2 comments about Gandhi & Churchill: The Epic Rivalry that Destroyed an Empire and Forged Our Age.

1. This is a wonderful book, easy to read, full of fascinating insights into two of the most powerful and prominent personalities of the 20th century. Churchill was, of course, flawed but such an interesting personality that one cannot resist his pull. Gandhi, on the other hand, left a far more negative mark on history. Perhaps a saint, he never-the-less, was so single mindedly devoted to the total expulsion of British rule, that he sacrificed the lives of millions of his countrtymen by refusing solutions that could have avoided the civil strife that lead to the parition of India.
   
   There are lessons here for us today. The British decision to exit India on a date certain, regardless of conditions on the ground, played into Gandhi's destructive power. Let's hope that there is no Gandhi in the currect Iraq equation. The entire situation in the Middle East, of course, is largely the construction of Churchill following the First World War. This book is a supurb overview of the complexity, horrors and glories of the past century, and of its most prominent players.



2. This is one of those books that takes two familiar lives--those of Mahatma Gandhi and Winston Churchill--and tells them in parallel. The idea is that the two men influenced each other's goals and lives much more than has been acknowledged in the past. The two only met once: in 1906 when Churchill was Colonial Undersecretary, and Gandhi was lobbying on behalf of Indian independence. Author Herman makes this the center of the book in some ways, which is strange given that it happens very quickly in the book (on about page 130 of what's a 600-page tome) but it works, because the two men seem to have built impressions of one another resting in part on this meeting.
   
   Herman has a number of things to say about both men. He spends about equal time with each, discussing the central issues of their lives and how the other person fit into each stage of the history of the 20th Century. For instance, when he's talking about Churchill, Herman recounts his attitude towards Indian independence and towards Gandhi personally. The book also works as a history of the latter part of the British Raj in India, from approximately the turn of the century to independence. There's a lot of interesting stuff in here, including the fact that Churchill's time "in the wilderness" during the run-up to World War II may have been due to his attitude towards India (he opposed independence resolutely) as much as his opposition to Hitler and appeasement. Gandhi comes across as a naïve idealist who thought he could create a country where everyone worked a spinning wheel and there were no factories, who made speeches that set off riots, but always seemed to think he was only encouraging non-violence.
   
   I enjoyed this book a great deal. It's long, and there's a lot of material here, but it's very informative and has a different take on things. I would recommend it highly.

5 comments about The Last Lion: Winston Spencer Churchill, Visions of Glory.

1. well this is the first book i read on winston churchill . bought it in 1983 . the foreword is unforgettable but historical mistakes in it makes this work not the very best on the luife of sir winston. great prose nevetheless.same can be said of book number two.



2. Manchester is one of those writers who appears unable to disappoint. This is a book to be read and savored. For years, it sat on my shelf - I saw as a large undertaking that I wanted to do right.
   
   The book has a very interesting structure. First, it begins with a kind of interpretive introduction to the man, vividly characterizing him while also evaluating his strengths as a man of history and his glaring weaknesses. You see him, worts and all, and it is both funny and enlightening. The psychological depth is virtually unprecedented in any other bio I have read. Second, you get a view both into his milieu - as an aristocrat of talent and privilege in Victorian Britain - and a biography of both of his parents. This is crucially important, as we come to see Churchill as an anachronism, but also as a boy neglected by narcissistic parents. (Interestingly, the absence of one or both parents is a common trait in extraordinary achievers.) Third, you get his life story, more from the events he was involved in than as an intimate portrait, though much of his personal life is covered. Indeed, he used action as the most effective tonic against depression.
   
   The man that emerges is flawed and complex, but evidently a political genius. In my view, the key to his character is that he remained a Victorian gentleman, who viewed martial valor as the greatest source of meaning and glory in life. This suited him to titanic struggles, such as the one he faced with Hitler that places him in the ranks of the greatest historical figures. As an egotist, he always wanted to place himself at the center of events and yet did so with courage and tenacity in spite of his physical weaknesses. When out of power, he exercised other gifts, such as writing, with equal talent and energy.
   
   Nonetheless, Manchester proves that Churchill was not a politician deeply in touch with his constituency: he never developed a typical base of power and often his views did not synch with the mainstream. Without Hitler, his hour might never have arrived: this duality is a theme that runs through the entire book.
   
   If there is any flaw here, it is that Manchester includes a plethora of detail, not only about world events but in Churchill's political maneuverings. Normally, I delight in these details, if I know there is a purpose to all of it, which I did not always sense in this book. (Here a comparison with Robert Caro is instructive: you always know where he is going and why.) Others may see it differently, of course. Also, many of the historical details I already knew, so did not need Manchester's wordy introductions, but they were useful in the many cases of which I was ignorant.
   
   All in all, this is one of the most engrossing and fascinating bios I have ever read. Warmly recommended.



3. Winston Churchill was not a likable or even an admirable man.He was dishonest,childish,ruthless and disloyal.Perhaps worst of all,he was a megalomaniac-he knew that he was a Great Man,and that some day he would fulfill a magnificent destiny. But when war and catastrophe came to England he was perhaps the only politician psycholigically capable of inspiring continued resistence and defiance to Adolph Hitler and the Third Reich.Given that England had already lost the war,that was a breathtaking achievement.
   
   James Boswell's "Life of Samuel Johnson",published in 1791,is generally considered the finest biography produced in the English language.However,Manchester's work is perhaps superior. Boswell was of Johnson's world and therefore conveyed it to his reader only incidently;that is,he naturally assumed that his reader would be familiar with the things and events with which he was familiar.Manchester,writing of the past,appreciated the necessity of re-creating Churchill's world for the reader.He was brilliantly successful.The world which Churchill inhabited would have been amazing even to most of his contemporaries because of his social class.As Manchester points out,in over 90 years of life Churchill never drew his own bath;one of his relatives,visiting friends without his valet,sent down word that he was having trouble getting his toothpaste to "froth properly".He'd never applied toothpaste to a toothbrush himself.It isn't just the story of Churchill's life that is so engrossing.It is the wonderful recreation of Churchill's world,of the people he knew and the conversations he had,the events which occurred and the way that Churchill and his friends and enemies reacted to the events.
   
