Charlie Rose

winter  02/22/2013 04:51 PM Report

"We shall fight them in the air, we shall fight them on the beaches ....excuse me, I have to get a drink of water."

winter  12/03/2012 10:52 AM Report

How about having Michael Hudson on. He'd a professor of economics at Missouri and has multiple books out. Read column of his entitled "My Take on Obamas Big Win". If you read that you'll find it penetrating I'm sure. Can't get thru via the usual channels for this request. He's has a new book entitled "The Bubble and Beyond" . He's got to be more interesting then Kate Hudson. Read the column then judge.

JohnDavidOlsen  06/19/2012 10:22 PM Report

Engaging and insightful panel. I can't wait to see the exhibit at the Morgan. Bravo.

BENEZRAA  06/18/2012 04:35 PM Report

A WORD ABOUT FREEDOM OF SPEECH

The strength of the American Attitude rests in the Bill of Rights, inseparable from which is the Freedom of Speech. It is the great dilemma of this right to distinguish between

Constitutional and Un-Constitutional free speech. And so it may be illegal to fraudulently shout "Fire!" in a theater; and though it is the natural human response to do shout out come the real thing, attempting a careful and organized response is preferable. There are so many "fires" that require careful and organized responses, e.g. speech that incites hatred, speech that is dishonest, speech that is coercive, speech that is inflammatory, speech that is pornographic, speech that is vulgar. And so, for example, when devoted hateful, distorted propaganda such as is given by such figures as David Irving is heralded by writers in these pages such as REMant, it must be asked, are opinions such as his to be tolerated in these pages in order that they may be answered and rebuffed? Or, seeing no mental growth and persistent bigotry from REMant, ought his right to comment be abbreviated, much as David Irving's right to publish has been abbreviated? May REMant's bigotry be ascertained to be like unto shouting "fire" fraudulently

in the media theater of our minds? Or must even his bigotry be regarded as protected speech in these columns? Public Nazi rallies are protected free speech, as are counter demonstrations, as long as these conflicting expressions of free speech remain non-violent and do not incite directly to violence. Living as I do in a strongly bigoted geographical area of NYS, I am deeply conscious that beneath a liberal surface there lurks great violence and intrigue not devoid of such influences as drug crime, weapons crime, sex crime, pornographic crime, prostitution crime, and Nazi crime. Perhaps conservative free speech bordering on anarchic speech must be permitted, hurtful as it may be, as the alternative of liberal censorship may rob us of all measure of crime. This is the cost of freedom, requiring responsibilty to face that which is learned, which we may ignore at our peril, should we allow domestic crime (which may well be linked to international crime and intrigue) to bring us to our knees.

BENEZRAA  06/18/2012 04:27 PM Report

. This is the cost of freedom, requiring that we take responsibility for that which is learned, which we may ignore at our peril, should we allow domestic crime (which may well be linked to international crime and intrigue) to bring us to our knees.

BENEZRAA  06/18/2012 02:39 PM Report

TO BE CLEAR ABOUT CHURCHILL:

I hope it is clear that I am not suggesting that Churchill was ever pro-Hitler or pro-fascist, except in the context

of seeing fascism as a possible necessary antidote to the poison of Communism. Churchill was a strong believer in the British Empire as a liberalizing and liberating force in the world. Accepting the American attitude of anti-colonialism was never a first choice for him. One wonders how he would view the situation in Egypt today. My own guess is that he would favor the severe discipline of Egypt's secular military leadership over that of a totalitarianism of the Muslim Brotherhood. And he would be right.

BENEZRAA  06/18/2012 06:47 AM Report

RE: QUEEN ELIZABETH

I stand corrected. The present Queen Elizabeth II was preceded by her famous Queen Mother, Queen Elizabeth. In many ways, like Mother, like Daughter -- great Queens both.

