towards one of mutual cooperation and not hindrance. Writing in the Manchester Guardian in 1938, Churchill warned that the British government need not be "improvidently foolish... to put needless barriers in the way of the general association of the great Russian mass"[32] in response to any Nazi aggression, arguing against the upcoming Munich agreement with Germany, and rather for Chamberlain to make an agreement with Stalin. Even by the time of the Nazi-Soviet Pact of August 1939, Churchill still suggested the possibility of Anglo-Soviet cooperation, arguing that a Russian occupation of Poland could keep Germany out of the Balkans. In 1939, Churchill was appointed to Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain's War Cabinet and given the position of First Lord of the Admiralty, the same position he held at the beginning of the First World War. One month after his appointment, Churchill invited Maisky to a late-night meeting at the Admiralty to discuss the state of Anglo-Soviet relations, and what could be done in the future to improve them. By this stage, Britain was in a state of war with Germany, an ally of the Soviet Union, with which it had signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, and participated in invasion of Poland in September 1939. Churchill was in the precarious position of attempting to influence Soviet policy for the benefit of Great Britain, against Germany, whilst knowing that the Soviet Union was signatory to a non-aggression pact with the Nazis. He told Maisky that it was better for the Baltic States to "be brought into the Soviet state system rather than the German one"[33] and that "It is especially important not to let Germany reach the Black Sea."[34] Churchill knew that at this point there was little he could do to lure the Russians away from their alliance with Germany. Though the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact is commonly analyzed as a time-buying measure for the Soviet Union, neither Churchill nor Maisky knew for how long it would last. Churchill's courting of Maisky in the early days of the Second World War can be seen as a tactical measure which he saw would be useful for any potential Anglo-Soviet alliance in the future. Churchill would take advantage of such meetings at every opportunity to stress Great Britain's changing attitude to the Soviet Union. At a lunch with Maisky and Brendan Bracken, an early supporter of Churchill and later Minister of Information in Churchill's War Cabinet, Churchill brought up the historical ties between Great Britain and Russia. In between puffs of his cigar, Churchill mulled over the "historical debt"[35] that Britain and France owed Russia, because of Russia's intervention in the First World War, which resulted in the allied victory at the Battle of the Marne, blocking the German advance on Paris. He added that they now had a moral obligation to help Russia, "whatever Russia that may be - Red or White... to strengthen her position on the Baltic Sea,"[36] referring to the Winter War between the USSR and Finland. Even though official British policy, though neutral, was distinctly pro-Finnish, Churchill was aware of the greater picture at play, and convinced of the inevitability of a Soviet-German conflict.

On the 22 nd of June 1941, Germany launched its invasion of the Soviet Union, codenamed Operation Barbarossa. By this time, Churchill was Prime Minister of a country that stood alone against Nazi Germany, with the threat of invasion, and omnipresent bombardment from the air. On the evening of the 22 nd of June, Churchill took to the radio to inform the British public of what had occurred, and its ramifications for the future of the war effort. In a bold and impassioned speech, Churchill spoke of the need to immediately enter into an alliance with the Soviet Union, and how "the cause of any Russian fighting for his hearth and home is the cause of free men and free peoples in every quarter of the globe."[37] Importantly, Churchill also mentioned that he had given Stalin and others (notably Maisky) prior warning as to what could happen and that he hoped that "this warning did not fall unheeded."[38] Furthermore, Churchill drew historical comparisons as to the situation which Russia and Great Britain faced in 1914 when, "the Russian armies were our allies against the same deadly foe,"[39] implying that in 1941, the two nations could together fight as allies. Importantly, Churchill did not forget his previous convictions as to the nature of communism. In his remarks, he stated that "No one has been a more consistent opponent of Communism that I have... I will unsay no word that I have spoken about it. But all this fades away before the spectacle which is now unfolding."[40] Writing in his diary, Maisky, who just days before had written that he was "disinclined to believe that Hitler will attack us,"[41] stated that he though Churchill's speech was "bellicose and resolute: no compromises or agreements! War to the bitter end!"[42] On his attacks on Communism, Maisky remarked that "The prime minister had to play it safe, of course, in all that concerned communism"[43] whether to save face at home, or because of Churchill's hope of America entering the war as well. In a speech lasting less than twenty minutes, Churchill delivered a message that would see Great Britain and the Soviet Union form the first bonds of the 'Grand Alliance', leading to the creation of the greatest military and political coalition of the twentieth century, and heralding the beginning of the end for Nazi Germany.

