5 comments about The Lion and the Unicorn: Gladstone vs. Disraeli.

1. The overall style of writing was quite interesting and kept the pages turning. A look at the two of these very powerful men in a side by side comparison has been a long time in waiting, but the reader could benefit from more information about the period. Mr. Aldous does a commendable job of sticking with his thesis (the relationship of Disraeli and Gladstone), though it seems to be to the detriment of overall content.
   
   This book is for the veteran student of this period in history. The author assumes the reader already knows the basics of the period and of each character outside of their relationship - and rightfully so, because that is his intended audience. Early on he tells his audience of the volumes upon volumes already written on those subjects.
   
   The Lion and the Unicorn is not an absolute necessity for anyone adding this period to their knowledge base, but it is an entertaining and interesting bonus.



2. I thoroughly enjoyed this book! It read as easily as a novel. I wasn't familiar with parliamentary politics before reading this book, but that didn't get in the way of the drama of forming governments, jockeying for position, and all the other ins and outs of the Gladstone-Disraeli rivalry. Aldous takes the approach that the reader knows almost nothing about the issues and explains them from teh bottom up.
   
   If you have any interest in reading about the inner workings of the British Empire during the 1800's, this is a great read for you.



3. Aldous' accessible, colorful account of the decades-long rivalry between the two pre-eminent British politicians of the 19th century will confound those comfortable with the popular ideological stereotypes of today. Disraeli, the founder of the modern Conservative party, employed wit and mockery in a manner more reminiscent of a modern, smart-aleck liberal, while the Liberal Gladstone married his high-minded social-reformer's agenda to a dour Evangelical outlook. Both men's strengths and weaknesses are on full display, and Aldous succeeds in avoiding the temptation to pick a favorite, though I have to admit that Disraeli seems to have been a far more likable individual (provided that you weren't pierced by a strike from his rapier tongue, that is). Together, the two men helped shepherd Britain through a demanding time and left the nation and Empire stronger, no matter that they loathed one another. If this fine book proves anything, it demonstrates that severe partisanship doesn't inevitably end in wholesale cultural destruction - a good thing to remember as the 2008 Presidential race percolates.



4. This is a masterful book about two flawed but fascinating giants of British history. The story sets a fast pace through decades of political rivalry and extravagant backbiting between Gladstone and Disraeli, while also giving us well-rounded and reasonably sympathetic views of their personal lives. The author has chosen an episodic approach to telling his story, using set-piece events to move the narrative along and bring the protagonists into focus against the political world they dominated in the second half of the 19th century. In the end, it's obvious the author admires and enjoys Disraeli somewhat more than Gladstone, but then again, it's easy to see why: Disraeli is the seductive and magical unicorn to Gladstone's priggish (and yet perverse...) old lion. The writing is beautiful and tight and the storyline is perfectly paced. I sometimes finish a book, put it down and breathe a sigh of relief: I finished this book and wished for more. Well done!



5. The Lion and the Unicorn is an interesting discussion of the decades-old rivalry between Benjamin Disraeli and William Gladstone in nineteenth century Britain. What struck me most, though, was the way it seemed to limit the discussion to domestic matters. Maybe Disraeli and Gladstone never bashed each other over their respective heads about India, Africa, the rest of Europe, the American Civil War, or the Suez Canal, but I doubt that they totally omitted these arenas from their rivalry, either. According to the book, all of their activities seemed to be limited to tariffs, income taxes, and voters' rights issues, mixed in with occasional dealings with Ireland. And there is much more discussion of Gladstone's penchant for prostitutes than there is of any matters that extended beyond the borders of England.
   
   The author mentions the fact that Queen Victoria strongly preferred Disraeli over Gladstone, but never really explains why. I suspect that it had much to do with how they handled issues that involved foreign policy, but it's hard to tell from reading this book. Or maybe I just missed the explanation.
   
   It is an interesting book, but probably a lot less interesting than it could have been.

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

1. This book is very well crafted. I especially like the section on "Churchill The Inventor And Innovator." Hayward's well researched book synthesizes so much of what was the essence of Churchill's leadership foundation (not just his style.)My sense is this book is best for the business (or govt) leader (or soon to be leader) eager to understand some of the less obvious leadership fundamentals of WSC's leadership evolution. By pulling from diverse references over time, Hayward displays a leadership trajectory, and perspective absent in so many leadership books. Also, great insights as to how WSC was able to get opposing constituencies to work together on a variety of issues. A great investment if your career has a leadership component to it!



2. 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.



3. 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 !



4. 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.




5. 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 comments about Forty Ways to Look at Winston Churchill: A Brief Account of a Long Life.