BENEZRAA  06/18/2012 06:28 AM Report

RE: CHURCHILL AND THE NAZI/SOVIET NON-AGRESSION PACT

I stand corrected. Churchill did not become PM until 1940, and did in 1939 speak out in favor of a pact creating a united front of France, Britain, Poland, and the Baltic States with Soviet Russia against Nazi Germany. This was quite a profound pragmatic change for Churchill, viewed in relief against his earlier views of that decade in which he spoke hopefully of Hitler, praised Mussolini, and saw Franco's anti-Red movement as the preferred choice to the Communist front he perceived of the Spanish Republican movement, which was backed by Soviet Russia. Churchill was a staunch opponent of Communism. So the reality of the Nazi threat must have become truly great for Churchill to come to agree with Stalin that a united front against Hitler was called for.

BENEZRAA  06/18/2012 05:15 AM Report

RE: WARSAW GHETTO UPRISING

The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising famously occurred during Passover of 1943. Virtually all Jewish humanity of that Ghetto was annihilated. In 1944 there did occur a Polish Uprising against the Nazis. The Russians did stop short of Warsaw. The Poles lasted 63 days against the Nazis in 1944. The Jews of the Ghetto lasted 43 days against the Nazis in 1943.

Gelles  06/17/2012 07:08 AM Report

This show is a celebration of the greatest statesman in our lives. I have just re-watched and re-listened to it from beginning to end.

Revisionist comment in the archive (not the show) deserves to be cut and trashed -- it is beneath contempt and out of order.

I'm presently reading FDR which has back-cover praise from Jon Meacham, author of "Franklin and Winston". Meacham is a favorite of our host, CR. It is sad comment on our technology that this archive is not clean of the garbage thrown here. CR saves a few dollars. The archive suffers the consequences.

As to an objective history of Churchill that might present facts and theories different from those he authored or those that establish a legend more than a record of all he did and believes, such objectivity may not be possible and might be of far less value than legend offers for purposes of hero-worship and progress toward human perfection after his death.

If nothing but the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, survived great men, would the human race be better or worse than it ever was? If, by better, we mean more in tune with the Golden Rule, I say truth is less than useful today than fiction. If every effort is made to prove the animal nature of man, we may be condemned to remain less than necessary for our own survival.

Still, revisionist lies have no place in a book of truths and/or truer than truths for admitted altruistic purposes. In the struggle between good and evil, scientific truth is not the last word. "Good" is the last word. And it is also the first.

tabs  06/16/2012 12:19 PM Report

Point Of Clarification:

1. To "load the dice" is to know what the outcome of a roll of the dice is going to be.

2. It was Hitler who THOUGHT that Communist Russia was being run by the Jews. This does not speak to the truth of the matter only to Hitlers mindset.

3. When the German/Russian Non Aggression Pact was signed in August 1939 Nevile Chamberlain was the Prime Minister of GB and NOT Churchill. Stalin's motivation for signing the Pact was to let Germany, France and GB bleed themselves to death in another war, while he sat back waiting for the spoils of that war to fall into his lap.

4. The Uprising in the Warsaw Ghetto started when the Soviet Army was closing in on Warsaw in late 1944. Stalin ordered his Army to stop some 20 miles short of Warsaw so that the Germans could put down the uprising.

5. Stalin's Great Purges occurred after he achieved total dominance of the USSR in 1927 through the 1930's. The most notable one was his Purge of the Soviet military General Officers in the late 30's, in which Germany's Reinhard Heydrich played a part in falsely making it seem that the Soviet military officers were plotting against Stalin.

5. Queen Elizabeth II was coronated in 1952 and as such was not the monarch during WW2.

Gelles  06/16/2012 01:40 AM Report

The history of Jews, cosmopolitans, science and nuclear weapons during WW II and the cold war is tragic, triumphant, proof of its unpredictability, proof of God's glory and error.

That history remains as unlikely and both unknowable and unalterable as all history. We are left with naked people and imperfect minds.

Yet nothing excuses them or infuriates me as much as the revisionists who remain anti-Jew and anti-decency in the name of their sovereignty as people: people who who love Hitler because he was one of their own and because their enemies are not in the same evil league as their heroes -- who define the Devil incarnate.