Even prior to the formation of the Anglo-Soviet Alliance, Churchill had made a number of overtures to Stalin, hoping to convince him of the threat of making an agreement with the Nazis. However, Churchill waited a number of weeks following Barbarossa before sending him a personal message. On July 8 th 1941, Stalin received a message from Churchill, stating that "We shall do everything to help you that time, geography and our growing resources will allow."[44] Churchill also detailed the attacks of the Royal Air Force against Germany which could "force Hitler to bring back some of his air power to the West and gradually take some of the strain off you."[45] The significant time lag between the invasion of the Soviet Union and Churchill's first personal message to Stalin can be interpreted as Churchill attempting to weigh what scarce resources Britain had available, but also to see the military situation which the Soviet Union was confronted with and how it would respond. Almost immediately, Churchill was enthusiastic for an Anglo-Soviet alliance that would endure the war, understanding that Stalin would be skeptical following his betrayal by Nazi Germany. On the other hand, Stalin persisted in calls for the opening of a second front as early as 1942. Though military cooperation ensued, and both Russian and British advisors were dispatched to each country, Churchill understood that he would have to meet with Stalin, establish a personal relationship with the "great Revolutionary Chief"[46] and "have it all out face to face... rather than trust to telegrams and intermediaries."[47]

At 06:30 on the morning of Wednesday August 12 th 1942, Churchill, accompanied by a number of senior military officials, took off from Teheran in the final stretch of his journey to Moscow. Gazing out of the windows of the B-24 Liberator, Churchill could see vast swathes of Russian countryside, the occasional collective farm, and the mighty River Volga. Writing in his memoirs, Churchill pondered over his "mission to this sullen, sinister Bolshevik State (he) had once tried so hard to strangle at its birth, and which, until Hitler appeared, (he) had regarded as the mortal foe of civilized freedom."[48] Churchill knew that his mission to the Soviet Union was not going to be easy. The overbearing message which he brought: that there would be no second front in 1942, was, as Churchill himself put it, "carrying a large lump of ice to the North Pole."[49] Nevertheless, Churchill regarded it imperative for him to personally break this news to Stalin, but also to prove to him, that Great Britain was committed to winning the war as an ally of the Soviet Union. After a ten-and-a-half-hour flight from Teheran, Churchill arrived in Moscow on the afternoon of Wednesday August 12 th 1942. Accompanied by Molotov, the Soviet Minister of Foreign Affairs, and the Chief of the Soviet General Staff, Marshal Shaposhnikov, Churchill reviewed a Red Army Guard of honor and then said a few words in front of the assembled press. In his remarks, Churchill referred to the alliance between the Western allies and the Soviet Union as one of "comrades and brothers"[50] committed to destroying the Nazi regime until it was "beaten into the ground, until the memory only of it remains as an example and a warning for a future time."[51] It was clearly a change of tone for Churchill to refer to anyone as a comrade, but fitting for his first speech on Soviet soil, one which would be broadcast in the Soviet mass media as soon as Churchill's trip concluded.

Churchill decided to break the bad news immediately to Stalin. In a meeting on the evening of his arrival, Churchill explained to Stalin that both British and American planners agreed that there could be no cross-channel invasion of France in 1942. Churchill continued, that by 1942, over one million American troops would be able to reach the United Kingdom, which would increase their total troop numbers, creating "an expeditionary force of twenty-seven divisions, to which the British Government were prepared to add twenty-one divisions."[52] Stalin did not take this news lightly, questioning whether the British were afraid to fight the Germans and stating to Churchill that "a man who was not prepared to take risks could not win a war."[53] Churchill then leaped on the opportunity to pivot the conversation to the allied landings in North Africa, Operation 'Torch', as well as the British efforts in bombing industrial areas of Germany. A Second Front, Churchill added, did not limit itself to the "fortified coast opposite England."[54] To illustrate this point, Churchill drew a picture of a crocodile, and illustrated to Stalin that the Western Allies could attack its "soft belly... as we attacked his hard snout."[55] Churchill identified a number of reasons as to why a landing in North Africa could be advantageous in taking some strain away from the Russians. Firstly, that victory in that theatre of operations would be much more reachable than that in Europe in 1942. This would pave the way for future operations in Europe in 1943. Furthermore, victory in North Africa would give the allies a stronger foothold in the Mediterranean, therefore making the war increasingly difficult for Hitler's ally, Italy, as well as securing influence for the Western Allies throughout Southern Europe. In a few moments, Stalin was able to comprehend the strategic advantages of Operation Torch, something which Churchill himself had been "wrestling with for months."[56] Stalin commented on the effectiveness of the landings for the first time by telling Churchill, "May God help this enterprise to succeed."[57] Churchill was able to continue to pivot the meeting to explain the potential of allied success in North Africa, but also suggested the possibility of an "Anglo-American Air Force on the southern flank of the Russian armies in order to defend the Caspian,"[58] as well as possible raids on France and Norway to gather information on the German resistance. Churchill's first meeting with Stalin, which lasted close to four hours, succeeded in establishing a positive contact between the two leaders. In a Telegram to the War Cabinet following their meeting, Churchill wrote, "I expect I shall establish a solid and sincere relationship with this man."[59]

