I found this book am enjoyable account of Churchill in the war years, bringing out clearly why he truly was a great leader. It seems that he was both the right man for the moment, but also an anachronism of the empire. He could see where the world was going with American and Russian dominance, but he was a sincere patriot and believer in Britain's greatness. He believed passionately in the moral right of the fight against Hitler, and yet did not seriously contemplate freedoms for non-white subjects of the Empire nor even ever think seriously about the new Britain that would come out of the war.
Good history always raises the questions of what ifs, but in this history I was struck by the weakness of Britain and the determined isolationism of the US
- if not Churchill leading Britain, would Britain have had a leader wanting to do a deal with Hitler? Would the US have focused more on the Pacific?
- if Hitler held off on Russia, could he have pushed a deal with Britain to take them out for good?
- if Japan did not attack Pearl Harbour, would the US have entered the war?
The proof of Churchill's greatness was really that both at the time and even more in posterity, he kept Britain's stature and influence further than it should be based on military and economic power.
'In his speeches between 1940 and 1945 he created a glorious fiction of shared British and American purposes...They key to understanding the wartime Anglo-American relationship is to strip aside the rhetorics of the two leaders and acknolwedge that it rested, as relations between states always do, upon perceptions of national interest. There was some genuine sentiment on Churchill's side, but none on Roosevelt's' (p483)
This book emphasised to me the sacrifice of Russia against Hitler which Stalin could justifiably feel won the war for the alliance. Britain sensibily stayed out of direct assault until 1944, but this just emphasises that the empire was clearly in late decline. His fighting for Poland and Greece at the end of the war was perhaps driven by more conservative than liberal thinking, but was courageous in the face of Stalin and luke warm American interest (until later). It is extremely revealing that he had his staff planning project 'Unthinkable' to push back the Russians at the end of the war.
In his eulogy to Neville Chamberlain, he was clear about how he could respect someone he disagreed with, and I think also revealing about how he himself ticked (p109)
"The only guide to a man is his conscience; the only shield to his memory is the rectitude and sincerity of his actions. It is very imprudent to walk through life without this shield, because we are so often mocked by the failure of our hopes and the upsetting if our calculations; but with this shield, however the dates may play, we march always in the ranks of honour."
Churchill acted by his own conscience, and the circumstances of WWII made this anachronistic man of the Empire, exactly the right bulldog to keep fighting the moral fight when many around him could have given up.
Good history always raises the questions of what ifs, but in this history I was struck by the weakness of Britain and the determined isolationism of the US
- if not Churchill leading Britain, would Britain have had a leader wanting to do a deal with Hitler? Would the US have focused more on the Pacific?
- if Hitler held off on Russia, could he have pushed a deal with Britain to take them out for good?
- if Japan did not attack Pearl Harbour, would the US have entered the war?
The proof of Churchill's greatness was really that both at the time and even more in posterity, he kept Britain's stature and influence further than it should be based on military and economic power.
'In his speeches between 1940 and 1945 he created a glorious fiction of shared British and American purposes...They key to understanding the wartime Anglo-American relationship is to strip aside the rhetorics of the two leaders and acknolwedge that it rested, as relations between states always do, upon perceptions of national interest. There was some genuine sentiment on Churchill's side, but none on Roosevelt's' (p483)
This book emphasised to me the sacrifice of Russia against Hitler which Stalin could justifiably feel won the war for the alliance. Britain sensibily stayed out of direct assault until 1944, but this just emphasises that the empire was clearly in late decline. His fighting for Poland and Greece at the end of the war was perhaps driven by more conservative than liberal thinking, but was courageous in the face of Stalin and luke warm American interest (until later). It is extremely revealing that he had his staff planning project 'Unthinkable' to push back the Russians at the end of the war.
In his eulogy to Neville Chamberlain, he was clear about how he could respect someone he disagreed with, and I think also revealing about how he himself ticked (p109)
"The only guide to a man is his conscience; the only shield to his memory is the rectitude and sincerity of his actions. It is very imprudent to walk through life without this shield, because we are so often mocked by the failure of our hopes and the upsetting if our calculations; but with this shield, however the dates may play, we march always in the ranks of honour."
Churchill acted by his own conscience, and the circumstances of WWII made this anachronistic man of the Empire, exactly the right bulldog to keep fighting the moral fight when many around him could have given up.
Comments