Rose could erase revisionist comment of this worst kind -- but he won't. Our test is a crowd stampeded to death by a false cry of "fire" intending to murder. Here, there is no stampede. The many who read this archive, skip over REMant on account of his peculiar views that do not move ordinary readers. Thank God for that.

The intellectual problems presented by legendary persons whose performance may have been different from what we believe will only be solved when recording of past events radically approaches perfection. This could happen sooner rather than later; but not tomorrow. The idea that Barack Obama needs to know more about Churchill than he does is a case in point. My guess is that Obama knows enough.

I recall attributed to Churchill the idea that people deserve the chance to compete -- but not the support each needs in unlimited measure modeled on our air supply. I always see such support as more like air than luxuries. Churchill may have felt the same; but the issue was always presented in different words -- and their meaning was never thrashed out.

The Charlie Rose brain-study shows remind us of the enormous gift nature bestows on every working brain. Yet we know Churchill used his brain far better than I use mine. I say this justifies the respect his writing receives. But it does not mean his view of a gold standard and my view of an economic-output standard are to be pre-judged by our other views and accomplishments. I may be right we need "output-based money". He may be right about everything else.

BENEZRAA  06/15/2012 08:31 PM Report

"THE ABILITY TO LOAD WORDS LIKE DICE."

With respect to Tabs [below] there was ample comment by the esteemed guests of Mr. Rose as to Sir Winston Churchill's skills at emotional speech. The phrase "load words like dice" was not used specifically, nor should they have been, being pejorative. We may all be grateful for his ability to lead in spite of depression (and there was indeed much to be depressed about) and for the unification and solidarity made possible by his emotional speech making. We may all be grateful that he was neither Mark Antony nor Hitler in his emotional speech making.

We may regret that he did not make such speeches arousing the world to rage against the contemporary horrors of Hitler's Concentration Camps, the truths of which were known to the Allies at least as early as 1943. We may regret that little notice was given to the 1943 Jewish Warsaw Ghetto Uprising against the Nazis, that no air support was given to the starving remnants of that walled Ghetto as they fought Nazi Panzers, Nazi Divisions, and SS troops. We may regret that the railroad tracks to the Nazi Concentration Camps were not bombed and that the Camps themselves were not bombed to enable escapes and to disable the crematoria. We may regret that Churchill failed to ally himself with Stalin, causing Stalin to deal with the Nazis, enabling Hitler to roll over Poland and all Europe and then war with Russia another day. We may wonder, if Stalin's paranoia and totalitarian excesses would have achieved the terrible scope we know of with hindsight, had Churchill established a united front with Russia against Hitler. We may wonder, if ever there would have been a Cold War... and we may wonder, if there were no Cold War, would there have been no Chinese invasion of Tibet owing to Western attention to the defense of Tibet, and would there have been no Viet Nam War.... If, If, If, If, If, If....

If only men had crystal balls and not organic balls.

Churchill was not God. He was a great man, a fallible man, an heroic man, and more man than many men; history is what it is and not what we wish it was.

Pity that it was Woodrow Wilson, who failed to moderate the Versailles Treaty in such a way as to prevent the British and the French from economically decimating Germany subsequent to the Allied Victory of WW1. Pity that it was Hitler, who gave the righteous nationalism of a Germany in rags the megalomaniacal and xenophobic flavor by which WW2 Germany was known. In WW1 Jews fought according to the nations in which they were citizens or subjects. Many fought for the Allies and many fought for the Axis. One has to wonder, why is it that we never see movies nor hear stories nor documentaries of Jews fighting in WW1 for Germany, for Austria-Hungary, for Turkey, or alternatively for the USA, France, or Britain? What deliberate ignorance causes us today to fail to tell the story of Jews fighting Jews during WW1? What contemporary insanity led Europe to so roundly blame and victimize Jews come WW2? What present insanity leads so much of the world today to scapegoat Jews and Israel today?

By the way, Tabs, it worth remembering that, although there were prominent Jewish Bolsheviks, neither Lenin nor Stalin were Jewish, and Jewish Trotsky was murdered by agents of Stalin in Mexico.

