No comments about Sir Winston Churchill: His Life and His Paintings.

5 comments about The Downing Street Years.

1. Mrs. Thatcher's memoirs of her decade-plus as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom are a very illuminating look at the 1980s, which were perhaps the most critical decade for Britain - and the rest of the Western world - since the Second World War. This is a massive, 800-plus page tome. But if you're interested in recent British history, or in the 1980s or the late Cold War, this book will reward your time and effort. Mrs. Thatcher may have been controversial - loved by many and hated by nearly as many - but one thing you can't accuse her of is failure to lead.
   
   All of the important events of her tenure as PM are covered. Some of it is tedious - such as minute details about tax policies, for example. (Though these do, however, illustrate Mrs. Thatcher's impressive ability to understand the complexities of important issues.) But the wonderful thing about this book is that it's organized simultaneously chronologically and topically, which means you can skip over parts you're not interested in and go ahead to something else. (I admit I did this more than once.)
   
   I particularly liked the parts dealing with the Falkland Islands War and those dealing with the Cold War. In the case of the former, I've read several military accounts of the conflict, but Mrs. Thatcher's detailed chronicling of the diplomatic aspects added greatly to my understanding of it. It was amazing how much the US, in the form of Secretary of State Al Haig, meddled in it to try to achieve "compromise," despite the fact that Argentina was clearly the aggressor.
   
   The parts on the last phases of the Cold War were the strongest parts of the book. It's neat to get an insider's account of all the personalities and the diplomatic wrangling. Mrs. Thatcher was the Churchill of her time - she was instrumental in using real leadership skills to help hold together an alliance against aggressive dictatorships. The combination of her leadership with that of Ronald Reagan, Pope John Paul II, and Mikhail Gorbachev - the first Soviet leader who seemed to genuinely have good intentions, despite his continuing belief in communism - was a major factor in bringing about the end of the Cold War. I believe that as time goes by, Mrs. Thatcher will only be more vindicated, both for her contributions to the West's Cold War victory, and for starting the process of revitalizing Britain. (A former professor of mine who specialized in modern Britain and was - of course - a dedicated left-winger always gave Mrs. Thatcher a lot of credit for making some tough decisions that had positive long-term effects on the British economy; in fact, my professor even said that the prosperity Britain enjoyed in the `90s probably had more to do with Thatcher than with Blair. Coming from a leftist, that's saying something!)
   
   Yes, this book is biased and one-sided; Mrs. Thatcher, atypically for a European leader, speaks (and writes) in a very straightforward, tell-it-like-it-is, here's-what-I-think-and-why-I'm-right fashion. (She almost seems like an American, with a habit like that!) But remember, these are memoirs. Memoirs, especially by former political leaders, are ALWAYS biased; they're not meant to be objective. Instead, they're meant to be one person's account, one person's case. If you keep that in mind, this is a very good book - huge and dense, perhaps, but worth the effort if the subject matter interests you.



2. Hillary Clinton has mentioned that she went blond after reading Thatcher's autobiography.
   Why did Thatcher go blond?
   
   Thatcher's books don't list blond, bleach or hair in the index.
   I wish more books were in digital form.
   thanks.



3. 
   "The Downing Street Years" is an interesting, informative, enlightening and fascinating account of Margaret Thatcher as the Prime Minister of Great Britain for 11 years. Lady Thatcher was clearly a brilliant politician with a sharp intellect who has left an enduring legacy and indelible mark in British and world politics. Readers can get an insight on how she made certain decisions.
   
   My political views are very different from hers but I greatly admire her achievements for Britain. She had the courage, perseverance and decisiveness to stand up for her beliefs and not just to please some people. Her rise to power in a male dominated society and Conservative Party is nothing short of remarkable. Things to her were in clear black or white, no grey areas, which generated either intense loyalty or deep seated dislike of the lady. She was truly an "Iron Lady".
   
   In her memoirs, the reader will learn how she dealt with various significant events during her tenure in office such as the Falklands War, the USSR, the Miners Strike, and the privatization of nationalized industries, her encounters and opinions on various world leaders as well as how she won three elections (1979, 1983 and 1987). Her close friendship with Ronald Reagan played a significant role in the collapse of the USSR. She also reveals the challenges she often encountered in politics including betrayals and dealing with government officials steeped in bureaucracy.
   
   This is excellent reading for executives and politicians of all political persuasions.