1. Finally, someone wrote a biography of Churchill that didn't require a 6 month commitment. I have always wanted to read a biography of Churchill but they were all soooo darn long. Gilbert, Manchester, Jenkins.....the shortest is over 1 million pages long!!! (Okay, a bit of an exaggeration). 40 Ways to Look at Winston Churchill is the first Churchill biography to come along that can be read without having to quit your job to finish it. The format is unique and enjoyable. 40 very brief chapters that each cover his life from a different angle. The book is also an enlightening exposition on the biography genre itself. It was a very easy read. Many reviewers have complained that it is disjointed, superficial, gimmicky, repetitive, and/or self-contradictory. Some of those points are valid. I'll briefly address these one by one:
   1)Disjointed: Necessary given the format
   2)Superficial: Okay, then go read one of the 1000+ pagers.
   3)Gimmicky: I rather like the "40 ways" format
   4)Repetitive: True. That's why I gave 4 stars instead of 5
   5)Self-contradictory: This is deliberately done to show how the same set of facts can yield entirely opposing conclusions. I think this is one of the book's best attributes. It doesn't arrive at artificially certain conclusions like other biographies tend to do. True to its title, it shows the different ways to look at his life (he's a drunk/he's not a drunk, he was a natural leader/he wasn't, etc).
   
   In short, you may be disappointed if you re a Churchill buff but I recommend it if you just want a taste of who he was. It's an entertaining, well-written, easy to read book (if not comprehensive).



2. I was well on my way to reading "everything" about and by Churchill by the time I came across this wise and wholly admirable book. The magnitude of Churchill's life and times, and the tragic figure he cut--tragic in the full Greek sense of all that is necessary to constitute true tragedy--can create among some people an almost insatiable appetite for details. I would have to be counted among them. Frankly, I thought this book might make an interesting "snack" between the stack of Churchill books I'd just read and the stack I was about to. Instead I found that 40 ways... was a full course meal. What the author has accomplished is much more substantial than I would have thought possible in such a slim (for Churchill anyway) volume. You recognize that an individual's greatest strength must necessarily be the source of their greatness weakness, a self portrait reflected in a double edged sword, so to speak. I was impressed by the case she made that the times he lived in floodlight these strengths and weaknesses to further define him, and because there was greatness in Churchill, to help define the very times in which he lived.
   
   I was perhaps skeptical that this reduction and summation, pro/con approach would prove to be "gimmicky" or perhaps a shortcut to a more scholarly undertaking. Now I feel that the "gimmick" was instead an apt and inspired construct for examining an enormously complex thing. (It's a methodology that would be useful to apply to FDR, among others). To Rubin's credit she hasn't used this format to avoid judgment, but to elongate the period of consideration before judgment. I've read enough about the man to have done very well on the true/false test, but I still spent a long time pondering the several questions I got wrong. The test reminded me again that the complexities of his life are almost beyond my ability to assimilate them. Hence the fascination I suppose.
   
   Some years ago I was very impressed and moved by a biography of Brahms written by Jan Swafford. Swafford makes the point early that Brahms had been very fortune in both the timeframe he was borne into and in the timeframe of his death. Swafford's take was that the music world of Vienna changed immensely after 1897 and it had been Brahms' good fortune not to live to see it. I was struck at the time by looking at lives that way and Rubin makes a similar and equally valid point about Churchill in her book. He was unlucky to have outlived his time and was in a sense victimized by the nearly indestructible constitution that had served his so well for the first 70 years. There is no shortage of first-hand accounts of Churchill's flirtations with real danger. He was well aware of the historical advantage he might have had if he perished under heroic circumstances. He also enjoyed the adrenal rush these occasions afforded him. Of these accounts, none is better than the biography of his personal bodyguard of approximately twenty years, Walter Thompson, "Beside the Bulldog". More on his book at the close.*
   
   
   I noted with special interest the author's mediation on the subjectivity of biographers and the essential criteria she establishs for evaluating a life. Her comments on Manchester's "knowing insight" into a single photo of Churchill's mother illustrate the need for caution before you make a commitment to a particular version of Churchill's story and the thousands of pages that may go with it. Rubin has done a service to readers and biographers both, clarified the task for writers to come and possibly even established some ground rules. While the sales numbers for this book (and I've no idea what they are) may not suggest broad influence, I'm confident that the methodology used will have larger ramifications for a future generation of biographers. Would-be great writers long for a subject through which they can imbue their own greatness. This process of subverting one large ego for the other, a process that can subsume many years of the writer's life is full of temptations and seduction. It's almost inevitably that the writer's own feelings influence what gets exposed and what gets tidied up. The end product edges towards a symbiosis of the subject's life and the particular aspects of that life that speak to the author's own experience and or fascinations. By comparison, Rubin's approach in this book feels free of artifice. It's the case where not spending a dozen years of your life on a single project is actually a good thing, not just for the author but for the book as well.
   
   (For Churchill fans, my favorite first-hand account of his life is Walter Thompson's (to be re-released in print in late 2007). If you haven't read this former Scotland Yard detectives' account of the near twenty years he spent by Churchill's side than you have missed a great treat, for nowhere else does Churchill live and breathe as tangibly as in these pages.
   
