Churchill got all the plaudits for winning the war but we should not forget Beaverbrook’s decisive role
From a very young age, long before I could read or write, I knew who Winston Churchill was; most of us born anywhere in the West towards the end of WW2 or, like me, just after, would have found it impossible not to have seen or heard of his name, even in the pre-television age. He was, after all, the Man Who Won the War.
But Max Aitken, Lord Beaverbrook? I’m not sure but quite possibly I was not aware of him until his death in 1964 when all newspapers, and not just his own, were generous in their obituaries. Such were the vagaries of the ‘A’ level history syllabus in the 1960s, I knew more about Bismarck and the Tolpuddle Martyrs than I did the Man Who Ensured We Won the War.
He was that important. His role as Minister of Aircraft Production was crucial to our victory in the Battle of Britain but so too was his role as the wartime leader’s greatest advisor. The men were friends, at times the greatest of friends, but disagreed on many issues with Beaverbrook arguing his point through his newspapers, an advantage Churchill did not have until war came.
As personalities, few men could have been more different. Churchill the brave soldier aristocrat, the orator whose speeches were a vital weapon of war, a brilliant and prolific author who never doubted he was destined for the greatness that almost eluded him.
Beaverbrook was seemingly born to make money and spread his influence across the globe. He could be blunt, was always decisive, hated bureaucracy and rules and it was this combination which made his 11 months at the Ministry of Aircraft Production so successful. He spread his views through his many newspapers in Britain and Canada and in speeches, never as grandly sweeping or memorable as Churchill’s but always focused on results. He thrived on chaos but only if he originated it. That was how he ran the two Expresses and the Standard and it worked.
Their origins were as different as their personalities and doubtless that was why they were such a formidable pairing. Churchill, the grandson of the Duke of Marlborough, born in a palace, Blenheim, and throughout his life lived beyond his (very considerable) means.
By contrast Beaverbrook was the grandson of a Scottish tenant farmer and son of a Presbyterian minister in Canada. He was born in a manse and while it was no palace it was large enough for several servants. The family also had the only telephone in town which, for obvious reasons, rarely rang.
Despite his self-generated myth, he was not descended from peasants and never experienced poverty. And before he was 30 and about to settle in England, was a sterling millionaire, by today’s values that is almost £30 million. From that moment on, he remained awash with money.
There were countless other differences, most notably the Beaver’s rampant promiscuity. He had one long-term mistress — Jean Norton — throughout his first marriage but many other lovers including the brave and beautiful Allied spy Toto Koolman, and Tallulah Bankhead, the most notorious of the era’s Hollywood slappers.
Churchill, on the other hand, was probably faithful to Clemmie. I say ‘probably’ because there is some evidence, inconclusive, that he might have had an on-off three-year liaison with Doris Delevingne, the haberdasher’s daughter from Bromley who went on to have affairs with almost anyone, provided they were very, very rich.
The relationship of these two apparent opposites has long intrigued me, not least because historians appear to have barely mentioned the importance of Beaverbrook in Churchill’s much-chronicled career. Both were great men but only one is remembered as such.
But ask yourself this: if Beaverbrook had not agreed to spearhead production of fighter planes in 1940, would we really have won the Battle of Britain? And then what? A sea invasion would surely have followed and with defeat by Hitler’s forces, how would Sir Winston be viewed by history?
I believe that Max Aitken was that important.
Well, that is the basis for the book I have embarked upon and which I hope will highlight just how important the Beaver was to all our lives, not just those of us who were lucky enough to have worked for his newspapers towards the end of their golden era but to everyone living in the freedom which resulted in our victory in WW2.
And here’s a question for you all: When were you first aware of a) Churchill and b) Beaverbrook? In the case of the Beaver, was he mentioned in any WW2 history classes at school or university. No prizes other than my undying love but please let me know on frambo2020@outlook.com.
*****
While on the subject of great men, surely it’s long past the time when those nice people in white coats turned up at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Trump’s latest AI-generated pic of him as Jesus Christ apparently healing a man who looks remarkably like Jeffrey Epstein is proof, not that any is needed, that the US President is wildly, dangerously deranged.
Not coincidentally, Trump renews his fight with Pope Leo, a good American, for being against wars, saying the Pontiff is “weak… terrible… I’m not a big fan of Pope Leo, a very liberal person…he’s a man who doesn’t believe in stopping crime”.
Well, discuss: Crimes such as murdering two civilians in Minnesota, bombing and killing 180 young children in Iran at the beginning of an illegal war he started because his buddy Netanyahu told him to or making corruption a standard practice in the White House?
If you want proof of just how the war on Iran began, the New York Times (“terrible paper, falling circulation, fake news”) has published a brilliantly detailed and alarming account of how the biggest decisions come to be made under Trump’s presidency.
On February 11 the Israeli leader, who had been pressing Trump for months to mount a major assault on Iran, arrived at the White House out of sight of reporters. He and his officials were taken to the Situation Room which is almost never used for meetings with foreign politicians.
Once there Trump, Marco Rubio, nasty Hegseth and, inevitably, son-in-law Jared Kushner were among those given a presentation by the head of Mossad on how to ‘get’ Iran; its ballistic missile programme would be destroyed “in a few weeks”, it would not be able to land any blows against the US, the Strait of Hormuz would remain open and, because of riots and insurrection stirred up by Mossad agents, regime change would follow.
“Sounds good to me” was Trump’s verdict. The only grown-up in the room, CIA director John Ratcliffe, was even more economical in his reply: “Farcical”. Later Gen. Dan Caine, head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the presentation was typical Israeli ‘oversell’ and that it would be “very difficult” to secure the Strait of Hormuz.
Caine’s verdict as the most senior US general: “It would be a very bad idea to go to war with Iran.”
Fifteen days after the Netanyahu presentation in the Situation Room, Trump boarded Air Force One and announced: “Operation Epic Fury is approved. No aborts. Good luck.”
Meanwhile the madness grows, A Trump Library full of gold but empty of books, a proposed gold Arc de Trump in Washington, the idiotic Ballroom, the Trump Kennedy Centre boycotted by one and all, and his wish to become president of Venezuela. “I’ll soon learn Spanish, I’m very good at languages.”
Of course you are dear. Nurse!
*****
AND FINALLY
What’s the difference between Iran and Vietnam? Trump knew how to get out of Vietnam.
ALAN FRAME
14 April 2026