4. I can't help but like Margaret Thatcher, even though much of what she stood for abrades my own values and sense of what is right and wrong. If for nothing else than her iron-hard, Churchillian stance against the IRA in the 1980's---thus in the face of no British pullout from Northern Ireland sparing the Republic in the south from dealing with the fighting in Ulster---she rates all right in my eyes. She rose to power in her own party in a time when even in matriarchal Great Britain women were not supposed to be able to make it to the top. She also orchestrated the defeat of the entrenched if unpopular Labour Party in the 1970's by taking the minds and souls of her countrymen back to more glorious times of Empire. If there is any doubt that so many parallels can be drawn between her and her contemporary US counterpart Ronald Reagan, then consider how expertly she used one-liners and power slogans in her own campaigns and political battles. ("Labour Is Not Working" a popular banner of the late-70's is probably the best and most clever tool her party employed.)
   
   In this memoir of the Downing Street years, Thatcher does only one thing wrong in my view and that's how she drifts too often into self-congratulation. I mean, that's the only way I can say it. Instead of sticking to facts and letting society and history be her jury, she appears perfectly content to do it herself. If "humility is truth" maybe in a way her take on herself is a virtue, I don't know, but to me, it came off as a slight faux pas.
   
   The Prime Minister a reader meets in these topic-by-topic discussions of events germane to her lengthy time in office (she outlasted two US Presidents and nearly a third) is a capable, tough, self-confident personage who was probably the best and most fitting person to lead her nation at that moment.



5. Athena was the ancient Greek Goddess of war, wisdom, and strategy and is a common Jungian archetype. Lady Thatcher was a living breathing embodiment of Athena and well deserved her iron lady nickname. Britain must be doing something right because they had Churchill and Thatcher as Prime Ministers in the same century just three decades apart. Churchill was the bulldog who refused to say uncle to Germany. Thatcher was a conviction politician (an even rarer breed in 2005) ... who gave the defiance to communism. The Downing Street Years are her personal testamony of her courage to bring Britain out of near bankruptcy, her strength to crush the socialist unions, and the stealth to hold to her vision. In a world where too many leaders spend 90 percent of their time worrying what other people think, Thatcher had a steely spine and never bent to win some fluffy popularity contest. The prequel "The Path to Power" is an equally fascinating personal memoir of a life designed out of unbelievable confidence.
   
   Thatcher entered Oxford at 17 on full scholarship despite opposition from her Headmaster. Teenage Maggie challenged the latin exam, crammed three years of study into four months, and aced her scholarship to read analytical chemistry at university. If you want your daughter to manifest her leadership, dsetiny, and persevere according to an inner compass, Margaret Thatcher is one of those mentors whose actions truly are larger than her words.
   
   Having had the privilege to hear Lady Thatcher speak in person during Unviersity, her ability to move the room, only sharpened after her exited 10 Downing Street for the final time. Ronald Reagan and Thatcher's warm friendship sealed the melting of the iron curtain. It took iron to melt iron. Lady Thatcher is one special leadership, intellectually powerful and able to translate and apply her brilliance for enduring political currency. Her legacy is unlike any other female leader in today's climate. Only Senator Clinton might share a similar legacy whilst not quite sharing Thatcher's policies. If Thatcher was two decades younger I would lobby her to cross the pond and take over the leadership of this (Canada) other Commonwealth country. After four decades of socialism ... we need it!

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

No comments about David & Winston: How a Friendship Changed History.

5 comments about We Shall Not Fail: The Inspiring Leadership of Winston Churchill.

1. There is no question that Winston Churchill was an inspiring and powerful leader, probably the best that the twentieth century produced. He took over a nation reeling from defeat and standing literally alone against the mightiest military power ever assembled before the massive American forces were mustered at the end of World War II. When many were convinced that England would be forced to surrender, he rallied the British so that they held on until the Soviet Union and the United States entered the conflict.
   This book is a recapitulation of many of the actions and principles used by Churchill to achieve his war aims and at that level, the book is a success. Beyond that, there is an attempt to relate these actions to managing a modern business. While there is some justification to the comparisons, the book is very weak in that area.
   The problem of course is that the British position in the first years of World War II was a literal matter of life and death. If they failed, the nation could cease to exist and even in the best case scenario of victory, thousands of British citizens would be brutally killed. This simply cannot be transferred into the leadership of a business. The capitalist system has programmed a rate of business failures into the regular operations, so the failure of a business is at most a local catastrophe. Therefore, all such comparisons suffer from a serious, if not fatal flaw.
   The authors use the incident of the destruction of the World Trade center towers as the most similar modern incident and there is repeated praise of the American and British leaders after the fact. While some of that praise is justified, the reality is that despite the horrific nature of the event, it was a singular event, unlike the Blitz, which was nightly.
   For these reasons, I rank the book highly in the historical sense, although there is a glossing over of some of Churchill's mistakes. This is balanced by a poor rank in the modern business sense, because the situations are just not that comparable.



