Talk:We shall fight on the beaches

message: This article is a shameless rip-off of Blood, toil, tears, and sweat speech, suitably modified for this speech. Noel (talk) 01:46, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Rip-off

message: Does anyone wonder if this speech would be interpreted differently if it were given by Hirohito 5 years later? Brutannica 19:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Undoubtedly. Interpretation IS the essence of history. --68.44.255.35 22:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Interpretation

message: The section regarding the authenticity of Winston Churchills voice requires greater clarification. From what I can gather from reputable sources the details are as follows
1. The speech was originally made in Parliament for which no recording exists. Parliament had no recording system at that time.
2. For the benefit of the public many of Churchill's speeches were recorded by Churchill for the BBC and broadcast. I think (but am not sure based on conflicting reports) that it has been confirmed that some of these were recorded by an actor under Churchill's approval. This includes the "fight them on the beaches" speech.
3. The speeches that were recorded initially by actors were re-recorded after the war by Churchill for archival purposes.
4. Official Churchill sources and BBC state that the recordings that are circulating now and that have been released by them are the ones that are actually of Churchill's voice.
5. New Scientist reported in 1991 that A Maryland company Sensimatics did a voice analysis on the authentic public recordings of Churchill and compared them to other recorded speeches and found that three of the circulating speeches were NOT of Churchill (presumably Norman Shelley who claimed he was the original stand in)
Thats what I can gather. I'm not guarenteeing any accuracy at all so if anyone cares to add the real story, or at least mention the myths in gretaer detail, feel free.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supersnazz (talk • contribs) 12:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Authenticity

message: I find it ironic that he gave this speech right after the Dunkirk debacle. Shouldn't some mention be made of that? LikeHolyWater (talk) 02:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh? It's right there in the lead, and has been for years. I also don't see what's ironic about it – the post-Dunkirk context is what defines the speech. Vilĉjo (talk) 10:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

text: You are probably thinking of the following, which comes from the same speech: "Wars are not won by evacuations. But there was a victory inside this deliverance …" (The quotation goes on, "It was gained by the Air Force", presciently alluding to the role of airpower in the imminent Battle of Britain.) Vilĉjo (talk) 01:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Irony

message: No full text wikisource?--Test35965 (talk) 06:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead wikisource? 

message: I note, more in sorrow than in anger (but not by much)that 
in 2010 this article said that the German advance to the sea once they had broken through the French defences at Sedan cut off the BEF and the French First Army from their lines of communication and the main French forces, 
on 14 October 2011 user 98.67.174.173 made 4 edits for style on it, only 2 of which had edit summaries.   
One edit had the edit summary "The word "said" followed by a blockquote needs to have a colon added "said:" ".  
The other edit summary provided was "Someone needs to study the writings of Churchill, Jefferson, etc. "on the 10 May" does not make sense, and single-digiit numbers are written out as words." which was consistent with the tone/content of the other summary, but did not entirely accurately reflect the nature of the edit which was not just MOS stuff but 'my English is better than yours' stuff as well with extensive paraphrasing and recasting.  Unfortunately the recasting was done without due care & attention and resulted in the BEF now being cut off from the French First Army as a result of the Germans having broken through the French defenses ( I note the spelling correction).  
98.67.174.173 had gone on to give his POV as to where the French troops evacuated from Dunkirk should have been sent.  Somebody spotted and removed that, but the net result was that the revised text looked passable and the residual bit of good-faith (if snitty) vandalism has persisted until today, when I finally realised that the article no longer said what I expected it to say and had therefore been reading it as saying.  A warning to us all, but I'm not quite sure about what - all sorts of things, probably Rjccumbria (talk) 20:55, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  If 'editing for style' please check the sense is preserved (and try to be civil about other people's style) 

message: If I listen to online recordings of this speech, the sentence "Even though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Gestapo and all the odious apparatus of Nazi rule, we shall not flag or fail." is not spoken. Not sure if there is a separately written speech or that the transcript is just inaccurate. 
SiggyF (talk) 15:55, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It might help to note the sentence in the article beginning "No audio record was made at the time of the original speech" - the Hansard record of the debate is the only record of the speech as given in the House of Commons (with the important proviso that Hansard lets speakers correct the speech before it is printed). (As a passing thought; Churchill might well have wanted to omit the sentence when recording the speech for posterity in 1949, given that some of the ancient nations had escaped the grip of the Gestapo, only to find themselves in the clutches of the NKVD). Rjccumbria (talk) 17:44, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  accurate transcript? 

message: The file :c:File:Sir Winston Churchill - 19086236948.jpg has been nominated for deletion on Commons 
 Reason: I don't understand the decision above. The final comment, "The Karsh photo of Churchill is PD in Canada and the US since it was published in a 1945 issue of Life magazine. URAA affects images published or taken after 1945 in Canada. --Leoboudv () 09:44, 21 August 2017 " is wrong. It was, indeed, the cover of Life in 1945. That issue of Life had its copyright renewed, so the image will be under copyright in the USA until 2040. 
 Deletion request: link 
Message automatically deposited by a robot - -Harideepan (talk) 07:18, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  File nominated for deletion on commons 

message: Before my edit, the "Reception" subsection started with "It has been said  that ..." The answer to "by whom" is given in the reference at the end of the sentence. It was said by Dominique Enright, in her cited book. 
Please read the entire sentence and look at the reference before tagging something. I too hate wesel words and remove them where ever I find them, but never if they are supported by an actual reference. In this case the reference was to a book, and contained a note that this is not certain, which the visible phrase "it is said" indicates. Nick Beeson (talk) 22:39, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed Tag 

message: I've seen this speech in print (such as where it is included on the International Churchill Society website, and the capitalization of the first letter of the last word in the peroration has always bothered me given the text of the entire sentence. Churchill for much of this period was trying persuade the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt in the United States (such as in the "This was their finest hour" speech) to intervene on behalf of Britain, which at that point was in the process of becoming the only democratic major power left standing in Europe opposed to Nazi Germany, and to rescue the Old World from the Nazi regime. Given that Churchill won the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1953, it occurs to me that Churchill was gifted enough as a writer and knowledgeable enough of history to use such language. Could someone please provide an explanation? -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:09, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The version you linked to is in USian English ("defenses", "armored"). The Hansard version has British spelling, but still has "old" and not "Old". DuncanHill (talk) 12:42, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not surprised that the Hansard version of the text of the speech likewise does not capitalize the last word since most versions of the text seem not to. My question isn't about American and British English spelling differences. My question is why the last word is uncapitalized because Churchill wasn't pleading for the New World to rescue old people but to liberate the Old World from the totalitarian Axis powers. Just seems weird. :) -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 14:48, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "…the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old." Capitalization?