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.

1 comments about Winston Churchill - The Photobiography.

1. Plenty of biographies have been written about Churchill's life: so why the need for yet another? Just take a look at Michael Pateson's unique Winston Churchill: Personal Accounts Of The Great Leader At War to see the difference. For one thing, comments Churchill made about himself have been paired with previously unpublished, firsthand accounts of those who knew him to provide plenty of detail on Churchill's military background and how it changed his life and perceptions. Paterson adds the recollections of Churchill's superiors, fellow officers, and more to provide fresh material which is not covered in other books. Secondly, Winston Churchill follows a chronological order focusing on his military campaigns, which provides the ability to appreciate the changes in Churchill's strategic thinking over the decades. Finally, Winston Churchill provides plenty of technical references for further study, making it one of the most detailed biographies about Churchill in print. Very highly recommended.

5 comments about Greatness: Reagan, Churchill, and the Making of Extraordinary Leaders.

1. Looking at the title of the book I thought, "wow a book about Reagan and Churchill, what could be better?" But in the end I thought the book was more just a telling of facts more than an indepth review of their leadership characteristics and I never found in the book where it talked about the making of great leaders. It just seemed to say everything that happened to Reagan and Churchill and that seemed to be enough for the author. I did learn some things about Reagan that I did not know so I will go back to this book for those facts but it just was not what I thought it would be from the book's description.



2. Can greatness among human beings really be spoken of in modern times? Perhaps it is a politically incorrect, anachronistic idea in our egalitarian age. Indeed, regarding both these men, Churchill and Reagan, the media appears to have downplayed their legacies for just this reason. For example, Time magazine in 1950 named Winston Churchill "Man of the Half-Century" but passed him over at century's end for "Person of the Century", explaining that "...Churchill turned out to be a romantic refugee from a previous era who ended up on the wrong side of history." And Reagan? The news media, which had consistently downplayed him during his presidency, was astonished by the outpouring of public sentiment at his death in 2004 as this showed in spades the esteem in which he was held.
   
   Certainly the verdict of history is not passed immediately on the legacy of statesman; it takes time. Who would have thought in the 1980's, that the name of Ronald Reagan would be uttered in the same sentence as that of Winston Churchill, less than twenty years after the former had left public office? The idea that Churchill was a great man, though not agreed upon by everybody, still seems to be more easily embraced than the idea that Reagan was. But our response to Reagan's death, one of looking back and re-assessing his legacy, surprises us at the warmth we found ourselves feeling for the man. I don't need to read an essay to feel it in my bones that there was something about Ronald Reagan that touched greatness. Steven Hayward (the author) gives some insights into explaining what many of us already believe to be true. He spends most of the 170 page book comparing both men, demonstrating the surprising number of similarities that they had, from their childhoods, to their early liberal inclinations, to their switch to conservative political views, and to how they were perceived at the time. Certainly a common perception of Reagan during his presidency was that he was "uninformed, even ignorant, and relied on simplistic platitudes to get by." But some of Churchill's top aides said the same thing, that Churchill "has only half the picture in his mind, talks absurdities, and makes my blood boil to listen to his nonsense" (Field Marshall Alanbrooke). This is just one of many, many parallels that are listed. We remember that Reagan was charged with being a warmonger. So was Churchill. He alienated himself from many in his own party during the 1930s for his strident warnings of German fascism. In fact, Churchill's "Iron Curtain" speech in 1946 was not received very well and his own government made a point of distancing itself from it. Forty years later, Reagan's "tear down this wall" speech at the Berlin Wall had his own aides fearing that he would only embarrass himself. Even after Reagan's presidency, when the Berlin Wall had in fact come down, and the Soviet Union was no more, some felt that the credit belonged to Gorbachev. Time magazine, in fact, named Gorbachev "person of the decade" in 1990. But I think it is appropriate to ask for Gorbachev's assessment, since his early opinion of Reagan was far from flattering. His presence at Reagan's funeral in 2004, seated next to Margaret Thatcher reinforced his words in 2002 that "I am not sure what happened would have happened had he (Reagan) not been there."
   