2. Found the book in my case that had kind of sit there for some time. Was a book short without the library being open so why not? It was a great decision. Having always thought alot of Churchill this book was excellent to expose his deep thinking and ways with people. Any executive could learn a multitude of actions from this book. Todays world does not follow most of these ways and it probably is the reason we are in the mess we are currently in. We need more men as great a Churchill. Are you out there?



3. First a caveat to my review. I only bought this book for information on Winston Churchill, and have no interest on the business aspect of this book at all. I got exactly what I wanted, insight on Churchill the man, and even learned a bit about some great business minds. The book is full of little vignettes of Churchill, and how he operated and used his personal skills. Divided into chapters which define Churchill at his best, and even some of his worst. The gems of the book are the little stories given to reinforce thought processes of the authors on Churchill. Such as the one where Churchill, after a late night meeting, ran into a trunk G.I in a hallway. The G.I addressed Churchill as "Fatso", and asked him where the bathroom was. Churchill gave the man concise instruction on finding the restroom, then added "It is marked Gentlemen...., but do not let that discourage you." Priceless, stuff on a great man. If I were more intersted on the business side of the book a five would have been given.



4. I am a Churchill fan and have read much by many on the subject. This book might serve as a primer on Churchill. It captures some of his distinguishing characteristics. While some of them relate to leadership, others were just extensions of his personality. He was a bullish, long winded, contrarian, egoist. Without a doubt he was also an extraordinary leader and a man for his time during WWII.
   
   Unfortunately, in some chapters Celia Sandys takes a personality style or quirk and tries to stretch it into an inspiring nugget of leadership truth for the masses. She gives anecodtal evidence of a particular facet of Churchill's outlook and then ends each chapter with Churchillian Principles. They are meant to convey that he had distilled these principles and lived by them, however, there are many biographies out there that will show you the complete Churchill. He was a leader. He was stubborn, relentless and fully taken with himself. But let's don't over do it. These were manifestations of WHO Churchill was, not leadership principles. Churchill wouldn't have changed any of them even if he discovered they weren't exceptional leadership traits. He simply would have continued on undeterred.
   
   Still, I would recommend this book to any not familiar with Churchill and who may not be up for a lengthy biography. You'll get enough for a flavor of the man or you may be intrigued enough to conduct more serious study about him. I don't think you will be able to take any one of the "Churchillian principles" and infuse it into your personal management or leadership style.



5. Anyone who gave less than 4 stars for this book needs to have their head examined! This is a great book about a great man. I read a lot, but when I read that this man read entire volumes, I was impressed. The fact that England isn't speaking German today is largely due to the perseverence of Churchill. As far as good writing, Celia Sandys (Churchills grand-daughter) did a wonderful job. Any leader would learn a lot by reading this or other books about or by Churchill.
   
   I liked it and highly recommend it.

No comments about The Story of the Malakand Field force.

5 comments about Churchill and America.

1. The actual content was very interesting; but there were some problems with the CD's; there were two substantial bad sections.



2. This is a brilliant book!
   
   I love well-written history, especially about Winston Churchill, one of history's great and truly interesting figures.
   
   In "Churchill and America" Martin Gilbert, Churchill's official biographer, proves himself, once again, a tremendously talented historian and writer. He describes Churchill and the British leader's love affair with America with passion and skill. He highlights Churchill's American roots (his mother was American) and his growing affection with the United States over the course of a life time.
   
   No interesting detail is overlooked. George Washington was part of Churchill's family pedigree. Three of his ancestors fought against the British in the American Revolution. And Churchill himself was an honorary American citizen, an honor of which he was immensely proud.
   