Churchill did a far better job of herding cats than most of us may ever be capable of. Churchill was a great writer, speaker, warrior, and Prime Minister. Churchill is rightfully remembered as a great man, and the words "stalwart" and "resolute" will always be associated with Britain as long as the personification of those words -- Churchill -- is remembered. And it would not be right to fail to remember that great Queen Elizabeth -- of eminently recent celebration -- was no shabby public speaker herself, nor was she a weak leader in Britain's time of crisis. It could be said that Churchill emphatically bolstered the message that the Queen gave to the people of England, that Churchill provided Executive leadership complementary to the Royal leadership of the Queen; it is impossible to conceive of a stalwart and resolute Britain of that time, were there then no Queen Elizabeth nor Prime Minister Churchill. May Britain move presently and into the future with such great leadership and strive to do even better.

BENEZRAA  06/15/2012 07:19 PM Report

DOES OBAMA REGRET HAVING RETURNED THE CHURCHILL BUST TO THE BRITS? DID HE HAVE A CHOICE?

Surely there was room enough in the Oval Office for busts of both Churchill and Lincoln and others (such as Washington, Jefferson, and Adams to name a few). Was the return of the Churchill bust a choice of the present POTUS, interpreted perhaps as a slight by the Brits, leading to their own choice not to invite Obama to the recent Royal Wedding? Or was the bust returned at the request of the Brits, or perhaps on the instruction of GWB? This is a story worthy of the time and efforts of a credible journalist.

tabs  06/15/2012 01:54 PM Report

"The art of being influential is to do it without anybody knowing it is being done."

It is interestng to note that not a single comment made by the correspondents on this Board have noted Churchills ability to load words like dice. Churchill knew how the additiion of a single word in a sentence would affect his reader or listener. Churchills words created visceral images in the mind and heart which resounded with and moved peoples sentiments. It was this ability to arouse passion in people that helped them endure and rise to the occasion even under the most dire of circumstances.

sammysammy  06/15/2012 01:45 PM Report

Britain and some other people in West have a big "Amnesia" about how racist they were until recently...

They also have amnesia on how they robbed so many countries, when they are industrializing and building "wealth".

tabs  06/15/2012 01:26 PM Report

While we are at it Mr RE Mant why don't we blame the Holocaust on Churchill as well? Hitler thought fighting Britain was the wrong war, that his true enemy was the Bolsheviks led by the Jews in Russia. Hitler during the "phony war" in the winter of 1940 and pulling his punches at Dunkirk were efforts at trying to make peace with the UK (the last effort was Hess's misguided flight to the UK in the Spring of 1941). However Hitler thought it was the Jews manipulating Churchill and FDR that were the cause of the continuing the war against him in the West. So Hitler in his speech to the Reichstag in December 1940 said that he had no choice but to call for the "Final Solution" to the Jewish question.

EPatrickMosman  06/15/2012 12:57 PM Report

Reading a speech written by others from a teleprompter does not define the man, his thinking, his intentions or his policies or practices. Actions, not words, count and and here is a different take on Obama from another British paper at a later date..

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100088961/barack-obama-top-ten-insults-against-britain -2011-edition/

It is too long to summarize so check it out.

Perhaps someone can provide 10 things the President or his minions have done to maintain or strengthen the "special relationship" with Britain.

Gelles  06/15/2012 07:58 AM Report

From Newsweek more than 3 years ago:

Busted: The Churchill Flap

Feb 20, 2009 7:00 PM EST

Has America's even- tempered new president already ruffled feathers in the land that spawned Borat and Benny Hill? That's certainly how the spiky British press responded after the White House sent back to the British Embassy a bust of Sir Winston Churchill that had occupied a cherished spot in President Bush's Oval Office. Intended as a symbol of transatlantic solidarity, the bust was a loaner from former British prime minister Tony Blair following the September 11 attacks. A bust of Abraham Lincoln—Obama's historical hero—now sits in its place. A White House spokesperson says the Churchill bust was removed before Obama's inauguration as part of the usual changeover operations, adding that every president puts his own stamp on the Oval Office.