However, such self-congratulation on the part of Churchill proved to be short lived. Upon his return to State Dacha No.7, Churchill reportedly remarked to his military advisors that "Stalin was a peasant whom he knew how to handle."[60] One can speculate on the likelihood that the State Dacha, which "was prepared with totalitarian lavishness"[61] and a dining room "with every form of choice food and liquor, including of course caviar and vodka,"[62] was bugged. The next day, the atmosphere of goodwill of the Wednesday night meeting had disappeared."[63] Late in the evening of August 13 th 1942, Churchill returned to the Kremlin to continue his talks with Stalin, accompanied by Averell Harriman, the envoy of President Roosevelt. The second meeting between Churchill and Stalin proved to be much more argumentative and frank than the first, with points at which Harriman noted that Stalin was "really insulting."[64] Again, Churchill needed to defend his argument for no cross-channel invasion in 1942, and instead push for Operation Torch, which Stalin had decided "did not concern the Soviet Union directly."[65] Churchill, nevertheless continued in his attempts to convince Stalin that "TORCH would assist the Soviet Government and would be... the only active military operation that could have this effect"[66] in the Autumn of 1942. Seeing an impasse, both leaders turned to the issue of the Arctic convoys. Stalin felt the need to criticize the amount of aid that the USSR received, suggesting that more had been promised that had been received, an issue which both Churchill and Harriman denied, with Harriman, on behalf of the United States, stating that "supplies for Russia had over-riding priority."[67] Following this meeting, Churchill would send a message to Clement Atlee, the Labour Deputy Prime Minister. He mentioned that Stalin had said "a great many disagreeable things, especially about our being too much afraid to fight the Germans,"[68] a reference not only to Great Britain, but one that was also aimed at the United States. Averell Harriman, present at most of Churchill's official interactions with Stalin would remark that "For Churchill, this trip was sort of going into the unknown and he didn't want to make any commitments,"[69] seeing as Churchill, though accompanied by Harriman for much of his journey to Moscow, did not lay out any strategy for his interactions with Stalin to Harriman. Following this tense meeting, Churchill was scheduled to leave Moscow on the morning of the 15 th of August, but Stalin had invited Churchill and his party to dinner on the evening of 14 th and questioned whether Churchill could stay for longer. Churchill responded to this request by stating that "there was no ring of comradeship in his (Stalin's) attitude... (and that he) had travelled far to establish good working relations... (and) had done (his) utmost to help Russia and would continue to do so."[70] Churchill, in his own humble words described his utterance of the above as "animated,"[71] yet according to Harriman, Churchill had given one of the "most brilliant of his wartime utterances,"[72] which broke the newfound tension between Stalin and his western visitors, and led to Stalin's acceptance of there being no allied invasion of France in 1942.