   Thompson joined up with Churchill around 1918 and stayed with him through the end of WW 2. There were some years during the 1930's that Thompson was assigned elsewhere, but he did accompany Churchill to the US during the Al Capone years of the 1930's and was there when Churchill was hit by a car crossing against traffic in NYC. He was by Churchill's side during many of the secret FDR meetings, on ship and at The White House for Christmas. His take on things goes a long way towards answering many of the questions your book raises, though of course, Thompson hide things as well, both about Churchill, himself and the harsh treatment he received from Mrs. Churchill, who resented his constant presence to the extent that she frequently refused to feed Thompson while assuring her husband that arrangements had been made for him. Thompson's take on FDR, though only a small part of this book will interest historians. Thompson's displays a vivid command of the language, considerable wit, and more uniquely, he conveys an unusually keen sense of place. Marry those talents with his genius for sketching characters with deft precision and you get a compelling book. The panorama of Egypt, Morocco and the Gaza Strip, (eerily unchanged) circa 1920 are but a few locations that unfold before the eye. Add laying bricks next to Churchill at Chartwell, carrying Churchill's paintings materials throughout the world, (most notably in Marrakech and France), meeting Mussolini, dodging shrapnel on rooftops during the blitz and Thompson's fascinating and very favorable account of T.E. Lawrence (which led me to The Seven Pillars of Wisdom)and you've got an account unlike any other. The book Churchill's Bodyguard by Thomas Hickman will be re-released this fall. He substitutes Thompson's exceptional prose with his own dry and rather academic voice and while Hickman's account fills in the storyline for Thompson's own complicated life, it's not a substitute for the original).



3. I bought this book while I was writing a book of my own in which Churchill is a central figure. I wanted new insights on the man, and listening to the author on a radio talk show, I thought she might be able to provide those for me. I was sadly disappointed when I started reading the book.
   
   The title comes from the fact that Rubin offers 40 exceptionally brief chapters (3 to 5 pages in length) that offer a different "perspective" on Churchill. The idea probably sound very good and innovative as a book proposal, but it is such a shallow account that the reader can be excused for feeling deceived. Chapter three is nothing more than a listing of people Churchill met during his life. Chapter fourteen is nothing other than a listing of facts about the man in bullet format. Each chapter as three complete sentences. Another chapter is a collection of quotes from him and another about him.
   
   I spent good hard earned money on this book, if you choose to read this book I suggest you borrow it from the library instead.



4. This book is a good way to get a fresh look (forty of them) at Churchill, but not a good way to approach him if you are starting from scratch. It's not a conventional biography - read at least an encyclopedia article first. The author captures different angles of his life in each chapter, using a variety of techniques. I found it an engaging read and recommend it to anyone who wants to think about Churchill or sort the facts in one's head. I won't spoil what I thought was the most interesting way to look at Churchill suggested by Rubin...



5. It is the lot of great men and women to be entombed in biographies the size of the Lenin Mausoleum. And when sub-biographers turn their hand to popularizations one gets, well, sub-biography; the standard judgments taken from the big biographies but in too brief a compass to give the reader much sense of the subject of the biography beyond the biographer's predilections. One way out is through a cutaway like John Lukacs' superb Five Days in London. Another is through the lens of a skilled and constantly shifting pararazza like Gretchen Rubin, who excels in delivering a biographical portrait that is digestible for those with less than Proustian appetites for bulk, but is very far from a "popular" biography.
   
   Someone has distinguished between the simplicity that lies this side of complexity, and the simplicity on the far side. I'm in no doubt where Forty Ways to look at Winston Churchill is to be found.
   
   Nigel Cameron

5 comments about Winston Churchill: A Life (Penguin Lives).

1. I've never been a big fan of Winston Churchill, but after reading esteemed historian John Keegan's succinct biography of the man, I must say that I like AND respect him just a little bit more. Keegan himself confesses that he never thought much of old Winston until he stumbled across an old recording of his speeches (in NYC of all places) and realized what a gifted and inspirational orator and leader he was. He led his beloved Britain through her darkest hours in modern history, to a victory that was anything but assured. The people seemed to genuinely love him, and his sentiment was seemingly mutual.
   
   His years as Prime Minister during WW2 are the most well known, but Churchill led an amazingly full life, and his life of public service began way back in the late 19th century. Keegan describes how the young Winston, who did poorly in school, but had an undeniable intelligence, educated himself in politics, history and the English Classics. He was a romantic who was in love with his small island nation, and he dedicated his life to it. He was a brave soldier who served in numerous wars, including WW1, and while it would be fair to say he was a little too fond of war, he was no different from the average English officer of the time in this regard. In my eyes, his major fault was his hypocrisy. It just seems hard to reconcile his staunch imperialism with his constant talk about the virtues of freedom and liberty, and how Britain was the main proponent of such things. I would have liked for Keegan to address this point a bit more, but for such a short biography, I can let it slide.
   
   I was intrigued to learn that Churchill and IRA founder Michael Collins were on friendly terms and greatly admired each other. In fact, Churchill apparently had a "gut sympathy for fighters" which is why he had more respect for the Irish and Boers of South Africa than he did for Ghandi and his passive movement in India.
   
   Anyways, the book is extremely well written and entertaining, and I found it to be an overall excellent introduction to the life of one of the most important figures of the 20th century. 4.5 stars.