Gelles  06/15/2012 07:50 AM Report

Courtesy Google and the Guardian:

"Washington, Nicholas Watt in

guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 14 March 2012 17.05 EDT

..... In the warm Washington sunshine, Barack Obama had, moments earlier, delivered a gushing homage to the wonders of the Anglo-American special relationship. "We meet to reaffirm one of the greatest alliances the world has ever known," the president said, in remarks that would have done Ronald Reagan proud."

Is EPatrickMosman, below, correct? Or is Obama OK with the UK and American special relationship? I say Obama is OK.

========

On REMant -- what is his insanity"? MEGALOMANIA

REMant and Irving believe they matter. Then they prove they don't.

EPatrickMosman  06/15/2012 07:25 AM Report

The panelist mentioned the "special relationship" between Britain and the United State which has lasted for over 70 years until the current occupier of the White House made destruction of the 'relationship' primary goal from his first day in office. From removing and returning the bust of Churchill, his tacky gifts to the Queen and Prime Minister to his neutral stand on the Falklands he has made his disdain for Britain blindingly clear in his every word and deed.

Gelles  06/15/2012 07:16 AM Report

I am surprised by REMant. I suspected he was "off". But I did not suspect he saw Churchill as less than he was. Churchill is the Western leader most loved and respected by all concerned, who saved civilization from a fate worse than death. To insult his memory from inside this archive is a disgusting act I would punish by banning REMant from ever addressing the decent people who watch Charlie Rose. There may be merit in absolute free speech. But there is also major demerit. Sanity is challenged by the likes of Irving and REMant. Sanity can be destroyed by the lies of REMant and Irving. Yet sanity survives. And REMant did not destroy it. So Charlie Rose sides with free speech. And our archive is made into proof that speech is harmless. But is free speech as beautiful as it might be if it were edited to remove insanity?

glpollock  06/15/2012 07:12 AM Report

The allegation that Churchill's speeches were actually read by actor Norman Shelley has long been thoroughly refuted and falls among the many misrepresentations which David Irving, a well known Holocaust denier and distorter of history, has propagated. The full story on this subject can be found on he website of The Churchill Centre at: http://www.winstonchurchill.org/learn/myths/myths/an-actor-read-his-speeches

SharkswithfrikingLazers  06/15/2012 02:34 AM Report

Yes, "The Black Dog". Lincoln had it too at the time of war.

In Australia it is a very clever institute with a very, very clever logo: http://www.blackdoginstitute.org.au/aboutus/ourlogo.cfm

From the link:

'Black dog' was the term Winston Churchill coined for depression - his own depression. The logo of the Black Dog Institute refers to and respects that origin.

A victory sign that, enigmatically, casts the shadow of a black dog provides a metaphor for a disorder that is constantly lurking in the background.

It acknowledges that depression can indeed 'shadow' the sufferer, even when the mood is upbeat and 'victorious'.

Just as Churchill's sign proved stronger than the evil it opposed (symbolized by a full-arm salute), the logo carries the suggestion that the positive is more powerful than the negative.

Victor, not victim, is the implicit hope - but understated so we avoid the alienating suggestion of 'pull yourself out of it'.

By neither trivializing the black dog nor turning it into a vicious monster, the concept walks the essential fine line.

And it avoids the obvious dog clichés.

For those aware of Churchill's famous salute, it provides a talking point. It's a way to begin de-stigmatising a disorder that many people, from the famous to the person next door, suffer from; and to introduce a unique scientific institute committed to directly addressing what the World Health Organisation has called the world's biggest health problem."

Well done indeed Black Dogs!

SharkswithfrikingLazers  06/15/2012 02:20 AM Report

Yes, take a look at Churchill's home:

http://gouk.about.com/od/thingstodo/ig/Blenheim-in-Pictures/Blenheim-Palace--North-Front.htm

One photo is worth a thousand words and there are seven of them.

The palace was a reward for battle--no wonder his father told Winston to forget Oxford and go into the military.

No wonder the German visitors had second thoughts about what Hitler might have thought.