   As Boswell loved Johnson,Manchester worshipped Churchill.Indeed,Churchill was in some ways a lovable man.He was devoted to his wife and family(happily married for almost 60 years-how many men can say that?) He revered his father (a syphlitic,who depised him,)and he was loyal to his country and the Empire it ruled.Personally,I doubt that I'd have been able to spend more than ten minutes in a room with Churchill.But this book is one of the finest I've ever read.I was honestly sorry to read the last of its almost 900 pages and I'm opening the second volume tonight.In the forward to the second volume Manchester quotes a definition of biographer.The biographer is judged "by his ability to suggest the sweep of chronology and yet to highlight the major patterns of behavior that give a life its shape and meaning."Boswell did that. Manchester,I believe,did it better.



4. This is William Manchester at his best. This is fascinating reading and fascinating writing. Of course Winston Churchill was quite a character but to be honest I didn't know that fact until I read this book and its companion volume.
   After reading this book I put it to my mind that I would read everything that Manchester wrote. I've got a couple more to go. You can't miss with this purchase. A great story, great writing, and good history. What more could you ask for?



5. I am a little half way through the book, but it already is one of the best books I have ever read. The book deserves all the accolade. Manchester's approach to biography is a little different from many others in that he did not shy away from coloring the narrative with events that were yet to occur. He always hinted the historical significance of events in light of what happened later. I find this extremely helpful. For example: Churchill's fascination with early airplanes, his conception of tanks when dealing with a domestic riot are just two examples. These illuminated Churchill was indeed ahead of his peers in recognizing important trends.
   
   The buildup to WWI is masterful. The book weaves Churchill's struggle with the Irish Home rule question together with the naval arms race with Germany in 1913. Since we know WWI started in 1914, the realization that Churchill and the British government were struggling with a domestic problem (which surely was exploited by the German Kaiser) enhances our understanding of the immediate pre-war times.
   
   I knew the old US of A was not a world player before WWI. This book adds to that impression. Until the outbreak of the war, the US is just not on Churhill's radar: it does not show up much in his writing, travel, and speech. Yes, he did a book tour in the US, but that was before he started his political career.
   
   Can't wait to read the second half of the book.

5 comments about The Wicked Wit of Winston Churchill.

1. I am a long-time admirer of Sir Winston Churchill. As a leader he had few (if any) equals, but I have always been impressed with his sharp wit and stinging retorts. One can learn much about the man from what is found in this little book, not only from the quotes attributed to him, but also from those zingers hurled his way by friend and foe alike.
   This book is an easy read. It can be picked up for a few moments' pleasure without distracting from the greatness that is Sir Winston Churchill.



2. You do have to think about many of his quips, most are very funny in a dry, perhaps a bit cynical manner. It is sometimes difficult to place his statements in the context of WW-II (I was born in 1944 and I do have a memory of that era because it was the biggest event in my parents lives - they talked about it all the time).
   
   After a session with Mr. Churchill, I often wish American politicians had a bit of his prespective (though I reall doubt they would ever get elected).



3. 
   The wise and witty words of Winston Churchill ring throughout the 20th Century.Any that knew him personally or had anything to do with him must have waited with anticipation of hearing what he would say anytime he opened his mouth.This held true for Kings,Presidents,Generals and yes even for his family,including his grandaughter.At times, his use of silence could be as cutting
   a reply as anything he could say.No doubt, he took as much enjoyment in his words as anyone he was aiming them at.It wasn't all one way either,he seemed to love a well delivered line,even if he was the object.
   He neither claimed to be nor in fact was an'educated man',he
   was similar to Mark Twain,in that he could cut to pieces,people of much greater formal education,if they tried to engage him in 'a battle of words'.
   In his book "My Early Life" he said."It's a good thing for an
   uneducated man to read books of quotations" and described how he read "Bartlett's Quotations".It is obvious that he often used and modified others quotations.
   His friend Lord Brinkenhead quipped,"Winston has devoted the best years of his life to preparing his impromptu speeches."
   "One of Churchill's most famous speeches is that of June
   1940:'We shall fight on the beaches,we shall fight in the fields and in the streets,we shall fight in the hills...' It is said that,as he paused in the great uproar that greeted these words,Churchill muttered to a colleague next to him,'And We'll fight them with the butt ends of broken beer bottles because that's bloody well all we've got!"
   A great little book reminding us of the words of one of the great voices of the 20th Century.



4. I received this book as a birthday gift from my lovely wife. I loved this book so much I bought is twice more as a gift for a departing superior and for a friend of 10 years. Anyone who has a love of history (particularly this era) will love this book, anyone in possession of a sense of humor will appreciate this book as well.
   
   Recommended for a quick, witty read and as a gift for anyone you know with an 'off' sense of humor. We all know someone like that, are related or married to them, or publicly disavow any association with them. Regardless, buy them or yourself (ii case its you who is openly disowned) this book.



5. This relatively small book is divided into several sections with slices from Churchill's life and quotations related to politics, speaches, friends, animals, family, etc.
   
   Here are few excerpts:
   
   While campaigning in 1900, it is said that the young Churchill was doing a spot of canvassing when one of those he approached exclaimed:
   
   "Vote for you? Why, I'd rather vote for the Devil!"
   
   "I understand", Churchill answered, "But in case your friend is not running, may I count on your support?"
   