The next morning, (August 14 th), Churchill prepared an aide-memoire, in response to one which was received from Stalin the previous evening, recounting the conversation they had. In the document, Churchill re-stated the advantages of Operation Torch and confirmed his continued support for aid to Russia "by every practicable means."[73] The same evening, Churchill's party drove to the Kremlin for a state dinner with Stalin., which Churchill confirmed had "passed off in a very friendly atmosphere."[74] At both Churchill and Stalin's insistence, the British delegation remained for one more day so that meetings between the military leaders of the United Kingdom and USSR could he held, though these did not go as planned since the assembled Soviet officers were not authorized to answer many of the questions posed by the British. Reporting back to Roosevelt, Harriman concluded that, "Under all the circumstances I believe the discussion could not have been developed better nor the conclusion more satisfactory... The relationship between the two men had reached a most friendly basis."[75]

On the evening of the 15 th, Churchill made his final journey to the Kremlin (on this trip) to bid his farewell to Stalin. Churchill described their conversation that evening as a "useful and important talk."[76] Churchill promised Stalin that the RAF would intensify its bombing of Germany as soon as the nights became longer. Churchill also promised Stalin to intensify lend-lease, specifically the shipment of lorries to the Red Army, which Stalin saw as a priority due to their need in transporting infantry units in support of the armored brigades, an issue which Churchill promised he would see to swiftly, and which he reported to the War Cabinet the following day.[77] Shortly before Churchill's planned departure, Stalin invited Churchill to his personal residence to continue the conversation, a meeting at which the two, in a much less formal setting, where Stalin's daughter and a housekeeper laid the table, were able to discuss topics ranging from the Arctic convoys, to a potential British landing in Norway, but most importantly for Churchill, to cement the relationship which he had planned for so long to build. In the early hours of the morning of the 16 th of August 1942, Stalin and Churchill released a joint statement which concluded that the Soviet Union, Great Britain and the United States of America would continue the fight against Nazi Germany until "the complete destruction of Hitlerism and any similar tyranny has been achieved."[78]

Had Churchill not travelled to Moscow to meet Stalin in August 1942, it is highly doubtful that the Soviet Union would have been as committed as it was to the allied cause throughout the Second World War. Churchill arrived in Moscow with no specific policy goals, but to establish a rapport with Stalin which could be used to lay the building blocks of the Grand Alliance for the future. Anglo-Soviet cooperation was a course of action which Churchill had explored and advocated for since the 1930's, and the summit of August 1942 provided Churchill with the opportunity to materialize his desire for such a desperately needed alliance. Through skillful diplomacy, Churchill was able to persuade the Russians that it was improbable to open a second front in Europe in 1942, but also to convince them of the need to drive the Germans out of North Africa in order to hold a winning streak in the war. It was therefore imperative that Churchill meet with Stalin to close the gap in the still nascent Big Three relationship and lay the groundwork for future conferences at which more material issues could be discussed. Furthermore, following the meeting, any suspicion that Stalin had of the Western Allies had been significantly diminished, at least in the short term, in favor of the war effort. Churchill's journey to Moscow led to a plan of action for the course of the war, increased confidence in the allied relationship, and convinced Stalin as to the importance of Operation Torch. The allies agreed on intensifying the bombing of Germany, increasing military aid to Russia, but also left Stalin with the understanding that the timing for an invasion of France would be up to Great Britain and the United States. Churchill left Moscow proud of an alliance growing in confidence and strength. It is highly likely that this trip was vital in securing the allied victory in 1945 and shaping the outcome of the Second World War as we know it today.

Works Cited

Bilainkin, George. Maisky: Ten Years Ambassador. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd, 1944.

Churchill, Winston S. In Churchill By Himself: The Definitive Collection of Quotations, edited by Richard M. Langworth. Newburyport: RosettaBooks, 2013. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/columbia/reader.action?docID=5503195

Churchill, Winston S. (Attributed to), " Churchill's Greatness", Jeffery Wallin with Juan Williams of Fox News, from "Special Report with Brit Hume," Fox News Channel, 4 September 2001. https://web.archive.org/web/20031216033237/http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=282

Churchill, Winston S. " MR. CHURCHILL AND RUSSIA: LETTER TO LEICESTER TRADES COUNCIL", The Cologne Post: A Daily Newspaper Published by the Army of the Rhine; Aug 10, 1920; 421; Trench Journals and Unit Magazines of the First World War.
https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy.cul.columbia.edu/docview/1630293335?pq-origsite=summon

Churchill, Winston S. Commons Sitting of Tuesday 29 th July, 1919. 20th Century House of Commons Hansard Sessional Papers. Fifth Series, Volume 118.
https://parlipapers-proquest-com.ezproxy.cul.columbia.edu/parlipapers/docview/t71.d76.cds5cv0118p0-0012?accountid=10226

Churchill, Winston S. Winston Spencer Churchill: His Complete Speeches 1897-1963, edited by Robert Rhodes James, New York: Chelsea House Publishers, 1974.