   In his Iron Curtain speech Churchill said that World War II could have been prevented "without the firing of a single shot." According to Margaret Thatcher, Reagan brought the cold war to an end "without firing a single shot." Both men believed in peace through strength. Both men doggedly spoke their minds and followed convictions that had not only their political adversaries, but also those in their own party, scratching their heads. Especially regarding what they considered the evil of communism, both men stood alone at times, but history has vindicated them. They were far from perfect, but how many great men are? Arriving at a conclusion of greatness is made even more difficult when the concept of greatness itself in the modern world is called into question. Steven Hayward has done a masterful job of not only allowing us the possibility of considering greatness abstractly, but of applying it to these two remarkable men.



3. Steven Hayward extends his research of Churchill and Reagan to look at comparisons of leadership skills, styles and effectiveness. While the comparisons are interesting, I found it difficult to see the relevance. As a specific comparative analysis, the book brings forward otherwise obscure parallels in the life and times of these two great leaders. The title is misleading in that I found no insights on "the making" of an extraordinary leader. As a book on leadership, Mr. Hayward's work gives examples of Churchill and Reagan leadership, but the work doesn't analyze the leadership examples in a way that the reader could learn leadership tips.
   
   Overall, I found the book interesting, but not terribly relevant.



4. Hayward does a wonderful job in only 170 short pages of describing the similarites between Churchill and Reagan. It is a very quick read and will leave you feeling good about these two men and the accomplishments they achieved while in office.
   
   Hayward makes this statement, "Greatness is ultimately a question of character: Good character does not change with the times: it has eternal qualities." Are there any great leaders with character today? As in the lives of Churchill and Reagan, history will tell.



5. I found this book to be quite interesting but not at all what I had anticipated. Based on the title, I expected to see an erudite tome analyzing the lives of Ronald Reagan and Winston Churchill culminating in a discussion of how great leaders, such as these, are "made." I was, of course, being rather naïve, for if anyone knew how great leaders are produced they wouldn't be so rare in human history. What I found, instead, was a side-by-side comparison of two great men with emphasis on the parallels in their careers; the manner in which they were viewed by their contemporaries and the media in their own times; their visionary natures; the constancy of their actions; and the many connections between them which can be drawn when their characters, actions, writings, speeches, and strangely enough their educations are closely examined.
   
   This latter point, their educations, may have come the closest to telling us how great leaders are created. Both men, it would seem, were rather poor students in their early years, but both men spent most of the remainder of their lifetimes reading and writing and, in effect, educating themselves without any presumed experts to tell them that this or that theory or manner of thinking was incorrect. In their solitude, much like Abraham Lincoln, they were left to decide for themselves what was right and what was wrong. As a consequence, neither Reagan nor Churchill ended up conforming to the conventional wisdom of his time, with the result that neither one was fully understood nor appreciated during his political lifetime.
   
   This is an excellent book filled with little known, or at least little remembered, facts, anecdotes, quotes, and excerpts concerning two great statesmen. The comparisons are many, with surprising similarities that do both men great honor. Bottom line - This is a book well worth reading. I highly recommend it, but don't expect what the title offers but the book fails to deliver.

1 comments about Winston Churchill in the Twenty First Century.

1. Ten historians contribute essays on different aspects of Churchill's long career, and in doing so they provide not only a summary of his life's work, but also a well-balanced and carefully argued review of his achievements.
   
   Hindsight played a big part in establishing Churchill's near-deification, which is understandable when you realise by what a "narrow margin" defeat was avoided in the summer and autumn of 1940. Quite properly, we all should realise what a comprehensive disaster defeat would have been.
   
   In the course of that recollection, much opprobrium has been heaped on "the appeasers" - Baldwin, Chamberlain and Halifax - who, at the time, were held in a very different light.
   