   Churchill first visited the United States in 1895, when he was twenty-one. "What an extraordinary people the Americans are!" he wrote to his mother. During both the First and Second World Wars he worked closely and effectively with his American counterparts to defeat Germany. His love and understanding of the United States and its people helped to ensure that the Allies emerged victorious, especially in WWII. His close relationship with FDR was seminal to that victory. He sought to ensure that Great Britain and America remained friends forever and cautioned his colleagues upon his retirement as Prime Minister: "Never be separated from the Americans."



3. I am an avid reader of history. Martin Gilbert is an excellent writer who is the preeminent Churchill historian. As with all Gilbert books on Churchill, he adds new details to an extraordinary life for us normal folk. Churchill loved America and was anxious to see the US enter WWII for obvious reasons. Gilbert goes far beyond that period in this excellent history of Churchill. I recommend this book to anyone who loves history and enjoys the history of Churchill.



4. I don't think it would be possible for Sir Martin to write other than a superb book about Churchill if he tried. And this latest volume is no exception. The only thing better than reading it is to hear the author, as I did recently at the National Archives, speak about the book and take questions. One of the most remarkable things about Gilbert is that despite the fact he has written so extensively on WC, he still manages to add something new or a novel perspective.
   
   I think if a single theme dominates the book, it is that WC fought a life-long battle against British anti-Americanism. In the mid-1930's, WC began using the expression "English-speaking Peoples," which was another device to build unity between the two countries. I had assumed the book would begin with WWI, but I was very wrong in that regard. Rather, Gilbert begins by looking at WC's parents, and particularly the American connections of his mother, Jenny Jerome. WC makes his first visit to America in 1895. Each visit thereafter (some 17 or so) is discussed, and an important bonus feature is an appendix containing maps of WC's various U.S. travels.
   
   But the book is about far more than visits. It is about the manifold way WC interacted with Americans over nearly 70 years, sometimes to his benefit, other times resulting in frustration. For example, WC always maintained that the U.S. refusal to enter the League of Nations played a major role in the rise of Nazism and the need to fight a second great war. There were also constant negotiations during and after both wars relative to British debt and the means of repayment. Gilbert is particularly effective in discussing the 1930's period when the European war was about to commence and how WC interacted with FDR in trying to secure necessary materials and induce the U.S. to join in the battle. The discussion of the "special link" between FDR and WC is acutely perceptive and much attention is devoted to it. A relationship full of affection and joint success, but also marred by fundamental disagreements, such as the priority of the cross-Channel invasion and whether Ike should race to beat the Russians to Berlin.
   
   The points of increasing stress between WC and the U.S. are interesting to say the least. Among the most pressing issues were: (a) how to treat Stalin; (b) intervening in Greece; (c) the puzzle of Poland; and (d) the priority of taking Prague. Always, there are disputes about the enormous wartime and postwar British debt and whether the Americans were trying to "skin" the Brits. There is no doubt that Churchill paid a steep price at home for his heavy reliance upon the "special relationship," and he also exasperated subsequent presidents Truman and Ike. Nonetheless, this is almost a love story--Churchill and his dedication to Anglo-American interests and dominance.



5. Not a book for the person seeking to investigate the sweep of Winston Churchill's grand and worthy life. Instead, it is a plodding factual history of almost every aspect of his interaction with the United States. Sir Martin does not provide much in the way of interpretation nor does he very often cite the views of others towards Mr. Churchill's pro-American policies; almost all is mined directly from the written articles, letters, cables, or speeches of Winston Churchill.
   
   If he ever mentioned America, it is likely in this book. I can not imagine people from other countries enjoying this particular effort. And, I think a great many here will find this book, with its repetitious statements of the vital need for a close relationship between the two countries, deadening after a full reading.

3 comments about Churchill and War.

1. Geoffrey Best masterfully highlights the role that war played in Winston Churchill's long life while putting to rest some myths and misconceptions on this subject. As Best puts it diplomatically at the beginning, Churchill was not a saint. Churchill was at times rough and at others smooth. Churchill's roughness was embodied in his egotism, ruthlessness, and lack of consideration. Churchill's smoothness was found in his decency, patriotism, humanity, and courage. The secret behind Churchill's greatness lied in breaking rules.
   
   Churchill was a man in a hurry, on the lookout for both fame and notice. Churchill was always wondering how he looked like if he did this or that. Churchill was looking for his "finest hours" for decades. Churchill repeatedly showed recklessness on the battlefield while believing that nothing serious could ever happen to him during his military adventures.
   