   * * *
   
   When passed a very long but turgidly written memorandum on some worthy but uninspiring subject, the elderly Prime Minister weighed the thick wad of paper in his hands and commented, "This paper by its very length defends itself against the risk of being read."
   
   * * *
   
   Churchill liked animals; sometimes he found this difficult to reconcile with his fondness for rich food. Anthony Montague Brown recalled that 'One Christmas he was about to carve a goost. Learning it was one of his own, he put down the knife and fork and said, "I could not possibly eat a bird that I have known socially."
   
   * * *
   
   A BBC broadcaster described once sitting next to Churchill as he gave a speech, keeping his audience hanging on to his every word. The boradcaster noticed, howver, that what appeared to be notes in Churchill's hand was only a laundry slip, and he later remarked upon this to Churchill. "Yes", said Churchill. "It gave confidence to my audience."

5 comments about The Wit & Wisdom of Winston Churchill.

1. Have if you're like me and have a lot of friends that don't read (but love Blue Collar Comedy Tour...) then you can start using quotes right out of this book and they will think you just came down from the mountain of knowledge and wisdom. Hey you can even use this for those fun quotes at the bottom of your email! Look how global you can become, yes you!
   
   Great book, very well organized and really a lot of fun to read. Winston Churchill was truly a clever man and would be on my top 10 list of Dudes I would like to have a Newcastle with.
   
   Robb Boyd from Cisco's TechWiseTV is number one on the beer list...



2. A delightful book. I thought the author a little too sycophantic for my taste (I am an Australian after all) but the contents are very entertaining. You can dip into it at any place and read for two minutes or two hours and have a good chuckle.



3. The book is entertaining. It's the kind of book you don't just read through, but pick it up read a few sections at a time.



4. A compact book with more than 1,000 quotations and anecdotes you can enjoy at any time.
   
   Here are just a few:
   
   Violet Asquith, the irrepressible daughter of Prime Minister Herbert Asquith, found a kindred spirit in Churchill, who served in her father's Cabinet.
   
   Once, in a flight of philosophical gloom, she turned to her dinner partner and said, "Winston, in terms of infinity, we are cosmic dust - we are just worms."
   
   "Perhaps, Violet", Churchill replied, "but I am a glowworm."
   
   * * *
   
   If "Franglais" has been only recently coined to describe the bastardizing of the French language by English words, Churchill may have been the sire of this hybrid argot. Sometimes his additions to the noble Gallic tongue were even more attrocious than his accent.
   
   During some delicate negotions at Casablanca, the stubborn Charles de Gaulle denounced an Allied plan to fuse him and his rival, French general Henri Giraud. Churchill, glaring at the Gaulle, delivered this concoction: "Si vous m'obstaclerez, je vous liquiderai!" (If you obstacle me, I will liquidate you!) A bewildered de Gaulle backed off.
   
   * * *
   
   In 1900, the twenty-six-year-old Churchill, after just being elected to Parliament, made a speaking tour of America. In Washington, he was introduced to a majestically endowed woman from Richmond, Virginia, who prided herself upon her devotion to the "lost cause of the Confederacy." Her family were Democrats who had opposed the Repubican policy of Reconstruction.
   
   Anxious that Churchill should know her sentiments, she remarked as she gave him her hand, "Mr. Churchill, you see before you a rebel who has not been Reconstructed."
   
   "Madam," he replied with a deep bow that surveyed her decolletage, "reconstruction in your case would be blasphemous."



5. In this book, James C. Humes gives his audience an excellent opportunity to conjure up a mental picture of Winston Churchill and his legacy. As a renaissance man, Churchill was more than a skilled politician and a gifted soldier. Perhaps more importantly, Churchill was a man of inspired words, whose work was ultimately crown by the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1953. Churchill often was far from politically correct and did not hesitate to say, write and do what he thought was right. Churchill's bluntness did not make him dear to everybody.

   Humes first brings to light many of the great thoughts of Churchill in "Observations and Opinions." Humes classifies key words alphabetically without giving context so that readers can easily find a quote of their liking about a specific subject. Some readers might get frustrated about it if they are not familiar with the key milestones in the life and career of Churchill. These readers can read books such as "Churchill a Life", "Churchill a Study in Greatness", "Clementine Churchill The Biography of a Marriage" or "Winston and Clementine The Personal Letters of the Churchills" to fill in the gaps in their knowledge of Churchill for that purpose.

   Humes forges ahead in a similar way in "Orations and Perorations", "Coiners of Phrases", "Saints and Sinners" and "Escapades and Encounters." In these sections, Humes is usually very good at giving his audience the context so that readers better understand where Churchill was coming from. Hours of fun and laughter are virtually guaranteed, especially in "Escapades and Encounters."

   Churchill's witticism, wisdom and oratory probably reached their climax in the faithful summer of 1940 when Britain stood alone against the Nazi monster. Churchill galvanized by his words and actions the civilized world to soldier on when the horizon seemed hopelessly bleak. As President Franklin Roosevelt said to his aide Harry Hopkins after listening to one of Churchill's radio broadcasts during that period: "As long as that old bastard is in charge, Britain will never surrender." The words of Churchill will continue to resonate for a long time in the heart and soul of humanity. Churchill's words will further shine like diamonds in the night when humanity loses hope from time to time.

5 comments about The Last Lion: Winston Spencer Churchill, Alone 1932-1940.

1. Finest biography on Churchill ever written. A pity Manchester died before completing the third book of the trilogy.



2. The Last Lion, Alone covers the history of Europe from the time Hitler first came to power in Germany to the time that Hitler invaded the Low Countries and World War II began. During this period Churchill, who continually fought against the appeasement policies of Chamberlain, rose from Back Bench irrelevance to become Brittan's Prime Minister.
   