Charlie, this would have been a perfect place for Celia to talk for a few moments with visual aids.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  06/14/2012 04:54 PM Report

It is all so very simple.

Churchill looked like a bulldog.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulldog

He walked like a bulldog.

He sounded (after a cigar or two) what you might imagine a bulldog would sound like.

If I were casting a bulldog movie for Disney I would chose Churchill for not only voice but motion capture.

(General George Patton had a bull terrier--I wonder why?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bull_Terrier)

It was war--NOT Shakespeare.

The amygdala is where 451,000 Brits are killed and SEVEN TO EIGHT MILLION JERRYS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#Third_Reich

agpackwood  06/14/2012 02:47 PM Report

In response to REMant. The only evidence of which I am aware for Norman Shelley broadcasting as Churchill is a single BBC recording, and it is not clear why this was produced and when. What is clear from the Churchill Archives and the Morgan display is that Churchill wrote the speeches. We also know that he delivered them, in front of several hundred eye witnesses who knew him well in the British House of Commons, and we can be pretty sure that he delivered them over the BBC in the summer of 1940. There is no suggestion from those involved in these events that this was not the case and it would have been a huge risk and very unChurchillian for him to allow another to broadcast at that time.Incidentally, some of the speeches were not broadcast at all at the time, such as the famous "Never in the field of human conflict", which was only delivered in the Commons, though Churchill recorded it after the war. However, I am confident, and I am the curator, that all the broadcasts you hear in the show are contemporary and are Winston Churchill.

REMant  06/14/2012 12:10 PM Report

If you believe revisionist historian David Irving, Blenheim or not, Hitler would never have invaded Britain, using that only as a ruse to divert attention from Barbarossa, or so Goebbels wrote in his recently uncovered diary, and had, indeed, hoped to avoid war with Britain altogether, as as several, including Pat Buchanan recently, have argued. There has been an increasing amount of revisionism, more and more material brought to light, and I was glad to see this panel despite the presence of Churchill's granddaughter, seemingly unwilling to deify the man.

Not everyone is as critical as Irving, whose feeling is that he was no better than Hitler in his self-centredness, and forfeited the Empire by not accepting Hitler's several 1940 peace overtures.

Our own OSS reported that "war, open or concealed, seems the only thing in which he is really interested." As was mentioned, he micro-managed it, alienating service chiefs like Alan Brooke, who withheld much of the ill-feeling when his diary was published, and Irving finds him going around everyone through his daily telephone contact with FDR, which the latter noted in 1941, and of which no transcripts survive.

Despite lauding the few to whom so many owed so much, Churchill was a bomber enthusiast (like Hitler), and strenuously objected to the Battle of Britain strategy. His 100-bomber raid on Berlin began the Blitz, tho, and since it is widely believed Fighter Command was on the ropes, it may illustrate the way Churchill's opponents out-blundered him to defeat.

As A J P Taylor long ago remarked "war at all costs" was what everyone feared from Winston, and what, through his meddling, they got, though he generally blamed others for it.

It was a beleaguered Britain, which, years before the outbreak of WWI, began making the string of alliances that insured any war with Germany would ensnare the world, and it only remained to get the Americans on board. But the period between the wars saw the allies alienate Japan and drive Mussolini into the arms of Hitler. And even if you don't accept the idea that Britain saw Germany as an upstart from the beginning, Churchill was as responsible for the rise of National Socialism as any one person, because of his refusal during the '20s to accept devaluation of the British pound caused by Great War.

It should be noted similarly, that because of his unpopularity, Churchill had to invite Labour to join his cabinet, leading in great measure to their succession, and all that that wrought.

All of this I think can be laid at the feet of the arrogance of power, the attempt to maintain it leading only to greater tyrannies, which ought to be the real lesson to be learned.

Last, unfortunately for Charlie, Irving's sleuthing turned up, and technology verified, that Churchill did not deliver the "Finest hour" speech, or the "Blood, toil, tears and sweat" and "We shall fight on the beaches" speeches, all of which were read on air by one Norman Shelley, a BBC Children's Hour actor and impersonator.