   Churchill's name has rightly become synonymous with the realisation that Hitler was not an ordinary nationalistic politician whose aim was to "right the wrongs" of the Treaty of Versailles, but something much more sinister.
   
   In his essay on "The Gathering Storm", David Reynolds not only delivers a much more nuanced view of the realities the country faced, he also makes riveting reading on Churchill`s method of writing his histories. For the most important fact which any historian faces in writing about Churchill is the very fact that Churchill got there first!
   
   He not only made history, he wrote it, and in some cases he adjusted it. As David Reynolds puts it:
   
   " ... it is a tribute both to his vision and his craftsmanship that many of his turning points (in The Gathering Storm) are the ones that scholars still ponder. ... Churchill was eminently successful in shaping the agenda."
   
   It was only after 1970, with the opening of archives, that Churchill's agenda came under closer scrutiny.
   
   Churchill's `lone' voice crusading against appeasement becomes "a complex bureaucratic battle to shift the government from its early ignorance and complacency about the growth of the Nazi airforce".
   
   Historian David Overy is cited as arguing that Churchill exaggerated German potential, but, as David Reynolds notes, Churchill almost admitted this when he wrote: " ... no doubt I painted the picture even darker than it was." Something he had done for what he believed to be the right reasons.
   
   The problem with the Churchill-as-tribal-deity approach is that it fails to look back on the long-term consequences of some of his decisions, and the reasons behind them.
   
   Take, for example, Churchill's relationship with America. In the nineteen months between becoming Prime Minister and Hitler's declaration of war on America, Churchill's sole aim was to bring the US into the war. There was in his view no other option.
   
   He played a dangerous game. What if Hitler had not declared war on America? Fortunately for all us, Hitler might as well have shot himself that day.
   
   However, the received wisdom that America's entry into the war was somehow the climax of Churchill's policy is simply untrue.
   
   Churchill's links with America, as is well known, were through his mother. And they must have been stronger than we thought. Because, as is revealed in this book, Churchill's dream was quite simply the re-uniting of Britain and America. (Page 155) This, for me, was new information.
   
   But it does explain a lot.
   
   It is not revisionism to argue, as John Charmley does, that Roosevelt (like Stalin) had his own agenda, and that agenda did not include the survival of the British Empire.
   
   However, as Eden complained, Churchill, apparently, had no post-war agenda, no war aims other than victory.
   
   This became a problem when, forced to choose between Roosevelt and de Gaulle, Churchill had no problem snubbing de Gaulle. But for the long-term future of Britain, it was a fateful decision.
   
   Visiting France for the Armistice Day ceremony in 1944, de Gaulle offered Churchill an Anglo-French treaty which would be the start of a western European alliance. The British Foreign Office were in favour. Eden was in favour. Churchill was not. De Gaulle did not forget, as Harold Macmillan found out when he was Premier.
   
   So there you have an alternative slant on Churchill's long-term gift to his country: the illusion of continuing great power status, the "special relationship" - which has been largely one-way traffic - and a marginal place in the European Union.
   
   Decisions taken during the Second World War continue to cast a long shadow over Britain.

4 comments about Tony Blair: Prime Minister.

1. Well five years after publication we find the subject of this book in serious political trouble with members of his own party asking for a date for his resignation. Nobody in the UK believes what he says any longer and his chancellor is waiting in the wings to take over. One star and forget it.



2. John Rentoul's biography of Tony Blair is a must read for those who want to understand him. The book is scholarly enough to use as a text in comparative politics. It also gives enough character development to understand who Blair is, how he was developed as a man and what Britain's youngest Prime Minister in the 20th century is like.
   
   The text certainly gives a clear view of "The Third Way" philosophy of Blair's tenure which eschews unfettered capitalism and old labor socialism. Rentoul also illuminates Blair's Christian moral beliefs without ignoring the character of a young rock musician.
   
   It is the best biography yet of Britain's most dynamic leader.