   The history of this period is a gripping saga of one man's malicious attempt to dominate Europe and another man's noble efforts to stop him - a classical case of good vs evil - told as an almost unbelievable story in the words of a master story teller.



3. William Manchester informs and entertains in this excellent historical account of the critical years leading up to WWII, juxtaposing the appeasement practices of predecessors Baldwin and Chamberlain with the unwavering belief in the principles of freedom held by Churchill. The book (along with Manchester's first volume) gives terrific insight into the transition from the glory days of the British Empire to the Post WWI apathy that beset the British public. As well, the work provides delightful commentary on the characters surrounding Churhill's life including his colorful mother Jennie, his wife Clementine and his nemesis Adolf Hitler.



4. After the fall of France in June 1940, Winston Churchill was begging USA President Roosevelt for military aid (in fact, all sorts of support was then needed) as no one knew what would the 'fate' of the French fleet was going to be.
   Churchill kept reminding the American president that Britain would not surrender even if left alone.
   Churchill was defiant despite the fact that the two 'key' American ambassadors, in France and Great Britain, were pro Hitler (or at least they were not anti-Nazi).
   Joseph Kennedy (USA Ambassador to GB) openly cautioned his fellow Americans against entering the war because the 'allies' would soon be beaten.
   However, I would have liked to see more comments about the position and reaction of the king - king George VI.
   Was he indifferent?
   We should remember that Hitler had been addressing the King as the man whom the British Government circles have loathed, and as the only 'hope' for a reconciliation between the Third Reich and GB.
   In this context it is true that Churchill was indeed ALONE



5. I was adrift when I finished this volume.
   grasping at pathetic things to read for a while - nothing satisfied - Manchester can set the stage, his historical background is so rich that you'll find yourself spouting about it to your friends.
   
   You'll learn more from this book than a two semester course in 20th century history.
   
   Churchill himself is the lead player in a panapoly of exciting elements. But manchester never lets the reader forget the place in history - the man was a masterful writer.

5 comments about Memoirs of the Second World War (An Abridgement of the Six Volumes of the Second World War).

1. Since this book was updated, there are new facts have come out about the statistics of WWII and the roles the Allies and the Axis played in it.
   That's to be expected.
   It is one sided with Churchill at times believing in his absolute right and his problems getting his view across to the Americans and the Russians.
   At times he lays too much emphasis on the fact that Britain won the war with the "help" of the Allies. And at other times he states that without the Allies Britain would have been sunk.
   As confusing and horrible as that time was, reading another book about the American side would be also helpful as we had to fight the Japanese also and it was our POW's on the defensive there. It seems to downplay the effect the Japenese had on the war which was not trivial at all.
   
   Though he seems to describe the battle of Leyete and Midway fairly well.
   It's a good read, and it's interesting to see the other "side" of the war from a great man and you won't be sorry to read it.



2. I read this good book, here in Brazil.Among the World War II great leaders, only Churchill wrote a book about that war.
   About american eugenics , race and gender relations, there isn't a single word against or about, in this big book, with more than 1,000 pages.There's some maps inside.This book isn't only about World War II, but also about the war's roots and fruits, includind about Cold War.
   This book is very biased.The Churchill's mistakes in World War II, were enormous.About France's battle in 1940, seems that Churchill was in another planet then, not as England's leader then.Ever big Churchill's or England's failure, has almost nothing or no place at all, in this book.About war production and military weapons, there's almost nothing.
   Secrets about Colossus computer and the breaking of german Enigma code machine or "purle" japanese code,were war secrets and also had no place on this book.
   Even with so many bias and other failures, this book remains good and easy to read.



3. Winston Churchill was a man of destiny, and he came to realize that, although he seldom hints at it. Without him Western Civilization would be drastically different today, for the worse.
   
   Somehow he makes the day-to-day machinations of world governments read like a suspense novel. Yet he is concise, reserved and free from hyperbole. I think this is possible because he so clearly saw the Big Picture and knew deep down what really was at stake. The story didn't need to be enhanced for those who could understand, and those who couldn't . . . oh well.
   
   This made the early decades of the Twentieth Century come alive for me. I now feel like I lived through those times.
   
   I loved the book, and I love the man!



4. Churchill was not only a participant, but an excellent observer of this period. There are some good maps and pictures.



5. I find it indeed difficult to assess this book by Winston Churchill. I have read it with very mixed emotions. Nonetheless, I firmly believe that for any serious student of the history of World War II Winston Churchill's "Memoirs of the Second World War" is a must reading - unless he or she decides to study the full fledged, six volume, "The Second World War" itself.
   
   However, if one is to base his entire knowledge of the war on this writing alone, treating it as the history book per se, one is likely for a big disappointment. The value of this book as a source of historical facts is questionable; its value, in my view, lies in that it is the first hand, direct, presentation of the views and ideas on the war politics by one of its biggest actors. Churchill wrote himself: "This is not history, this is my case." I agree. It is, at the same time, the best source of information one can probably get on the "state of competence" of one of the "Big Three". For in this writing Winston Churchill reveals to a large degree what he himself knew, or did not know, about various aspects of the unfolding events. However, the objectivity of his writing is to a certain degree weakened by his concerns for relations with some of the other big players in World War II. The name of Dwight Eisenhower immediately comes to mind here. At the time of this book's publication Eisenhower was the president of USA. Whatever disagreements Churchill may have had with him in 1944 and 1945, and the many he had indeed, he went long ways to smooth his criticism to not in the smallest way offend his former ally and the sitting president of the country with which he practiced the policy of "Grand Alliance". That this may have distorted the whole picture seems beyond much doubt.
   