2. In 1895 when his father died, the sickly and indifferent 21-year-old military cadet Winston Churchill was flat broke, the legacy of a father who was a compulsively extravagent wastrel.
   
   Lord Randolph had been syphilitic since early youth. His mother, American-born Jennie Jerome whose father was a stockbroker and part-owner of 'The New York Times', was always attracted to men other than her husband or her sons (Winston, born 1874, and John Spencer, born 1880). In modern terms, they were trailer trash; in Phoenix, Sheriff Joe would have set aside a bunk in his tent-city jail for Winston.
   
   But, instead of slums, Winston was born and brought up in Blenheim Palace, built 1704-22 and still one of the great estates of England. American ex-presidents get palatial libraries as their memorials; the British rewarded their leaders with mansions and great estates. Blenheim Palace was one of the finest, far better than the estates later awarded to Nelson and Wellington.
   
   Perhaps it was the milieu of Blenheim Palace, but Churchill matured into a man absolutely convinced of the majesty of the British virtues of patriotism, loyalty, courage and fair play. For him, being British meant manliness, courage, tenacity and ultimate moral decency. It resonated with the vigorous American spirit of Theodore Roosevelt and the beauty of the strenuous life.
   
   President George Bush is reported to keep a bust of Churchill in the Oval Office; perhaps as a reminder of the complete contrast to himself. Bush ducked the Vietnam War in the Texas Country Club Air Guard; Churchill eagerly sought war, even though he hated it.
   
   Like Ulysses S. Grant, Churchill was a gifted wordsmith instead of a stumblebum. He free-lanced as a journalist while serving as a British officer and was sometimes earning 20 times his military pay. He never stopped learning, he wanted facts, order, reason. His mother sent him crates of books while he was on duty, and he devoured them all.
   
   Gen. Sir Herbert Kitchener described him as a "medal-hunter" and "self-advertiser" who was "super-precocious" and "insufferably bumptious." It was a good assessment. But, the public loved his books and even the Prince of Wales praised him. Whatever one thinks of Churchill, his career and successes are due to his own effort, intelligence, work and nerve.
   
   In brief, this is the story of a man who might well have ended up as a Soho souse, but instead became the greatest man of the past century. He did it through his own efforts, not because of Daddy's friends, money or ability to pull strings.
   
   This book defines the character of a great man.



3. Doubtless this biography is insufficient to really understand Churchill, but for those who are fairly ignorant of the man, it provides a useful quick sketch, and perhaps a jumping off point for further reading.



4. Let me make clear at the outset that I am no historian. Indeed, I wouldn't even qualify as an amateur historian. I am just your average 30-something fairly ignorant reader living a period of love for more or less recent history. Given this premise, I found this little book quite perfect for what I was looking for.
   
   This is a short, entertaining, and VERY well written biography of one of the greatest men in the 20th century. Because of the serious limits of my knowledge on the subject, I certainly cannot judge on the accuracy of the reports. However, to the best of my knowledge, the author is considered a reputable WWII historian. Indeed I liked this book so much that I also purchased his history of WWII. You can read this book in a day, and it will entertain you like a good novel, while also informing you as few novels would do.
   
   I would not pay too much attention to those reviewers that complain about this book not delving into Churchill's shortcomings as a man or as a politician. This is a very small book, about 190 small-format pages. You can hardly expect a comprehensive treatise from such a book. Also, I suspect that emphasizing Churchill's shortcomings would be like emphasizing Hitler's moments of tenderness with his lovers or with some German children during the Nazi regime. I mean, they surely happened, but it's not what you want to spend pages on, if you have only limited space to devote to the topic, isn't it? Besides, even if the Churchill that emerges from this book is certainly a truly great man, he does not emerge as a perfect great man. To me that was enough, and I am glad I read this book.
   
   I am grateful to the author, and I highly recommend it to anyone looking for a short, beautifully written biography of this man, to whom I certainly owe something...



5. Publisher's Weekly is entirely mistaken, in their comments above, in suggesting that Sir Winston Churchill once belonged to the Labour Party.
   
   He never did, of course.
   
   Churchill did, however, cross the floor to join the Liberal Party, often making common cause there with his Liberal ally David Lloyd George. He left the Liberals and returned to the Conservative Party (at first, as a "Constitutionalist") in the 1920's...
   
   Alan D. Hyde

5 comments about Churchill.

1. I didn't finish this book. Jenkins just throws his note cards at the hapless reader. The editor was awol. Stick with Gilbert. Alternatively, start with Manchester's unfinished bio (to 1940) & then switch to Churchill's memoirs.



2. This is too long - all biographers should read and learn from Lytton Strachey.
   
   But Churchill's life was so over the top that its nevertheless an enjoyable read; more so with two provisos:
   
   1. You have to be at least constructively disposed to Winston. Better still if you downright adore him, as Roy plainly does.
   
   2. The most lovingly recounted incidents are those that took place in and around parliamentary life, the life that Roy Jenkins himself knew best. Its very, very well told, but if you didn't happen to be an MP yourself you might find it a little too detailed, in the sense that what others might consider to be the main story seems to be lost sight of, sometimes.