Churchill, Winston S. Commons Sitting of Thursday 8 th July, 1920. 20th Century House of Commons Hansard Sessional Papers. Fifth Series, Volume 131. https://parlipapers.proquest.com/parlipapers/result/pqpdocumentview?accountid=10226&groupid=106481&pgId=fc7a5740-4e43-41a7-ae18-25788185e89e&rsId=169D55C2A1E

Churchill, Winston S. Winston Spencer Churchill: His Complete Speeches 1897-1963, edited by Robert Rhodes James. New York: Chelsea House Publishers, 1974.

Churchill, Winston S. The World Crisis, Volume VI. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1931

Churchill, Winston S. The World Crisis, Volume IV, The Aftermath, 1929. Newburyport: RosettaBooks, 2013. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/columbia/reader.action?docID=5503188

Churchill, Winston S. Commons Sitting of Friday, 13 th July, 1934. 20th Century House of Commons Hansard Sessional Papers. Fifth Series, Volume 292.
https://parlipapers-proquest-com.ezproxy.cul.columbia.edu/parlipapers/docview/t71.d76.cds5cv0292p0-0005?accountid=10226

Churchill, Winston S. "The Threat of Nazi Germany", November 16 th 1934. https://winstonchurchill.org/resources/speeches/1930-1938-the-wilderness/the-threat-of-nazi-germany/

Churchill, Winston S. Commons Sitting of Friday, 13 th July, 1934. 20th Century House of Commons Hansard Sessional Papers. Fifth Series, Volume 292. https://parlipapers-proquest-com.ezproxy.cul.columbia.edu/parlipapers/docview/t71.d76.cds5cv0292p0-0005?accountid=10226

Churchill, Winston S. The Manchester Guardian, 10 May 1938.

Churchill, Winston S. "Alliance with Russia", June 22 nd 1941. https://winstonchurchill.org/resources/speeches/1941-1945-war-leader/the-fourth-climacteric/

Churchill, Winston S. The Second World War, Hinge of Fate. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1950.

Churchill to Attlee, 13 August 1942, FO800/300; Jacob diary, 13 August 1942, published in Charles Richardson, From Churchill's Secret Circle to the BBC: The Biography of Lieutenant-General Sir Ian Jacob. London: Brassey's, 1991.

Folly, Martin. " Seeking comradeship in the "Ogre's Den:" Winston Churchill's quest for a warrior alliance and his mission to Stalin, August 1942 ", Brunel University, 2007. https://bura.brunel.ac.uk/bitstream/2438/5738/2/Fulltext.pdf

Gilbert, Martin. Winston S. Churchill, Volume VII, Road to Victory, 1941-1945. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1986.

Harriman, Averell. "Minutes of a Meeting held in the Kremlin, Moscow, on Thursday, August 13 th 1942, at 11:15PM" Page 2. WF-12, "To Moscow with WSC" William Averell Harriman papers on Special Envoy to Churchill and Stalin 1941-1946, 1941-1974, Columbia University, Rare Book and Manuscript Library.

Harriman, Averell. Recollections of Mr. Harriman, "How I Came to Go to Moscow with Churchill", October 29 th 1953. WF-12, "To Moscow with WSC " William Averell Harriman papers on Special Envoy to Churchill and Stalin 1941-1946, 1941-1974, Columbia University, Rare Book and Manuscript Library.

Harriman, Averell. "Personal for the President Only from Harriman" 14 August 1942, WF-12, "To Moscow with WSC " William Averell Harriman papers on Special Envoy to Churchill and Stalin 1941-1946, 1941-1974, Columbia University, Rare Book and Manuscript Library.

Maisky, Ivan. The Maisky Diaries: Red Ambassador to the Court of St James's, 1932-1943, edited by Gabriel Gorodetsky. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2015.

'Moscow, August 1942','Commentary': Premier Papers, 4/71/4, folios 952-5. In Martin Gilbert, Winston S. Churchill, Volume VII, Road to Victory, 1941-1945. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1986.

Pearce, Robert, "Churchill: The Wilderness Years ", History Review, Issue 59 (December 2007) http://ezproxy.cul.columbia.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy.cul.columbia.edu/docview/216210508?accountid=10226

Pelling, Henry. Winston Churchill, London: 1974.