   I am in no position to evaluate Churchill's ideas and beliefs and confront them with the facts, in their entirety. Whether, for instance, his explanation of the fall of Singapore is correct or not is beyond my expertise. But on two subjects: Joseph Stalin and the Soviet Union and the so-called "Polish Question" I do have opinions of my own.
   
   We now know quite well who Joseph Stalin really was and what was the true nature of the Soviet regime in those years. From that perspective Winston Churchill's assertions about Stalin himself seem rather disconcerting. Especially so, since Churchill seem to have been reasonably well versed in matters relating to the Soviet Union and its foreign policies. Unlike many left-leaning politicians both in USA and Western Europe at the time he apparently had no illusions about the character of communist experiment in Soviet Russia. This was particularly true with regard to Stalin's foreign policies. Churchill realized Stalin was "de-facto" ally of Nazi Germany all the way until the day Hitler invaded the Soviet Union.
   
   But with the Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union on June 21, 1941, virtually overnight, this hideous man becomes Great Britain's ally in the fight against Germany. And now that Stalin was on the same side of the barricade he became more than an ally. He, in the eyes of Churchill, seemed to have transformed into a better man. Politically and morally. Churchill spares no effort to present Stalin as an extremely intelligent man, not without sense of humor, a man with whom one can reason, negotiate and settle. On several occasions Churchill underlines importance of maintaining friendly relationship with the Soviet leader as if attempting to convince the reader, and possibly himself, that personal relationship could significantly alter the outcome of negotiations. Did he believe this or was he merely trying to justify his own conduct vis-à-vis Stalin? At any rate, I do not subscribe to a notion that just because someone finds himself on the right side of a political cause - and in the case of Stalin this was not his own choice, Hitler put him there - it makes him automatically a better being. Whoever Stalin was before German invasion he retained that character afterwards. And that simple fact demanded appropriate conclusions be drawn and remembered.
   
   Poland, and "Polish Question", receives mixed treatment by Winston Churchill. It might even be more instructive to recognize what Churchill does not write about in the case of Poland than what subjects he dwells upon. The name of the general Wladyslaw Sikorski, Prime Minister and Commander in Chief of the Polish Government in Exile right from the Polish defeat in September 1939 until his death in the airplane accident in 1943 is not mentioned even once, not even in passing. And it is worth remembering that Poland was Great Britain's first, and for some time practically the only, ally in the war against Hitler right from the beginning till the very end. Not a single word is dedicated to the role of Polish airmen who fought with such distinction during the famous Battle of England. They were the heroes of the day then and Churchill knew perfectly well they were the best "scoring" fighters whose contribution to the victory was substantial if not decisive. More disturbing still is his complete silence on the subject of Katyn massacre. In April 1943 the Germans discovered mass graves in the forest of Katyn near Smolensk in then occupied Russian territory. Poles were inquiring with the Soviets since June 1941 about the faith of about 15,000 officers listed as Soviet prisoners of war only to be told they must have had "escaped to Manchuria". The German discovery of some 4,000 murdered and Sikorski's subsequent request for independent investigation by the International Red Cross was the pretexts for Stalin to break relations with the Poles and that was the beginning of all the subsequent troubles around the Polish Question. The truth of the Katyn massacre got swept under the carpet for years.
   
   It is not until the summer of 1944 when the Soviets advanced to the territories of the pre-war Poland that this subject starts looming high on the agenda. Churchill apparently then realized that Stalin had his own plans concerning Poland where creation of a subservient government toped the list. To be fair Winston Churchill deserves credit for writing (and acting at the time) extensively about the Warsaw Rising of 1944. For two months the 50,000 Home Army soldiers armed with ammunition to last for just a few days fought valiantly inflicting great casualties on the Germans while the Red Army stood on the east bank of Vistula River doing practically nothing. Churchill was sincerely horrified at Stalin's refusal not only to come to military assistance himself but even to allow the Allies' planes attempting to drop supplies to land on the Soviet airfields. Churchill desperately tried to help. But Stalin had a much different agenda and for this purpose he didn't mind to allow almost a quarter million of Varsovians to perish. Roosevelt meanwhile apparently did not care. Churchill's exasperation over this issue is clearly visible and the pages dedicated to Warsaw Rising are some of the most emotionally charged in the entire book.
   
   But it is Churchill's position on the question of new Poland's frontiers that causes most of my dismay. He openly agreed that the Soviet Union deserved additional territory at their Western frontier to boost their external security against any future threat from Germany. This was agreed in principle right from the start. It is true that in those territories ethnic Poles never constituted a majority. But that's a very poor argument. Neither Russians were a majority there. These were Belo-Russians, Ukrainians, Ormians, Jews, in short a multitude of ethnic groups who for centuries lived under the Polish-Lithuanian rule. The Russian rule they knew only since the partitions of Poland at the end of XVIII century. If anything, there would be a legitimate "border dispute", if you will, between Poland and Ukraine or Poland and Belarus. But there was not even a hypothetical question of national independence for these two nations. As it turned out, therefore, a double standard was employed: Poland was to be a one-nation, one ethnic group state while it was all right for (Soviet) Russia to be a multinational "federation". In the end Winston Churchill agreed to legalize Soviet annexation of Polish territories invaded on September 17, 1939 the basis of which was (now infamous) Molotov- Ribbentrop Secret Protocol of August 23, 1939.
   