   Churchill's books, articles, and speeches were at the service of his military and political ambitions while making a living out of them. Churchill valued most his writings about war. War was the most exciting activity to man in Churchill's view. History taught him that war was ruling the destinies of nations.
   
   Churchill was never one to be idle. Churchill's great transformation began when he took to serious company and books. Churchill did not find any relish in club-lounging, party-going, dancing, and womanizing. Although Churchill was not indifferent to female charm, he was not at ease with women. Churchill was lucky to find in Clementine Hozier a gifted woman who could accommodate his sometimes difficult character.
   
   Churchill was a very hard working man and showed an unusual talent for mastering detail. Churchill had an elephantine memory on which he could rely to use facts and data for further purposes. Although Churchill had an unusual gift with words, he was not by nature an effective public speaker.
   
   Churchill had a deep interest in military strategy within which the large allied armies operated during the two world wars. Strategizing was to him the closest thing to commanding great armies in the field. Churchill's interest in generalship was at the very heart of his fascination with war, including the technologies used for waging war. Like other war leaders, Churchill found the neutrality of non-belligerents irksome.
   
   Churchill remained a democrat at times of war by not suppressing critics who annoyed him. Despite his excitement about war, Churchill considered magnanimous peacemaking important once war was over. However, Churchill had no intention to condone the atrocities committed by the Nazis against non-combatants during WWII.
   
   The older Churchill was, the more he became aware of the heavy price tag attached to war for those who did not have his luck. For all his humanity, Churchill knew very well that war was a dreadfully demanding endeavor that overturned peacetime norms and hardened man's heart. Churchill had no illusion about the increasingly lethal evolution of war during his lifetime. Unsurprisingly, Churchill promoted a peace agenda after WWII with the advent of the balance of nuclear terror.
   
   To summarize, Best helps his audience better comprehend what role war played in the existence of a man who left an indelible footprint behind him.



2. This is a brillant book; well researched, extremely well written and a great read!
   
   Author Geoffrey Best shows the important role war played in the life of Winston Churchill, beginning with his birth at Blenheim (built for John Churchill, first Duke of Malborough and commemorating the 1704 battle, which secured England's rising position in the world) and focusing mainly on the British leader's seminal role in the Second World War. "War was central to Churchill's life," writes Best, "He was a soldier before he was a politician."
   
   Best addresses various aspects of Churchill as a war leader, including his influence on the Grand Alliance and the strategic insight and war direction he provided to Great Britian and the Allies. While he helped to determine the outcome of the war by ensuring America's participation, Churchill's strategic vision was, at times, faulty. Certainly his resistence to Operation Overlord, the Allied invasion of Normandy and the European Continent, in favor of a greater Allied commitment in Italy and the Balkans, shows him at his strategic worse.
   
   Following the Second World War, however, the British leader became less conservative and more flexible and worked fervently to avert another world war. The use of atomic weapons in another war became anathema to him. "The fact was that Churchill had lost his taste for war," records Best. "He had studied was for sixty years and lived it for fifteen of then and it had been getting worse all the time. He had never cherised illusions about it."
   
   This book dispels a great many myths about Winston Churchill and his attitudes toward war. Informative and insightful, it will alter our perceptions of a great statesman, whose life, from beginning to end, was filled with war.



3. A book for all those interested in the martial side of the great British statesman. Especially interesting to me were thoughts on WW II air raids on Dresden and the overalll tactics and morality of Bomber Command. Also, many will find Professor Best's discussion of Winston Churchill's involvement with the development of the atomic bomb and his early 1950s statements on maintaining international peace, given this new war device, especially informative.
   
   British historian Geoffrey Best writes from deep knowledge, and in a pleasing style. Readers interested in a broader treatment of Sir Winston's life would profit from reading his 2001 biography, "Churchill: a Study in Greatness."

2 comments about Disraeli: A Biography.

1. I found this book to be a solid, scholarly biography of Benjamin Disraeli. The subject is thoroughly researched and presented in great detail. One will certainly come away with great insight into the Prime Minister who Queen Victoria so adored.
   But Weintraub's book is so detailed and his prose can be so very dry in places, that one finds oneself sometimes plodding along.
   I found Christopher Hibbert's biography (Disraeli: The Victorian Dandy Who Became Prime Minister) to be superior. Hibbert's prose is more lively, and one comes away feeling that they have gotten to know "Dizzy" far more intimately.
   Having said that, however, Weintraub's Disraeli is certainly well worth the effort.