3. For several years I have wanted to read a biography on Churchill. This past summer I finally broke down and purchased the 900+ page book written by Roy Jenkins.
   
   It has only taken six months to finish it. True, I had a dissertation to write and exams to study for. But regardless the book was slow going.
   
   The author is a politician and a writer - much like Churchill. Consequently, Jenkins focuses the book on the intricacies of Churchill's political and journalistic careers. Fair enough.
   
   Churchill's political life and to a lesser extent his various literary endeavors are key to understanding Britain's greatest prime minister. But the details, though interesting, slowly wear down the resolve of the reader.
   
   For example, the beginning and ending of the book flows well as Churchill's family heritage and retirement are explored; in other words, the parts of Churchill's life which are the least political and literary.
   
   Yet by the time we reach his parliamentary career and the two world wars the book descends into minute detail. Minute details about his toast filled summits with Stalin - interesting. Minute details about his administration of the Admiralty - not so much.
   
   Further, he dedicates a surprisingly small amount of space to some very important events - such as the Battle of Britain.
   
   Yet, to be fair, Jenkins provides an excellent overview of Churchill's life. It is also inevitable that certain areas of interest to the reader will not coincide with that of the author.
   
   Indeed, the biographer's experience in British politics provides rare insights: the great PM's great ambition was getting power, using power and retaining power. So, the way Jenkins skillfully dissects and interprets Churchill's various power struggles makes the book worth reading.
   
   Summary: The book is a great introduction to Churchill, with a special focus on his political and literary careers. Yet the combination of the books length and the author's devotion to great detail could prove fatal to the unmotivated.
   
   I would recommend the book to anyone interested in 20th century history, modern British history and of course Churchill. But I would recommend that the reader take long breaks between each of the six sections.



4. Think Robert Kosowsky's review is pretty much on the mark.
   
   Historical events are not presented except in relation to timing and political positioning by Churchill and others. For example, if you don't know about the Dardenelles operation of WW1, this book will not help you. Despite the final line of the book, this is not uncritical of Churchill and at times makes him appear to be motivated by politics as much as anything else (the author was a MP and in the Cabinet so was a political animal too). This does not ring entirely false as it makes it easier to understand his switching of political parties. And this makes it a good counter to Churchill's own books which are at times clearly self-serving.



5. This was a fine biography on Churchill. At its heart, this book is a comprehensive political summary of one of the world's best politicians. Jenkins does a great job of surrounding the moment with context and analysis. His mastery of British politics is unreal.
   
   With all that said, the book did have a few flaws. First, it was hard to grasp the ins and outs of the British political process which Jenkins discusses at great lengths (this could be my fault as I am an American). Second, there was not enough character development. Jenkins references countless people, but does not take the time to highlight, or bring about, who ultimately has a major role. To this end, I feel there was a certain extent of "name-dropping" in the tome. At times, this made the book harder to navigate through with ease. Finally, I don't know French or Afrikaans, or Latin. So those phrases in foreign languages fell upon deaf ears (or perhaps blind eyes is the more appropriate description).
   
   Overall, a great book. I enjoyed Jenkins mastery of the subject matter, and his writing is fantastic. I have not read other Churchill bios before, but would certainly recommend this to a history buff.

No comments about Warlord: A Life of Winston Churchill at War, 1874-1945.

1 comments about Becoming Winston Churchill: The Untold Story of Young Winston and his American Mentor.

1. for people really interested in the only mentor churchill ever had this book is a must have

3 comments about Disraeli: A Brief Life.

1. Overall, this brief biography offers an interesting portrait of a commanding political figure of the Victorian era. In order to fully appreciate Smith's rendition, however, one should become acquainted with (if not actually reading) Disraeli's novels, as his writing seems to be Smith's point of departure, and frequent point of reference in telling the story of Disraeli's life. I, for one, was less interested in linking the biographical themes in Disraeli's novels to his life's events, and more interested in capturing the essence of the epoch, with more detail and attention paid to the political developments of Disraeli's age.



2. Paul Smith attempts the impossible - to write a brief life - of the complex, remarkable and enigmatic Jewish politician and author Benjamin Disraeli, Earl of Beaconsfield. Smith almost pulls it off but another 50 or so pages would have given him much more scope to portray Disraeli's major contributions to the politics of identity, social and political reform and the recognition of the inevitability of working class emancipation. Smith allows his fascination with Dizzy's Jewishness and "outsider" status to overwhelm the other facets of his character and beliefs. Part of Dizzy's greatness as a politician was the ability to simultaneously portray himself as the ultimate outsider and the loyal, patriotic "insider." Until the election of Ramsey MacDonald as the first Labour Prime Minister in the 1920s, Disraeli stands alone as the most unlikely Prime Minister Britain ever had. Smith's book includes some good quotes from commentators such as Gladstone and Michael Foot. A book deserving a fuller treatment in its second edition but still a very useful introduction to its subject for young students of 19th century history.



