Reviews for Winston's War: Churchill, 1940-1945

The average rating for Winston's War: Churchill, 1940-1945 based on 2 reviews is 4.5 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2019-03-14 00:00:00 Michael Dittenhoefer Winston Churchill statue outside "Le Petit Palais" in Paris by Jean Cardot in 1998 Page 478 (my book) In 1938, he seemed a man out of his time, a patrician imperialist whose vision was rooted in Britain's Victorian past. By 1945, while this remained true, and goes far to explain his own disappointments, it had not prevented him from becoming the greatest war leader his country had ever known, a statesman whose name rang across the world like that of no other Englishman in history. Himself believing Britain great, for one last brief season he was able to make it so. To an extraordinary degree, what he did between 1940 and 1945 defines the nations' self-image even into the twenty-first century. This is a superb rendition of Churchill's years in power during World War II. As the author ably demonstrates Churchill was exuberant and full of vigour during this tumultuous period. Even after 1943, when the role of the U.S. became ascendant, Churchill's voice and oratory kept Britain as an active participant. Page 397 But without Churchill, his country would have seemed a mere exhausted victim of the conflict, rather than the protagonist which he was determined that Britain should be seen to remain until the end. Max Hastings is very opinionated and presents us with several divergent views of Churchill. Churchill was so focused on the war effort that he lost touch with the "day-to-day" lives of his countrymen and their post-war aspirations. He had no plan for British lives after the war's conclusion. This is unlike Roosevelt, who had a much wider vision of his country (the GI bill) and the world (the U.N.). The author brings up the relationship between Churchill and Roosevelt and sees it as more fraught than the ample quotes of "friendship" that Churchill kept repeating. Roosevelt, although very gregarious, was very opaque in contrast to Churchill's direct and emotional approach. Churchill needed and cajoled Roosevelt. Roosevelt likely found this tiresome. Both however were duped by Stalin believing, for example, that they could rely on his agreements for the self-determination of eastern Europe. Page 266 It is an outstanding curiosity of the Second World War that two such brilliant men as Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt allowed themselves to suppose that the mere fact of discovering a common enemy in Hitler could suffice to make possible a real relationship [with Stalin] … But Americans [and British] … harbored delusions about their ability to make friends with the Russians. The author discussed at length the incessant demands from the Soviets for a Second Front and how popular the Soviet regime was in Britain at that time. It is fortuitous that the landings in France were held off until 1944. The Allies, more so the Americans, were in no position militarily in 1942 or 1943 to make a viable landing on the French mainland. Churchill shares responsibility for this worthwhile delay until the build-up in troops and equipment was adequate. Many hard lessons were learnt at Dieppe (1942), and North Africa, Sicily, and Italy in 1942 and 1943. Many of Winston's errant ways were brought up. He was constantly badgering Turkey to join in with the Allies (this would just have been an additional supply burden). He had wild schemes to invade Norway and expand the war into the Balkans. These were spoken of endlessly and squashed at staff meetings. Also, one comes away with the impression that Clementine, Churchill's wife, was one of the few people that he would listen to. Only strong personalities, like Alan Brooke, could withstand his magnificent oratory and successfully challenge him. Churchill needed an audience and did much of the talking. Churchill was constantly pressing his army, air force, and navy to do more. He was not one to delegate. And he had no qualms about dismissing generals that were, in his view, poor performers. This book, like its subject, is full of vitality and resonates the full life of Winston Churchill during this epic time period.