3. On 4-th of july 1964,Tony was woken by his mother in the morning and as soon as he heard the first words coming out from his mother - he knew that something wasn't right and he was right
   about that.
   Tony's father had a stroke and it wasn't sure whether he's gonna make it or not.
   This day was the day when Tony's childhood ended,a day when his political ambition began, a life which taught him the value of the family and real friends who walked with his family in the worst moments of their lives.

   Tony,a child of strict parents about manners :
   Was always polite,kind,helpful towards other people and he enjoyed the attention so much so when he is only 16 years old he formed a group named The Pseuds - to act.

   Soon, as a 'gifted guitarist' he starts meeting people of the same interest and talked about getting into the music world.
   He loved The Rolling Stones and they were going to be the next Led Zeppelin or Free (Tony's most favorite bands).
   So...the band "Ugly Rumours" is formed and THE LEAD SINGER-with
   a fantastic voice is someone such as : the future prime minister of Great Britain - TONY BLAIR.

   ...John Rentoul's biography of Tony Blair-(was made to read easy as novel, even though it was Tony's life to make that possible). It is a well-researched book and tells just about everything you'd want to know about Tony Blair.




4. With the advent of what may become the second Gulf War, Tony Blair-Prime Minister is a comprehensive biography of the leader of America's closest ally. Prime Minister Tony Blair is an unlikely choice to be the foreign leader closest to President George W. Bush. British Journalist, John Rentoul has written about the rise and times of Tony Blair from his roots in a middle class British family to that of a rising socialist politician who became leader of the "New" Labor Party and Prime Minister of Great Britian.

   Rentoul traces Blair's family and their political leanings. Blair's father Leo Blair was born to a pair of actors and given to a James and Mary Blair in Glasgow. Leo Blair as a teenager was a member of the Scottish Young Communist League and had ambitions to become a Communist Member of Parliment. However, after service in World War II as a member of the Royal Signal Corps, Leo Blair underwent a political conversion. Upon leaving the military he became a member of the Conservative Party. Leo Blair married Blair's mother Hazel from a strongly Protestant family from County Donegal while working at the Ministry of National Insurance in Glasgow. Leo Blair studied law eventually becoming a lecturer in Administrative Law at the University of Adelaide in Australia and eventually the University of Durham in Durham. Leo Blair eventually became a practicing barrister and active in the local Conservative Party.
   Tony Blair was the second of three children. He is described as being the child most like his father Leo.

   In the opening chapter of the book it states "Tony Blair's political ambition began at age of eleven, when his father Leo's ended, on 4 July 1964. At the age of forty, at the height of his political powers and looking for a Conservative parlimentary seat, Leo Blair had a stroke."

   However, the book indicates that many of Blair's acquaintances during his school and law school years were suprised when he decided to become active in politics. Blair was not a member of any political clubs while in school or in-between. Blair had been a singer and manager of a rock n roll band "The Ugly Rumors", had long hair and a van. Unlike his American political counter parts, he never experimented with drugs, smoked marijuana or was seen drunk. In response to the question of whether he ever smoked marijuana, he said no, but if he had "he would have inhaled" in a jab at his friend President Bill Clinton.
   One of the suprising discoveries found in the book about Tony Blair is his Christian Socialism. Unlike many American politicians not much mention has been made of the fact he has been a confirmed Christian since his Oxford days. Moreover, he is the only British Prime Minister since Gladstone known to regularly read the Bible.
   Tony Blair and his wife Cherie Blair are as political a couple as the Clintons. Both have worked in local politics and both have run for seats in Parliment. When Blair ran his first successful race for his current seat from the Sedgefield Riding, Cherie was seeking a seat in a "marginal" Labor district or riding. However, after Blair won his first election, Cherie decided to forego elective office as one politician was enough in the family. Since Blair's election in Parliment in 1983, the Blairs have had three children and Cherie has continued her career as a successful barrister.
   Over half the book covers Blair's career as leader of the Labor Party and Prime Minister. When he became Prime Minister at age 42, only tweleve years in Parliment, he became the youngest Prime Minister since Lord Liverpool who became Prime Minister in 1812.
   The book is well documented with footnotes after every chapter. Because of its "scholarliness" it may tend to drag at times in the chapters which deal with his years as Prime Minister from May 2, 1997 through the time the book was written in January 2001. As such it chronicles in detail Tony Blair's first term.
   In it, the achievements of the first term include the Balkans, Northern Ireland,as well as helping provide a better standard of living for all of Britian.
   Blair is described as a "hands-on" Prime Minister, informal but energized and possibly hyper-working on the phone from planes, on vacation and on the weekend.
   With as much detail provided of all aspects of Blair's life, TONY BLAIR-Prime Minister gives the reader and the world great insight into Blair's actions now in his second term as Prime Minister.

