Talk:A History of the English-Speaking Peoples

Reception Section
Could someone please add a "Reception" section that talks about criticisms and responses to this book?-- An d Re w 14:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Ahem?
At first, this is described as a four-volume history of Britain and the English speaking nations. However, soon after, it is stated that it was natural for [Churchill] to turn his hand to a history of both nations. The United States of America is not the only other English speaking nation. This could be taken the wrong way and seen as offensive to the others. Can we reword this? --Liberlogos 01:44, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Be bold! Go ahead! --Auximines 14:16, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I've returned the initial description to say "English speaking nations", since the book does include Canada, Australia, South Africa, etc. This leaves the second paragraph, referring to "both nations" a bit awkward.  But since this paragraph does accurately indicate Churchill's advocacy of a strong UK-US alliance, I've not fiddled with it.  Perhaps someone else can craft a better wording for that paragraph. 24.209.173.129 04:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Isn't the point that in Churchill's time, it was a commonplace that there were only two "English-speaking Peoples" - those who settled the Empire and Commonwealth versus those in the United States who had rebelled against the rule of their Sovereign? The American branch had indeed become a different "English speaking people" over the course of a century and a half of independent development and immigration from other nations. The people who settled the Empire and Commonwealth, however, whether in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa or Nova Scotia were regarded as a unitary people, united under the Crown. Since Churchill did indeed cover both branches and their historical development, his title is perfectly apt. Today, of course, neither Australia nor Canada etc. regard themselves as "British" but in the 1940s every Australian etc. passport stated the bearer's nationality as "British". It is silly to get offended in the twenty first century by what was a perfectly normal description in the 1950s.
 * Actually this discussion is rather interesting, and properly worded and sourced I think it would be appropriate in the article- to explain the cultural and historic context he was writing in. Indeed an interesting question would be, was there academic comment criticising (or supporting) his view at the time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.186.173 (talk) 23:24, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Funny Guy
"However work was interrupted in 1939 when the Second World War broke out"
 * Alright, who's the joker. -- SiniStar 19:53, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

eh? Do you mean because he wasn't appointed PM until 1940? What's the joke?

I don't understand why Sinistar thought it was a joke either, since the day the war started, Churchill was named First Lord of the Admiralty. JHobson2 (talk) 11:33, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

POV (Neutrality)
This article has several opinionated and unverified statements. Here are examples:
 * Churchill was a great British patriot with a love of history and a firm belief in the trans-Atlantic alliance between Britain and the United States, so it was natural for him to turn his hand to ahistory of both nations.
 * The quality of the productions was judged to be so poor that Head of Drama Shaun Sutton declared them untransmittable.

Wrong title
Just thought I would tell you that this article was titled wrongly for over three years until I came and corrected it. Isn't that amazing? (A major piece by a Nobel Prize–winning author and politician...) Skinnyweed 16:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV cleanup
Article edited as part of work on the NPOV backlog. One sentence about the TV show removed/edited. Since the rest of the disputed text seems to have been edited, and there has been no discussion suggesting further disagreement, the tag is removed. If you disagree with this, please re-tag the article with and post to Talk. -- Steve Hart 19:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Starting Point
Interesting that he starts the book with Caesar's invasion, (well it wasn't an invasion really a raid but I digress) of Britain. Quite what that is to do with "English Speaking Peoples" I don't know?

It's a bit like writing the history say of the British Afro-Caribbean Community and instead of starting with Empire Windrush- starting with the Battle of Bosworth field- about the same gap in time really.

If he wanted to look at the question of English Speaking peoples- surely the place to look at the time of Caesar would be what is now the Netherlands and Germany, at that point we are still about half a millennium from Britain becoming part of the English speaking World.

My point really is not so much critique I made- but surely academics in the period when the book was written must have made these types of very obvious critique. Churchill may well have answered them too- and I would suggest all this sort of discussion would be an interesting and relevant addition to the article- provided it is accurately sourced of course. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.186.173 (talk) 23:15, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Footnotes?
There are two "notes" links, neither of which leads to any note and, as far as I can tell from going through earlier revisions, neither one ever has. This strikes me as odd; both of them, if it's any help, were modified from "Citation needed" templates... 86.11.124.189 11:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

"Social history, the agricultural revolution, and the industrial revolution hardly get a mention."
"Social history, the agricultural revolution, and the industrial revolution hardly get a mention."

EXCUSE ME!? Has anyone here actually read the volume in question? The entire theme of his coverage of the first half of the 19th century is how poorly the British Government was able to respond to the pressures brought about by the agricultural and industrial revolutions. And one might easily defend the proposition that a major theme of the entire four-volume work is the development of government due to the pressures of social advancement. Perhaps this 'view' is that of the cited critic, but to state it in text as the prevailing opinion does a disservice to any would-be reader, to say nothing of the author himself.

Besides, the American Civil War was a HUGE development in modern history, especially in modern warfare which is the perspective - both before and after "WWII" - in which Mr. Churchill writes.

If no one is willing to stand by the, to my mind ignorant, prose of this section, I will shortly undertake to alter it. Dmforcier (talk) 01:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Nobel Citation
I am reverting the good-faith edit removing HoESP from the Nobel citation because I believe that the reference disproves the rationale:


 * This autobiography/biography was written at the time of the award and first published in the book series Les Prix Nobel. It was later edited and republished in Nobel Lectures. ...

Now, I take that to mean "translated", but it is possible that the "edits" included the mention of HoESP. If so I apologize. I'll look into it further. Dmforcier (talk) 04:18, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The edit appears to have been correct. Here is the actual citation as shown on the official Nobel web page:
 * The Nobel Prize in Literature 1953 was awarded to Winston Churchill "for his mastery of historical and biographical description as well as for brilliant oratory in defending exalted human values".
 * No titled work was cited. Dmforcier (talk)

"special relationship" between the people of Britain with the Commonwealth of Nations
This refers to the bond between the UK and the USA (as the linked-to page confirms), and is not to do with the Commonwealth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.226.105 (talk) 12:20, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I've reworded it. The original intention of the sentence (as shown here in 2006) was to talk about the special relationship between Churchill's two "divisions" of English-speaking people, the Commonwealth (stayed under the Crown) and the United States (broke away). It's meaning was broken sometime over the last 12 years. --Inops (talk) 23:14, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Uncredited co-writers?
In David Miles (archaeologist)'s book The Tribes of Britain (2006), he has this curious footnote on p. 26:
 * ... the words concocted mainly by the team of underpaid and under-credited writers who put together Churchill's "History of the English-Speaking Peoples". Churchill was a brand as much as an author.

Is there any truth to this claim? -- Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  20:33, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * His other great text on the Second World War was known to have had a team of assistants, although how much they were researching vs writing is unknown. This isn't unusual for writers though, especially non-fiction writers. It isn't necessary to mention it, especially if we have no citation.ItsRainingCatsAndDogsAndMen (talk) 13:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)