3. This is written for a british school person taking his or her O and or A levels. It is an enjoyeable read which put Disraeli in a comptempary historical view point. Yes, the Author actually compares Disraeli and his government to the tories of the 80's under the iron rule of Thatcher.

4 comments about Winston and Clementine: The Personal Letters of the Churchills.

1. When I considered buying that book, I first felt quite uncomfortable about the idea of reading an exchange of private letters between Winston and Clementine. Fortunately, I overcame my discomfort fast. I quickly enjoyed reading that thick epistolary volume about their political and personal matters. The personal letters of the Churchills revealed to me how influential Clementine was on Winston across the board. Their deep love and trust was the secret of their successful marriage, even if Winston was not always an easy husband and politician to deal with. Corresponding by written messages (today perhaps by email) with each other on a regular basis, even when they were together, proved to be an excellent way to help them keep their enduring flame for each other intact. Today, too many marital and extra-marital relationships get dissolved prematurely because of a lack of enough communication between both players. Life is after all a comedy in which men and women play their part and need to know or rediscover how to communicate their joys and pains to one another in order to increase the odds that they will be successful in their relationship.



2. This book was introduced to me through a friend and, quite frankly, my first reaction was to cringe at the idea of reading such a bulky historical book. But from the first letter I was transfixed by the dialogue between husband and wife on both political and personal matters. This book brings with it a new aspect of Churchill's personality - he was not only a great statesman but he was a passionate man who loved his wife dearly which is seen clearly in the letters that were intended for her eyes only.

   I often wonder how he would have felt to know millions would one day read the letters he wrote to his "clemmie-cat". In any case, its a great read :)

   Cheers, Meagan.




3. The real service that this book performs is to remind the reader that great historical figures are not one dimensional. Chuchill was a renaissance man, warrior, journalist, historian, memoirist, politician and statesman. He was arguably the single greatest personage of this century and his name has become a symbol for the indominitable spirit of a free people. The collection of letters sent to and received from his wife are entertaining as well as educational. They provide a feel for the time in which they were written and place many of Churchill's famous accomplishments (and failures) in proper context. Amazingly, unlike today when the more we know of a public figure, the smaller they seem, in Churchill's case one comes away convinced that this was a great man in the truest sense, and that much of his greatness is due in no small part to his marriage to Clementine.



4. Winston and Clementine: Happily Ever After

   This is the story of a political marriage. In some ways it will be familiar to the contemporary reader, though it began and ended a long time ago.

   Both husband and wife in this marriage were interested in politics. The husband was elected again and again over decades to high office. For decades his wife fought at his side, entertained at his table, offered her judgment to him and his colleagues and his enemies. She took his place in his absence, and sometimes in his presence. She became an international figure. She had power, and she used it. Always she had a mind of her own.

   Sometimes this couple would quarrel. Once a serving dish was thrown. There was a period, not too long, when one of the partners was out of sympathy with the other, or anyway in sympathy with another.

   They knew trouble. They lost a daughter and many friends to death, and some friends to betrayal. They fought political wars at home in which their own party tried to deprive them of office. They fought shooting wars abroad-including the worst ever. More than once, they seemed down and out. Their livelihood as much as their career was threatened. After decades of struggle they reached the summit of power and they knew the adoration of a nation and a world. By then they had grown old together.

   Readers of this story will find that wives did not enter politics yesterday, and private lives were influential in politics before last week. But in other respects this story is unlike anything we have known in this time. Here are two people who won every honor that human affairs can offer, and they won them together. Meanwhile they operated upon those natural and traditional lines that involve that deepest of partnerships. Their division of labor augmented the strength of them both beyond what either could do, apart or together, if they both had done the same parts of the job. True, this is the story of a political partnership. More than that, it is a marriage.

   The editor of this book is the youngest child of Winston and Clementine, Mary, now Lady Soames. She brings to the work care, intimacy, and insight. She has adopted some of the best devices of Sir Martin Gilbert, Churchill's official biographer, to make the book available to the reader unfamiliar with the times and the people. Her notes are useful. She lets the letters themselves convey the story.

   One sees right away the amazing pace at which these people lived. Winston Churchill was a soldier whose bravery and judgment in battle were beyond doubt. He wrote every line of every speech he ever gave, save perhaps one, and they are not surpassed in eloquence or impact or amplitude. He wrote serious books, nearly forty of them. He served in the British House of Commons, and mostly in the Cabinet. Meanwhile he made his living writing and speaking in publications and before audiences all over the world. Their house teemed all day and much of the night with secretaries, researchers, and colleagues. He wrote once that statesmen should exist in a condition of "stress of soul." Ever he took that advice for himself.

   And necessarily, then, he imposed it upon his wife.

   Winston Churchill and Clementine Hozier were married in September 1908, and they remained so until parted by death in 1965. Martha Washington, wishing to keep her relations with our Founding Father private, burned most all of the letters that passed between them. The Churchills' letters are preserved intact in their remarkable abundance. Partly because they were so busy, and partly because they took many vacations apart, occasions to write were frequent. In their day the post traveled rapidly-Fed Ex was not necessary; e-mail was unavailable; the telephone came along, but its frequent use developed later. And so they wrote, and well they wrote.