No comments about David Lloyd George: The Man and The Statesman Part One.

No comments about Liberalism and the Social Problem.

No comments about The Last Lion Part A: Winston Spencer Churchill, Visions of Glory, 1874-1932.

5 comments about Churchill: A Study in Greatness.

1. this book by geoffrey best will rank as one of the greatest book ever written about churchill full of wise summations and not too long thi work is recommended by the churchill society . for sure one of the very best one volume work



2. Best nos presenta una panorámica de la vida de Churchill. Algunos capítulos están mas inspiradoa que otros. Trata de mostrar una perspectiva imparcial del personaje aunque claramente se comprueba que le admira grandemente, pero no tanto como a su esposa Clementine. La extensión de la parte que corresponde a la segunda guerra mundial es mucho mas amplia (quizás la mitad del libro). Casi no responde las preguntas o dudas sobre asuntos controversiales que existen sobre la vida de este personaje.
   
   Como se comprende, al escribir sobre Churchill es necesario mostrar una parte de la hisoria de GB y del mundo pero esta se queda corta a veces para ayudar a comprender a cabalidad la circunstancias que rodearon a los hechos.
   
   En general el texto es bueno, muy bien redactado, fácilmente comprensible. Algunos artículos mas inspirados que otros pero todos interesantes.



3. A very readable book that provides balanced and insightful coverage of the whole of Churchill's life. I would highly recommend this book either to those who have not previously read much about Churchill or equally to those who have read other Churchill biographies or war histories and wish to take a fresh look. Of particular value is the way that the author take the occasional opportunity to dispel certain myths and revisionist ideas about Churchill.



4. Not a true biography but more than just a compilation of essays concerning Churchill's life and times, the author provides us with a 300+ page synopsis/chronology with a sprinkling of his thoughts, insights and conclusions. I found nothing new or "earth-shattering" here. On the other hand it makes a nice supplement, (i.e. much like Meachem's book on FDR and Churchill), to biographys/books I have read. If you are looking for a full-fledged bio start elsewhere, (Manchester or Gilbert), and if your interest is piqued as mine was, come back to this one.



5. A compact biography (384 pages) by Oxford Historian Geoffrey Best is far and away the best I have read on Churchill. The many facets of Churchill's life are covered in a series of essays from the author. Best summarizes Churchill's life with clarity and high degree of accuracy.
   
   If you're looking for a comprehensive study on Churchill, this isn't it. You won't find page after page of stilted verbiage here, but you will find a well written presentation of this fascinating man, perhaps the savior of England. If it is possible to write a detailed account of such a varied figure within the brevity of such a small volume, the author has done so admirably.
   
   Though the author clearly admires the subject, this isn't just another "I love Churchill" book. Best gives a fair and balanced account of many areas where Churchill may have erred, such as Gallipolli. The book is fair, and it is no-nonsense, to the point, without a lot of ambivalent inflection.
   
   I have a number of volumes on the life and times of Churchill. I may go to other volumes for research purposes, but this is probably the most enjoyable read I have encountered on the man.
   
   Monty Rainey
   www.juntosociety.com