2. Dr. Stanley Weintraub's biography of Ben Disraeli is excellent. The scholarship is at the top. The only other biography that I would consider but I have some reservations is the one by Lord Blake the problem with his as compared to Dr. Weintraub's is it is too thick. This one spends plenty of time on his political and publishing career. I thoughly enjoy the biography, and for all those who harken back to a time when are politicans had some flare and style will enjoy this book.

5 comments about Churchill: Visionary. Statesman. Historian..

1. This is another of the "short" Churchill books that have become popular over the last several years and are less than full blown biographies but more than just private musings of the author. This author has an engaging style and if you've read any of his previous books on this subject it should come as no surprise that this book is for the most part a positive portrayal. The book covers the several themes stated in the title with a varying degree, (in this reader's opinion), of success. The high points include insight into Churchill's role, (and motivation), as an historian, his role with Stalin and the division of post WWII Europe and the evolution of Churchill's relationship with Eisenhower, (maybe the best chapter in the book). Considering all that has been written on Churchill this reader found some "new" perspectives and food for thought in the above. On the downside, several of the other chapters - the rehashing of Gallipoli, Churchill's "wilderness" years do not provide much detail or insight and the last chapter - a journal entry written contemporaneously describing Churchill's funeral - was little more than filler to this reader. This disparity in the writing is unfortunately one of the salient points I took away from the book. That being said, (written), this book would not be the place to start with Churchill but it is a more than an adequate supplement.



2. I read this book here in Brazil, last year.It's cheap, concise and easy to understand.There's failures in this book?Yes.
   At first, this book is biased.John Lukacs is a Churchill's fan.
   To exemple, Mr. Churchill was a deeply eugenist.This book never talks about this.Another exemple is that in 1899, Winston Churchill spoke against Islam something like this:"How dreadfull are the curses which mohammedanism slays on its votaries...No stronger retrograde force exists in the world..."
   The core of this book is to show Churchill after 1930.Even this, it fails sometimes.In chapter 4, Lukacs claims that Eisenhower was wrong about than USSR, and Churchill was right.In fact both were right.The american politics for Cold War, was basically the same, for every american president, since Truman,in 1945, to George Bush in 1991.
   Churchill also was among the men who created Iraq.Churchill also put the last Iran's Xah in power.All of these Churchill's mistakes aren't in this book.
   This is a fan's book, not an unbiased book.



3. What we have is a series of essays written about Churchill by a man who is both a highly regarded historian and a fan.
   
   The last essay, I found quite moving where he discusses his time at Churchill funeral.
   
   Yet the quality of these essays is not brilliant. In some ways they are repetitive with the same facts repeated again in another essay. Also the writer is also prone to exaggeration eg that the Germans could in June or July 1940 successfully invaded Britain.
   
   I have read much on Churchill and found this book disappointing maybe as from a historian of the quality of John Lukacs, I expected more.



4. This was my first book by Lukacs and I am not a historical scholar. I picked it up to learn more about Churchill, and where this admirable leader was coming from. If you are looking for a primer or a thorough biography of W.S., this is not the book for you. However, if you are already familiar with his background, ancestry, and accomplishments in detail, this book serves as a kind of postmortem love letter.
   
   It is certainly well-written--Lukacs is a talented writer who knows how to turn a phrase, as he exhibits in his diary entries describing Churchill's funeral. However, for all of W.S.'s greatness, Lukacs seems a doggedly loyal to the man and utterly resistant to any criticism. There is also noticeable resentment toward Roosevelt, Eisenhower, and other American officials, as the author apotheosizes Churchill above any and all other leaders during the most critical time in 20th century history. Regardless of the veracity of his position, I would recommend reading up on other perspectives to temper Lukacs' ode to Churchill's infallibility.
   
   Overall, this is a brief and awe-inspiring read: a worthy eulogy for a worthy man that sometimes sparkles in prose, sometimes fizzles in excessive reverence.