Review # 2 was written on 2014-10-27 00:00:00 James Fogg This is the first book I have read about Sir Winston Churchill and I'm glad to have picked one written by Sir Max Hastings, another first. Sir Hastings is British, and many would expect him to therefore have a great command of the language, but not all British can write like him. His arsenal of vocabulary and elements of the language is impeccable. He was able to summon the right words and phrase them in ways that express precisely what he was trying to convey. It was not only on the one or two occasions when you would see the gems, it was peppered throughout the book. But I could have been too easily impressed, not being a native speaker. Most readers probably knew Winston Churchill as the Prime Minister of Great Britain in the Second World War despite his service to the nation prior to and after that. For that reason, this book that focuses only on his years as Prime Minister is a good first book to read about him before moving on to other more comprehensive biographies. Instead of just the events, the author showed how the fortunes of the man rose as he led Britain as the sole nation to stand up against Hitler and fell as he found himself losing influence over the conduct of the war once the Americans entered the war and the Russians' fortune took a turn for the better. The Americans' involvement in the war was featured throughout the second half of the book and it was important because the depth of America's involvement in the Second World War was in direct proportion to the decline in Churchill's influence over its conduct. One cannot help feeling a little indignant over the American's handling of their allies; it is easy to feel that when the British were suffering alone (and at one point was on the brink), the US was dragging its feet and seemed almost ready to let Britain meet its 'fate' in the hands of Hitler, and yet once they themselves were attacked, they were almost reckless in wanting to bring retribution to their enemies. But this narrative would be simplistic. The US is a huge country, and huge countries have huge buffers to shield them from what is happening around the world, even the eastern side of the country is rather different from its west, it is therefore hard to feel the urgency of things happening across the Atlantic. On top of that, the democratic system in the US probably mean that as much as the President himself wanted to enter the war, he would be up against many opponents. I always put the US' involvement in Europe against the backdrop of the 'Europe first' policy. Japan was the one that violated the US, not the Germans, even though Hitler perplexingly declared war against the US after Pearl Harbor which was a sneak attack by his ally for which he received no prior notification. Selling the 'Europe first' policy to Americans in general would have been hard when it was Japan that they wanted to go after, and yet the Americans were persuaded. For that, Americans deserve credit. The portrayal of Stalin was more straightforward, although there was nothing straightforward about him. Desperate at first, he emerged the master of real-politick as his own army prevailed over the Germans. His treatment of Churchill was harsh, not in the sense of being rude, but he knew exactly how to 'play' with Churchill. He probably had respect for Churchill in recognising that if anyone, Churchill could see through his own designs on Eastern Europe after the war. But he knew that Churchill had no chips with which to bargain and so would not be able to do anything about it. So he just led Churchill along, giving some hope whenever it suits him, and needling Churchill when he felt like it. I doubt Stalin had more respect for Roosevelt, he probably respected the US' industrial and therefore military might, but at the same time he was cordial with Roosevelt because he thought Roosevelt was not able to see through his ploy and was too idealistic in believing that post-war, countries would behave civilly. The British lost a part of their empire to the Japanese in South East Asia, together with that a huge number of men (British and soldiers of the Commonwealth), materiel, and even the Prince of Wales. Yet Asia got just but a cursory treatment in the book. I do not think this is a deliberate omission on the part of Sir Hastings, rather I think it reflected the actual sentiments prevailing in Britain then. The enemies were at the gates of the home islands, and even though they did not manage to break through, the British suffered years of uncertainty, deprivation, humiliation, and endured many nights of German bombing. The war almost bankrupt the country and the people were weary, how would some faraway land matter? Sadly, if they prevailed over the Germans, they surrendered their initiatives in the colonies. It would be hard, if not impossible, to hold on to them when most British no longer wish to anyway. It is hard not to like Sir Winston Churchill. People who worked for him had sometimes been harshly treated, but even they grew to like him. Although we can point to his rather unenlightened attitude towards imperialism, his magnanimity towards the vanquished (and even the French), his unselfish fight for the Poles, alone against Stalin, was really moving. Unfortunately, recognition of his tremendous qualities as a war leader does not automatically qualify him for another term as prime minister in a parliamentarian system. In his case it was not even because his party could not field enough good MPs to win over their constituencies, the electorate had comprehensively rejected him sensing his lack of interest in running the country as a peace-time prime minister. At the end of the book Churchill was in the wild, very much alone, like how he was shown on the cover of the Vintage edition. Sir Alan Brooke wrote: ' It was a relief to get Winston home safely...I honestly believe that he would really have liked to be killed on the front at this moment of success." I do not know how to feel about this, there was a part of me that felt that this might just be the most fitting way and time to go. But then, how could I?