   With everything in the book read and digested the final impression of this, no doubt very remarkable, statesman I get, is one of a man visionary at times, perseverant, man often times of principle and yet also of a man who for the purpose of "higher good" would bend or re-interpret the facts falling victim to illusions. The same man who so forcefully condemned policies of appeasement towards Germany up until Munich agreements of 1938 would practice his own appeasement policies towards Stalin later on, clearly as a result of his own fallacies about the character of Joseph Stalin and the nature of the Soviet system. But this very same man retained the ability to disillusion himself and change own stands thus proving quite remarkable degree of intellectual and political flexibility. Unfortunately for him, as well as for the world, it is rarely sufficient to change ones mind. For if the circumstances have also changed it is usually too late. It was another matter to exact certain commitments from Stalin when the outcome of the struggle with Hitler's Germany was up in the air, quite another when Stalin's armies were approaching Vistula river. There clearly was a chance to block aggressiveness of the Soviet Union and prevent Iron Curtain from descending upon Central Europe and spare the Europe and the world Cold War - if both Churchill and Roosevelt acted firmly early on. But the many illusions about the man and the system they dealt with and lack of sufficient foresight, prevented them from achieving desirable political arrangements, namely independence of Poland and other Central European countries, something that soon afterwards became to haunt the Western Democracies for nearly half the century.
   
   While Churchill as a politician remains controversial, Churchill as a writer, and his book, fall very close to being a masterpiece. Rich, eloquent language, clarity of point, all-in-all good balance between detail and generality and, above all, passion with which he writes about subjects he was so intimately involved with - make for terrific reading experience. If not for the certain obstructions in his "pursuit of truth", the want not to offend then still living former allies and the apparent want to justify own conduct, that all resulted in certain distortion of the picture, I would give the book highest score of 5 stars.

5 comments about The Last Lion: Winston Spencer Churchill: Visions of Glory, 1874-1932.

1. yeas the most popular book on sir winston but mistakes are in it and volume three will appear after a 20 years break .



2. The finest biography of Churchill (and one of the best biographies of anyone else) ever written. Manchester is unequaled in providing a balanced, thorough and readable product. Only down side is that he died before completing the third and final book on Churchill.



3. This is a very good analysis of Churchill, a thorough and colorfull portrait of a man I consider to be the greatest man of the 20th century. I have only two complaints, first I would have liked to have known more about his life with his wife and children. I also would have liked to have known what he thought of the Lusitania sinking. Not only does Manchester say nothing about Churchill's role in this business but the word Lusitania is not mentioned at all in nearly 2000 pages. Very strange. The letters of Churchill point out the chivalrousness and romantic nature that the public has not seen. All in all - very good and well worth a good read.



4. William Manchester is a tremendous writer. A man like Churchill deserved to have his biography writted by a writer as gifted as him.
   I highly recommend this book to anyone wanting, not only to learn much about the great man Churchill, but also to have their mind expanded and stretched by excellent literature like this. There are not many people writing like this today, sadly enough.
   This is not an easy read, in fact most people will do well to have a dictionary near by - but it is worth it. Drink deeply and you will learn so much more than you would have thought possible about the world from the late 19th century up through WWII.
   Drink it up! 6 stars.



5. This fully lives up to its reputation as perhaps the best biography ever written. Manchester does a peerless, masterful job filling in the background colors and giving a complete picture of Churchill from a young man into his early fifties. As Manchester emphasizes, this background was essentially the decline and fall of the British Empire and the aristocracy who ran it. Manchester's main point, that Churchill was a Victorian who also lived in the twentieth century, is brilliantly made. Churchill himself is presented in all his perplexing, influriating splendor: an impetuous, charming, ambitious genius who all too often jumped out of the plane without a parachute. If you wish to know why he was rejected by the British people at the polls just after his greatest triumph (and job done) this fascinating volume of his early triumphs and memorable failures is indispensible (answer: they needed his boistrous energy in war but they didn't trust him in peace

5 comments about Churchill on Leadership: Executive Success in the Face of Adversity.

1. Although Sir Winston's leadership skills manifested themselves in the military realm, his skills can easily be transferred to the business/ private sectors. The author used great examples and wonderful quotes to convey his message. His method of ending each chapter by focusing on the leadership skills discussed in the chapter was very helpful. I do not normally read this type of book, but I enjoyed it thoroughly and found some of the skills applicable even to me, a Management Analyst. Of course with the subject being Sir Winston, how can one go wrong.



2. I have been a manager for over 10 years, and have worked in different industries and different countries. And I gladly admit I still have a lot to learn concerning management. This book talks about concepts we know we should all be applying, such as learning from mistakes, responsibility and organization, attention to details as well as to a master plan, communication, etc. However understanding how Churchill put these concepts to work is fascinating. I did not know that much about Churchill in the first place, perhaps that is why I enjoyed the book so much. It is a nice change from CEOs' biographies. And yes, I am putting some of what I read to work, so it was worth my time and money !



3. I read this book without having known anything about Chruchill, as a lesson on leadership under stress. I learned a lot, but I also became very interested in the man. He is fasinating and very brave. I'm very gald I read this book.

   The main idea is to study how Churchill made his leadership decicions, and what the reason for that decision was. It's an informative study of the man, and even funny at times. It's always entertaining, but somewhat short of a great story (so 4 stars).

   By all means read this book. It's a great way to begin to learn about Churchill, aside from the 3 or 6 volume works available at the bookstore. It's also a good study on decision making based on principles and honest living, strength, and forward thinking. There are good lessons here as well a good reading. I recommend it highly.




4. I just completed this book yesterday and I must confess if it was any longer I might not have. While it was mildly entertaining, it contains little that is new or particularly informative. The book generally repackages concepts that are written elsewhere and ties them to passages in Churchill's life. Many of the comparisons seem strained. In fact, comparing Churchill's almost single-handed stand aginst tyranny with normal business competition, seems inappropriate and a little silly. It's probably fair to say that the book contains a few kernals of wisdom which would be helpful to anyone in business, or otherwise. These kernals are relatively simple and (it seems to me) obvious. It begs the question, Why, exactly, do we need a book such as this? The people most apt to pick-up the book in the first place are those who already have a more than passing affinity for Churchill. If so, those people will likely have read books which are more informative, historically significant, insightful and generally worthwhile. If this is your first introduction to Churchill, do not let it be your last. Overall, I think there are much better uses for all of our valuable time.