5. John Lukas clearly states at the beginning of his short book that his collection of essays is neither a biography nor a scholarly study of Winston Spencer Churchill (pg. xiii). Therefore, potential readers of Lukas' book who do not know anything about the key milestones in the life and career of Churchill should not start here. These readers can read books such as "Churchill a Life", "Churchill a Study in Greatness", "Clementine Churchill The Biography of a Marriage", "Winston and Clementine The Personal Letters of the Churchills" or "The Wit & Wisdom of Winston Churchill" to fill in the most glaring gaps in their knowledge of Churchill for that purpose.

   Lukas writes to the attention of an audience who has an unquenchable thirst to know more and more about an individual who remains a source of inspiration to many men and women who stand in the way of barbarity and illiberalism around the world.

   Although Lukas is generally sympathetic to Churchill, he is not blind to his major shortcomings: impetuosity, impatience, stubbornness and fancifulness (pg. 4, 154). Furthermore, Lukas reminds his audience in his essay "His Failures. His Critics" that Churchill had accumulated errors and mistakes that Churchill critics and detractors were attributing to his flawed character (pg. 129). For example, Churchill's futile fight against granting Dominion status to India from 1929 to 1935 was perhaps compatible with his imperialist credentials but certainly a clear blemish on his record. As a very experienced politician and knowledgeable historian at that time, Churchill should have known much better (pg. 14-15, 24, 135-136). Therefore, Lukas' collection of essays should not be construed as a shameful hagiography.

   Furthermore, Lukas reminds his audience in "Churchill's historianship" and "Churchill the visionary" that Churchill was generally cognizant of the lessons that he could draw from past events to articulate his often-visionary policies while reflecting on and shaping history on his turn (pg. 1-18, 47). Churchill was not only a spectator, but also a key actor and play writer of human comedy (pg. 102).

   Lukas also explores the ups and downs that Churchill had in his relationships with other history shapers such as Charles De Gaulle, Dwight Eisenhower, Adolf Hitler, Franklin Roosevelt and Joseph Stalin (pg. 19-20). Lukas convincingly explains that Churchill was facing an unpalatable choice between a Europe entirely ruled by Nazi Germany or half of Europe dominated by the Communists in case of allied victory (pg. 11, 27-28, 35). Churchill rightly first gave top priority to successfully fighting Hitler to death before trying in vain to stop Stalin in 1944-1945. Unlike some unimaginative people, Churchill understood right at the birth of the Soviet Union that the Bolsheviks should be stopped immediately before they grew into a gathering threat to the world. War-weary, the victors of WWI, unfortunately, gave only half-hearty support to the White Russians in their desperate fight against the Soviets (pg. 23). Once again, long-term pains were the reward for short-term gains.

   Some (American) readers will not be very pleased while reading Lukas' unflattering portrait of Eisenhower and the men around him in "Churchill and Eisenhower." As mentioned above, Churchill was definitely right to try to thwart in 1944-1945 the apparently irresistible advance of the Soviets in Central and Eastern Europe. Churchill clearly understood that geography and territory mattered, not ideology (pg. 42). For that reason, the British army met the Russians east of the entry to the Danish peninsula at the request of Churchill in 1945 (pg. 45). Unfortunately, the American leadership did not want to hear anything about it at that time (pg. 35-40, 46). Some European regions such as former East Germany and the Czech Republic should have been eventually spared the murderous and inefficient rule of the former Soviet Union (pg. 43). The Greeks should continue to be very thankful to Churchill for saving them from a communist tyranny (pg. 41, 48).

   In his famous, visionary Iron Curtain speech in 1946, Churchill expressed his concern with the murderous, inefficient embrace of Communism in the European regions under Stalin's control. American reception of this historic speech was at best lukewarm (pg. 47). Churchill knew better and was predicting at the end of 1952 that time was not on the side of Communism (pg. 48, 79).

   After the death of Stalin in 1953, Churchill, Prime Minister again, could not convince his friend Eisenhower, who in the meantime became President of the U.S.A., of finding some kind of accommodation with the new Soviet leadership (pg. 70, 73-74). Subsequent events proved that Eisenhower was right when he saw no difference after Stalin was gone (pg. 71, 77). Contrary to what Lukas thinks, Eisenhower should not be described as a leader without any vision under the nefarious influence of men such as John Foster Dulles (pg. 79-80). Many western leaders shared Eisenhower's views on this subject (pg. 81-82). The former Soviet Union was not yet in sufficient decline in the early 1950s to negotiate in a position of force with it as world leaders such as President Ronald Reagan and Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher understood very well in the 1980s.