Quinault, Roland, "Churchill and Russia", War & Society, Volume 9, Issue 1 (1991)
https://columbia-illiad-oclc-org.ezproxy.cul.columbia.edu/illiad/zcu/illiad.dll?Action=10&Form=75&Value=847525

The Kremlin Letters: Stalin's Wartime Correspondence with Churchill and Roosevelt, edited by David Reynolds & Vladimir Pechtanov. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2018

Footnotes

[1] Winston S. Churchill, Churchill By Himself: The Definitive Collection of Quotations, ed. Richard M. Langworth (Newburyport: RosettaBooks, 2013), Accessed April 16, 2019, https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/columbia/reader.action?docID=5503195

[2] Winston S. Churchill, (attributed to), " Churchill's Greatness", Jeffery Wallin with Juan Williams of Fox News, from "Special Report with Brit Hume," Fox News Channel, 4 September 2001. Accessed April 26th 2019, https://web.archive.org/web/20031216033237/http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=282

[3] Winston S. Churchill, " MR. CHURCHILL AND RUSSIA: LETTER TO LEICESTER TRADES COUNCIL", The Cologne Post: A Daily Newspaper Published by the Army of the Rhine; Aug 10, 1920; 421; Trench Journals and Unit Magazines of the First World War. Page. 1. Accessed April 26 th 2019, https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy.cul.columbia.edu/docview/1630293335?pq-origsite=summon

[5] Winston S. Churchill, Commons Sitting of Tuesday 29 th July, 1919. 20th Century House of Commons Hansard Sessional Papers. Fifth Series, Volume 118. Accessed April 27 th 2019, https://parlipapers-proquest-com.ezproxy.cul.columbia.edu/parlipapers/docview/t71.d76.cds5cv0118p0-0012?accountid=10226

[6] Robert Rhodes James (ed.), Winston Spencer Churchill: His Complete Speeches 1897-1963 (New York: Chelsea House Publishers, 1974), III: 2494/5.

[7] Churchill, Complete Speeches, III: 2771.

[9] Henry Pelling, Winston Churchill (London: 1974), 258, in Quinault, Roland, "Churchill and Russia", War & Society, Volume 9, Issue 1, 1991, Accessed April 30 th 2019: https://columbia-illiad-oclc-org.ezproxy.cul.columbia.edu/illiad/zcu/illiad.dll?Action=10&Form=75&Value=847525

[10] Churchill, Complete Speeches, III: 2771.

[11] Winston S. Churchill. Commons Sitting of Thursday 8 th July, 1920. 20th Century House of Commons Hansard Sessional Papers. Fifth Series, Volume 131. Accessed April 30th 2019, https://parlipapers.proquest.com/parlipapers/result/pqpdocumentview?accountid=10226&groupid=106481&pgId=fc7a5740-4e43-41a7-ae18-25788185e89e&rsId=169D55C2A1E

[12] Churchill, Complete Speeches, III: 3025.

[13] Robert Rhodes James (ed.), Winston Spencer Churchill: His Complete Speeches 1897-1963 (New York: Chelsea House Publishers, 1974), IV: 3766.

[14] Churchill, Complete Speeches, IV, 4148.

[15] Winston S. Churchill. The World Crisis, Volume VI, (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1931) Page vi.

[16] Churchill, World Crisis, Volume VI, Page 375.

[17] Winston S. Churchill. The World Crisis, Volume IV, The Aftermath, Page 357. Accessed May 4 th 2019, https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/columbia/reader.action?docID=5503188

[18] Winston S. Churchill. Commons Sitting of Friday, 13 th July, 1934. 20th Century House of Commons Hansard Sessional Papers. Fifth Series, Volume 292. Accessed April 27 th 2019, https://parlipapers-proquest-com.ezproxy.cul.columbia.edu/parlipapers/docview/t71.d76.cds5cv0292p0-0005?accountid=10226

[20] Winston S. Churchill. "The Threat of Nazi Germany", November 16 th 1934. Accessed April 28 th 2019, https://winstonchurchill.org/resources/speeches/1930-1938-the-wilderness/the-threat-of-nazi-germany/

[21] Robert Pearce, "Churchill: The Wilderness Years ", History Review; London, Issue 59, December 2007. Accessed April 28 th 2019, http://ezproxy.cul.columbia.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy.cul.columbia.edu/docview/216210508?accountid=10226

[22] Winston S. Churchill. Commons Sitting of Friday, 13 th July, 1934. 20th Century House of Commons Hansard Sessional Papers. Fifth Series, Volume 292. Accessed April 27 th 2019, https://parlipapers-proquest-com.ezproxy.cul.columbia.edu/parlipapers/docview/t71.d76.cds5cv0292p0-0005?accountid=10226

[24] Ivan Maisky (ed. Gabriel Gorodetsky), The Maisky Diaries: Red Ambassador to the Court of St James's, 1932-1943. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2015) Page 28.