   Nuggets are found in every shaft of this mine. Sir Winston is candid with his wife as with no other, especially in times of triumph or stress. When the first war begins, he unveils his character: "Everything trends towards catastrophe & collapse. I am interested, geared up and happy. Is it not horrible to be built like that? ...Yet I wd do my best for peace, & nothing wd induce me wrongfully to strike the blow." Another time, in a very different mood, he writes: "you have seen me very weak & foolish & mentally infirm this week...." And then the man of unbreakable will proceeds: "I cannot tell you how much I love & honor you and how sweet & steadfast you have been through all my hesitations & perplexity."

   Clementine often bears the burden of saying to her husband what others cannot. When the first war begins, she cautions him about the feelings of a dismissed Admiral: "there only remains the deep wound in an old man's heart. If you put the wrong sort of poultice on it, it will fester." When the second begins, she writes: "...there is a danger of your being generally disliked by your colleagues & subordinates because of your rough sarcastic & overbearing manner.... Therefore with terrific power you must combine urbanity, kindness and if possible Olympic calm."

   The letters of Winston are often more abstract and reflective than those of his wife. Sometimes they are effectively first drafts of things he will later publish. His life is saved once in the trenches by an annoying general who makes him walk two miles under fire just for a little chat; when he returns his dugout and all in it are destroyed. He reflects: "it is all chance or destiny and our wayward footsteps are best planted without too much calculation. One must yield oneself simply & mentally to the mood of the game: and trust in God which is another way of saying the same thing...."

   At the same time, one sees in the husband a sharp need for his wife. It is he who is "lonely among crowds." It is he who has no one but her "to break the loneliness of this bustling existence."

   History has more to say of Winston than of Clementine. He saved his country and more in a desperate crisis, and he leaves behind him a written account of prudential wisdom that is not surpassed. Both his words and his deeds exhibit a longing for honor. He fought for it. He met its demands with utter resolve and lifelong resilience. But of course there was more to his life than that. Honor itself is limited by the high purposes that define it, including the promises and affections that make a family. So he could write to her, at one of the lowest points in his life: "the nearer I get to honor, the nearer I am to you."

   Churchill ends My Early Life, his explicitly autobiographical work, with the passage: "Events were soon ...to absorb my thoughts and energies at least until September 1908, when I married and lived happily ever afterwards." And so together they did. And do.

4 comments about Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher: A Political Marriage.

1. If there was anyone who truly bestrode the 1980s like colossi, it was Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. While they acted upon the world stage, the other nations were forced to deal with them - were forced to react, while they acted. Together they reinvigorated their nations, challenged and defeated the Soviet Empire, and reshaped the modern world in ways that are still being felt some twenty years after their passing from power.
   
   In this fascinating book, author and journalist Nicholas Wapshott, draws on interviews and hundreds of personal correspondences to give a full view of their relationship. Theirs was not the simple, distant relationship enjoyed by most national leaders, instead their relationship was more like a marriage. They shared deeply-held values, they talked out and often fought over policies, and proved impervious to any attempts to set them against each other.
   
   I must admit that I really loved this book. I came of age (politically) during the Carter malaise, and remember the Reagan era with great affection. Plus, what Conservative does not fondly remember Britain's Iron Lady? This book does an excellent job of giving the reader an inside view of the relationship between Reagan and Thatcher, and really explaining what happened between them and what it meant for the rest of the world.
   
   I think that this book does a great job of giving the reader an insider's view of the 1980s, informing and explaining. This is one of the best books I have read in a while - and I read many good books - and I do not hesitate to give it my highest recommendations! Buy this book!



2. Nicholas Wapshott gives us a dual biography of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher and what he calls their `political marriage' during the 1980s when they were the hugely popular leaders of the United States and Great Britain. He shows us their childhood and the unlikely careers that finally lead to the White House and #10 Downing Street. It is interesting to remember that Thatcher's period as Prime Minister began before and ended after Reagan's Presidency. However, Reagan seemed to leave office with greater comfort than Thatcher did. Of course, Reagan was term limited while Thatcher ended up being undermined by her party as well as the accumulation of political missteps.
   
   Wapshott presents their careers and lives in a largely positive light, but does not shy away from criticism. Nor does he favor either Reagan or Thatcher. He shows the strengths of each as well as their blind spots. What the book excels at is showing their friendship and its being stronger than their sometimes vehement disagreements. These periods of confrontation are fascinating. The book bills itself as featuring previously unpublished correspondence, and it delivers these very interesting letters, but there are not as many of them as I had expected. This doesn't detract from the book in any way, but I just thought you should know that this isn't primarily a book of correspondence between the two world leaders.
   