5. As a longtime fan of Churchill, and in a position of leadership in a commercial environment, the book appeared to be excellant vacation reading. Well it was but only from the 'fan' position. The author sets out with good intentions and early in the book he relates Churchill ways back into the context of today's executive's environment. But, by the middle, and then thereafter, he's lost his way and it becomes a bit idol worshipping with no real relevance to application to today's leadership 'student'. At times Mr Hayward really is squeezing the pips to show Winston as a model to follow - I've suggested dictation from my bathtub but so far my secretary hasn't picked up on the idea. If you want to understand Churchill it's a good read. If it's leadership you want you'll have to browse further.

5 comments about The Last Lion: Winston Spencer Churchill: Alone, 1932-1940.

1. A frightening story with a redoubtable yet all too human hero who prevails. There are even evil and bumbling villains along the way during this shameful period. The Last Lion should be required reading for politicans and world history students. William Manchester does a masterful, well researched [and entertaining] job of describing the inspirational leader of the Free World.



2. There are two volumn of "The Last Lion" and both are them are an excellent history of not only one of Great Britain's finest statesman of the 20th century, but one of the World greatest statesman, historian, and many have said "the man of the 20th Century" And after reading these two volumns one might have to agreee with the historians.
   Congtributed by Hurdrey Angus Jordan



3. This book was given to me by my father, who is a huge fan of Winston. I was absolutely shocked and amazed by the information that this book brought to light. I was taught, so little about WWII! I was amazed. I savored this book. I would recommend and have recommended this book to anyone, who would listen. Prepare to be amazed by the man and confronted with the real realities of Britain before and during the first declarations of war.



4. For some inexplicable reason, the second (and unfortunately final) volume of William Manchester's biography sat on my shelf unread for some time. I think because the book spans the years 1932 to 1940 -- and does not cover most of World War II -- I skipped the book over, figuring that Winston's best and most important years were his war years. After reading "Alone", I realized immediately how wrong I was: if anything, Manchester's incredible book demonstrates that Churchill's so-called "wilderness years" out of power were his finest hour. Unquestionably, Churchill provided resolute leadership to Great Britain -- as well as the rest of the Allied world -- during the War. But he perhaps demonstrated even greater leadership while out of power, when he was quite literally the only European statesman who was repeatedly warning the world of the dangers of Nazi Germany and calling for rearmament to stand up to Hitler. Thus, "Alone" is not just about Churchill and his greatness, but also a powerful historical record of the dangers of appeasement in the face of tyrants.
   
   This book goes beyond being a simple historical biography. Manchester's writing is delightful and seamless, literally depositing you into Churchill's time and Churchill's life. It maintains and builds a tenseness throughout the book as the world moves closer and closer to war despite Churchill's warnings, which if heeded, could have averted the conflict many times over. The work is meticulously researched and crafted, and flows perfectly. Perhaps most of all, reflective of the title, Manchester captures how completely and totally alone Churchill was during the 1930s. Aside from a very small coterie of loyal friends, Churchill alone rose in opposition to appeasement in the House of Commons and elsewhere hundreds of times as Hitler consolidated his power, practically begging his nation's leadership to stand up to the Fuhrer.
   
   I suppose that one sign of a great work is that it moves you in some way, and evokes great emotion as you read it. The most striking asset of this book is how angry, shocked, and prideful I was as I read it. I shook my head in disgust at least 100 times as I read Manchester's descriptions of the putrid, almost treasonous behavior by Prime Ministers John MacDonald, Stanley Baldwin, and of course Neville Chamberlain as they repeatedly ignored Churchill's warnings and countless pieces of evidence showing that Hitler would not be appeased. Manchester's sections on the Munich Crisis and Britain and France's literal sacrifice of Czechoslovakia to the Nazis is particularly noteworthy; the Chamberlain government literally served the nearly defenseless nation on a platter to the German war machine despite a pledge from the British to defend them if invaded. Much of the book in fact summarizes the folly of His Majesty's Government's appeasement policy, and Churchill's many warnings against the policy. Fascinatingly, appeasement was heartily endorsed by nearly the entire British media establishment, which repeatedly refused to air Churchill's views and other dissenting voices. Indeed, as Manchester well demonstrates, the government and media literally crafted its policies and made important appointments, with pleasing Hitler being the sole objective. While hindsight is of course 20-20, reading these sections was completely maddening to me, and made me want to scream many times over.
   
   I hesitated writing a review of this book because I know it is impossible to do full justice to Manchester and this fantastic book. I just wanted to express how much I enjoyed the book; it completely lives up to its reputation as perhaps the finest Churchill biography and easily the most accessible. I, like millions of other readers, am greatly saddened that illness and other tragedies kept Manchester from completing the final volume of his intended trilogy. Treat yourself to this book: it will give you greater appreciation of Winston Churchill's greatness, courage, and foresight, and probably an even greater hatred of appeasement and diplomatic cowardice.
   
   Five big stars.



5. This was the first William Manchester book that I ever read. I found it inspiring. After reading it, I promised myself that I would read everything that Manchester has written. To date I've read several but I still have a few to go. Mr. Manchester is another one of those historians that makes studying and learning History easy. I had no idea what a character Winston Churchill really was. Manchester recreates a real true to life human being, with faults, idiocincracies, humor, courage, and some great phrasing. After reading both volumes of Manchester's on Churchill, I then wanted to read Churchill himself. From a writing perspective Churchill was great - but Manchester was better. Today I am a fan of both men. They were both heroic in their lives and fascinating in their prose.

5 comments about Churchill: A Life.