[25] George Bilainkin, Maisky: Ten Years Ambassador, (London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd, 1944) Page 123.

[27] Maisky, The Maisky Diaries, Page 50.

[28] Maisky, The Maisky Diaries, Page 88.

[29] Maisky, The Maisky Diaries Page 89.

[31] Maisky, The Maisky Diaries, 125.

[32] Winston S. Churchill, The Manchester Guardian, 10 May 1938 in Quinault, Churchill and Russia, Page 107.

[33] Maisky, The Maisky Diaries, 233.

[35] Maisky, The Maisky Diaries, 238.

[37] Winston S. Churchill. "Alliance with Russia", June 22 nd 1941. Accessed May 5 th 2019, https://winstonchurchill.org/resources/speeches/1941-1945-war-leader/the-fourth-climacteric/

[41] Maisky, The Maisky Diaries, 364.

[42] Maisky, The Maisky Diaries, 366.

[44] David Reynolds & Vladimir Pechtanov (eds.) The Kremlin Letters: Stalin's Wartime Correspondence with Churchill and Roosevelt (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2018) Page 23.

[46] Winston S. Churchill, The Second World War, Hinge of Fate (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1950) Page 477.

[47] Reynolds & Pechantov (eds), The Kremlin Letters, Page 35.

[48] Churchill, The Second World War, Hinge of Fate, Page 475.

[50] 'Moscow, August 1942','Commentary': Premier Papers, 4/71/4, folios 952-5. In Martin Gilbert, Winston S. Churchill, Volume VII, Road to Victory, 1941-1945 (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1986) Page 173.

[52] Ibid., Page 478.

[53] Ibid., Page 479.

[54] Ibid., Page 480.

[55] Ibid., Page 481.

[56] Churchill, The Second World War, Hinge of Fate, Page 482.

[57] Martin Gilbert, Winston S. Churchill, Volume VII, Road to Victory, 1941-1945. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1986) Page 181.

[58] Churchill, The Second World War, Hinge of Fate, Page 483.

[60] Ibid. Page 287.

[61] Churchill, The Second World War, Hinge of Fate, Page 476.

[62] Ibid. Page 477.

[64] Ibid. Page 185.

[65] "Minutes of a Meeting held in the Kremlin, Moscow, on Thursday, August 13 th 1942, at 11:15PM" Page 2. WF-12, "To Moscow with WSC" William Averell Harriman papers on Special Envoy to Churchill and Stalin 1941-1946, 1941-1974, Columbia University, Rare Book and Manuscript Library.

[66] Ibid. Page 3.

[67] Ibid. Page 4.

[69] Recollections of Mr. Harriman, "How I Came to Go to Moscow with Churchill", October 29 th 1953. WF-12, "To Moscow with WSC " William Averell Harriman papers on Special Envoy to Churchill and Stalin 1941-1946, 1941-1974, Columbia University, Rare Book and Manuscript Library.

[70] Churchill, The Second World War, Hinge of Fate, Page 487.

[74] Ibid., Page 494.

[75] Harriman, "Personal for the President Only from Harriman" 14 August 1942, WF-12, "To Moscow with WSC " William Averell Harriman papers on Special Envoy to Churchill and Stalin 1941-1946, 1941-1974, Columbia University, Rare Book and Manuscript Library.

[76] Churchill, The Second World War, Hinge of Fate, 495.

[78] Churchill, The Second World War, Hinge of Fate, 500.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
"Comrades and brothers" Churchill, Stalin and the Moscow Conference of 1942

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By Joshua Greenberg Columbia University Department of History UN3011 The Second World War Professor Paul Chamberlin Final Research Paper Much has been written about Winston Churchill, his travels, and the relationships which he built during the Second World War. Whilst historiography of intra-allied relations has paid the brunt of its attention to the meetings of [...]