   Were Thatcher and Reagan as important a global leadership team as Churchill and FDR? Maybe not quite, but their partnership during a critical period of the Cold War certainly helped it become a period LATE in the Cold War. Wapshott is not so sure that they caused the fall of the Soviet Union as much as they were in office when the USSR ran out of gas. While I am not a scholar of the period, I lived through most of the Cold War and followed it closely. I have no doubt that Reagan and Thatcher led the West and made things sufficiently more difficult for the Soviet leaders that they did contribute to its demise. And I am delighted each day that they did. You can't point to the way the West has muffed the post Cold War relationship with Russia to judge it any more than you can say that the Cold War makes our victory in WWII less victorious.
   
   A solid, concise, and interesting telling of these two lives on the world stage.
   
   Reviewed by Craig Matteson, Ann Arbor, MI



3. This dual biography details the remarkably parallel lives of two of the late 20th Century's most influential world leaders. Both were raised "above the store" as children of merchants, though Thatcher's father owned the store, whereas Reagan's hard-luck father never did. Both were insurgents and change-agents in traditional, staid political parties. Both were freedom-promoting anti-totalitarians deeply committed to breaking the legacy of Yalta and, in Reagan's words, "transcending" Communism. Both enhanced their reputations for firmness by staring down powerful unions -- PATCO in the U.S.; the National Union of Mineworkers in the U.K. Both furthered national restoration, in part, through controversial, but ultimately successful military expeditions.
   
   Making use of newly released correspondence, diaries and phone transcripts, journalist Nicholas Wapshott mines the depths of the Thatcher-Reagan political partnership. Like any marriage, they did not always agree. And at times, the disagreements were quite contentious. For example, the iron-willed Thatcher is seen upbraiding Reagan in strong terms over U.S. resistance to her Falklands action; Reagan's decision not to consult Thatcher before launching the Grenada invasion, and U.S.-led restrictions on Western companies supporting the Soviet Siberian gas pipeline. Reagan's zero-option nuclear gambit at Reykjavik also drew a stern post-mortem rebuke from Thatcher. Reagan is seen parrying these hot critiques with charm and diplomacy.
   
   Reagan and Thatcher, of course, came to dissimilar ends. Reagan quietly disappeared from public life (even before the onset of Alzheimer's), while Thatcher, felled in an intra-party coup, remained an outspoken, if somewhat embittered commentator on world events.
   
   Wapshott's book is not an authoritative biography, but it does provide revealing insights into the most intimate and successful trans-Atlantic political partnership since Roosevelt and Churchill.



4. Seldom have two heads-of-state been better matched to work for common goals than were Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. However, neither their personal relationship nor their political one was as placid as usually portrayed for benefit of the general public on both sides of the Atlantic. Nicholas Wapshott's dual biography, Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher: A Political Marriage, offers a more realistic look at the personal relationship that helped change the course of world history by so directly contributing to the end of the Cold War.
   
   Reagan and Thatcher, whose terms in office overlapped by the eight years of Reagan's presidency, first met in 1975 at the suggestion of a friend of Reagan's who believed that the two would be natural political allies. At the time of their meeting, Thatcher had just been elected Conservative leader and Reagan had just finished his second term as governor of California and was being pressed by some for a run at the presidency. On that eventful day, the pair found their political views to be almost identical and they forged an alliance, both personal and political, that would remain strong and productive throughout Reagan's entire term as President of the United States.
   
   Margaret Thatcher saw Ronald Reagan as an inspirational figure but Reagan's tremendous respect for her political skills, and his willingness to listen to her and to take her advice on a regular basis, placed Thatcher in the unusual position of being almost an unofficial member of the Reagan Cabinet. As a result, Thatcher influenced American international policy like no world leader other than Winston Churchill had ever done before her. She was not afraid to make demands of Reagan and she found him a willing listener who could often be moved in the political direction that she preferred as British Prime Minister.
   
   That is not to say that Ronald Reagan always gave in to Margaret Thatcher's arguments, but she knew that she could always count on Reagan to give her point-of-view a fair hearing. Together, the two leaders hastened the demise of the Soviet Union by keeping the "heat" on its leadership and by engaging their two economies in a spending war for military weapons that the Soviets could not long sustain.
   
   On the surface, the two seem to have had little in common. Thatcher's formative years as a shopkeeper's daughter, with a religious father who seldom allowed alcohol in his home, was very different from the childhood endured by Reagan, son of an alcoholic father who could barely afford food and shelter for his family at times. But remarkably Thatcher and Reagan ended up with the same strong beliefs that nothing was more important than family and religious faith. Both believed in hard work and developed a true appreciation for those who made their living in "trade," producing a strong belief in each of them that everyone deserves respect and fair treatment regardless of social class or financial worth, lessons that served each of them well in their political careers.
   
   Nicholas Wapshott's use of the treasure trove of hundreds of recently declassified letters, notes, transcripts of telephone conversations and recollections of many who witnessed the relationship as insiders has resulted in an effective political history of the eighties and the kind of dual biography that political junkies everywhere will enjoy. Taken alone, Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher would have likely been recognized as remarkable politicians, but taken together as a unified team with common goals they enjoyed the kind of success that the pairing of George W. Bush and Tony Blair could only dream about. What they accomplished by joining forces was astounding.