1. There are biographies and then there are biographies! This is one of those that belong on that lofty summit above those that try to ascend to such heights but fail miserably because they are either rather dull bios about rather dull people or the biographer is simply not up to the task. Martin Gilbert is most definitely up to the task and more.
   
   This is an abridgment of the eight-volume edition written by Winston Churchill's official biographer Sir Martin Gilbert. I was rather reluctant to buy it because it looked rather daunting being 959 pages long but wanting to know more about Sir Winston Churchill my curiosity finally got the better of me. Not only did this book reveal things about Sir Winston that I did and did not know but also the author's prose and vocabulary made this an absolute pleasure to read. I was very reluctant to finish this book simply because I wanted more to read. If you don't know much about Winston Churchill then this is the book to get. Even if you do know quite a bit about Sir Winston Churchill I'm sure you'll find a few things in here that you may not have known. If you are looking for bios that are well written, or any book that is, then this is one for you. Buy it and enjoy!



2. Even the most historically illiterate students are familiar with the role Winston Churchill played in the victory over Nazi Germany. Unfortunately, many students of history remain uninformed of the true breadth and scope of his life. This work, a condensation of Martin Gilbert's earlier two volume history, is an excellent antidote for such ignorance.
   
   It is no exaggeration to credit Winston Churchill for the survival of England in the years between the fall of France and the U.S. entry in the conflict with Germany and Japan. Such was the lingering horror of the events of World War I, that Churchill was virtually alone in fighting the appeasement policies of his own government which contributed to the early success of Nazi Germany.
   
   But, it should be noted that Winston Churchill was in his mid-60s when he became Prime Minister of a coalition government formed to prosecute the war with the Axis powers. He already had 40 years of parliamentary service under his belt, stints as First Lord of the Admiralty during World War I (where he presided over the disastrous Gallipoli campaign) and Chancellor of the Exchequer, service in the trenches of World War I as well as the Boer War and the Sudan campaign, time as both a war correspondent and published author.
   
   Despite this nearly unprecedented scope of accomplishments, were it not for the rise of Nazi Germany and Adolph Hitler, he would be virtually unknown outside the realm of British historians. For, as great protagonists and great events are required to bring out the greatness of our heroes (Grant needed Lee, Caesar, Pompeii), none is a better example of this than Winston Churchill.
   
   Were it not for Adolph Hitler, Churchill would have likely served out his later parliamentary years as little more than a back bench Conservative crank, labeled as a warmonger and kept on the fringes of party politics. Even in the months preceding the invasion of Poland, Churchill was kept outside of the Cabinet of his own party's government. He was never neatly pigeonholed in the existing English party system. It was only the formation of a coalition government that allowed his ascension to the Prime Ministership. As it was, the perfect combination of personalities and events allowed Churchill to achieve greatness on a historical scale. It is no accident that almost immediately following successful conclusion of the war, Churchill and the Conservative party were bounced from power by the Labour Party, only to be returned to face the Soviet Union in the early stages of the Cold War. Churchill was a "crisis" manager and ill suited for periods of peace and tranquility.
   
   As a man in his late 60s and early 70s, Churchill displayed an endurance and a level of accomplishments nearly unprecedented in human history. Consider that he likely logged more miles of travel (both in the air and on sea, during a time of great danger for each) and wrote and published more works of literature than nearly anyone else alive during a period when he was quite literally standing alone in what was almost a personal fight for the continued existence of the British Empire. The catalog of heart attacks and strokes suffered and recovered from are a source of absolute amazement
   
   Now, it is a common failing of many biographers to enhance the accomplishments and gloss over he failings of their subjects, and I doubt not that Gilbert has done so here. However, the historical record is quite clear and Churchill's life and accomplishments are well documented. His love of the grog is rarely mentioned, though it was obviously a personal vice which he passed on to his children. His relationship with his wife seems quite unusual, though perhaps not so in the context of Victorian and early 20th century upper class English society.
   
   Gilbert's writing style consists almost entirely of reference to and quotation from letters, diary entries and other correspondence to, from and about Churchill. While this would seem to create a work both choppy and halting, it is quite the opposite. Gilbert does a masterful job splicing these observations into historical events and produces a smoothly flowing and captivating narrative which should be required reading for any serious student of modern history.



3. If you are new to Churchill - this is the book to buy - its in paperback which is a drawback, however the skill Sir Martin has put into this compliation and chronology of his works on Churchill make this one to read, have and use for study.
   
   It has many quotes and not all from Churchill along with some amazing photos.



4. If you like Churchill and would like to know a on of info about him, more then just clever and witty quotes, then this is the book for you! Great book!!



5. An excellent biography of a most fantastic life. The book gives a very good outline of all major events in Churchill's life as an officer, a journalist, an author and above all: maybe the most important politician in Western Europe ever.
   
   Churchill's early years, at school and in wars in India, Cuba, Sudan and South Africa are well covered. His career as a Member of Parliament, as well as Cabinet positions up to WWI are also very interesting. Churchill had very modern reflections on the principles of welfare states in 1905, which caused him to leave the Conservatives for the Liberals.
   
   Churchill's finest hour is of course his early (from 1932) and consistent warning about German rearmament before WWII, and his leadership as British Prime Minister from 1940. The book's finest hour, in my opinion, is the last chapters. After the war, Churchill is 70 years old. His health is quite bad. He refuses to give in, and clings to power. From time to time, he decides to quit, but every time changes his mind. Just like the rest of us.
   
   The book has some serious flaws. Churchill made many mistakes during the interwar years, but Gilbert runs to his defence at every one. One example: Churchill took a major stance against Indian independence. According to Gilbert, this was because Churchill was concerned about the minorities of the sub-continent.
   
   Read and enjoy the book, as long as you are aware that Gilbert has done what many other biographers have done before him: fallen in love with his object.