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

No comments about Churchill Goes to War: Winston's Wartime Journeys.

5 comments about Churchill: The End of Glory : A Political Biography (Harvest/H B J Book).

1. Charmley, and some his reviewers, have got things wrong. Sure Churchill was an empire man, that is why he got so unpopular between the wars, when he resisted efforts to give India even the most limited self-government.
   
   But Churchill had no war aims, save victory. OK, victory was important, but we would not have had victory on Churchill's watch.
   
   He was terrified of D-Day, believing a re-run of the Battle of the Somme was in the offing.
   
   All his life, he was a side-show man. When troops were needed in Normandy, he pleaded for them to stay in Italy.
   
   In 1939-40 he even floated a notion - you could not call it a plan - to attack Germany via the Caucusus! The small matter of crossing Russia didn't seem to daunt him.
   
   Then there was his little known adventure in the Eastern Mediterranean in 1943: this was an attempt to drag Turkey into the war. It was a dismal and humiliating failure.
   
   Unlike the other two leaders, Churchill lacked post-war aims.
   
   Stalin was quite clear: he wanted to take Communism westwards. He got his way.
   
   Roosevelt had clear war aims: one of which was to break down the system of trade on which the British Empire was based. He got his way, though he did not live to see it. (Globalisation started here.)
   
   Churchill? He basked in glory, a romantic to the end. Was he good for Britain, though?
   
   He got it wrong, very wrong on Europe: one of the biggest lost opportunities in British history was waved away by a nation that ended the war under the killer illusion that it was still a great power.



2. While Churchill's status as an icon is entirely too uncritical of a brilliant but erratic and flawed statesman, this is hardly a good faith effort to due Churchill justice. Charmley's constant apologies, evasions and outright deception regarding Neville Chamberlain's failed and ongoing efforts at appeasement after Munich & Churchill's opposing efforts clearly stems from an agenda more to rehabilitate Chamberlain's reputation than to do justice to Churchill's actions. Charmley's deception in this area is extreme. His reference more to Chamberlain & Halifax's diaries & letters than to Churchill's for the 3 chapters leading up to Churchill's ascent to Prime Minister doesn't do him much credit nor does his uncritical and adoring acceptance of Chamberlain's evaluations of virtually everything and everyone, including Hitler of all people. To give an example, Charmley, disregards 3 separate accounts of Churchill not rising to applaud Chamberlin's speech in the House of Commons upon his return from Munich as not being either recorded at the time or of being suspect due to malice toward Chamberlain. This same `critical' eye paints Chamberlain as being relentlessly opposed to Hitler after Hitler's entry into Prague in May 1939 in spite of Chamberlin's constant well documented efforts to continue appeasement after that time. He even neglects to mention Chamberlin's efforts to continue appeasement negotiations that continued even after Poland's invasion, not even mentioning something as significant as the Cabinet's revolt and ultimatum to Chamberlain that he must put a deadline on negotiations to Hitler & withdrawal from Poland on the 2nd day after Poland's invasion. All in all this book has some valid debunking of Churchill's myth and questions about the long term costs of Churchill's decisions but it is at times blatantly deceptive and far, far too uncritical of Churchill's rivals, none of whom except Eden are subject to much criticism.



3. I regard Churchill as one of the alltime overrated figures in history, and certainly enjoy seeing him cut down to size. Charmley provides a veritable all-you-can-eat buffet for Churchill haters, as he recounts in excrutiating detail the extraordinarily flawed personality of Churchill.

   After setting the stage by illustrating Churchill's early years as a relentless opportunist and self-promoter, Charmley begins to build his case that Churchill was not the great wartime leader that posterity would have us believe, and in fact did not even have a sound grasp of military operational strategy. The most glaring example is, of course, the Gallipoli Campaign, which was an unmitigated disaster and effectively ended Churchill's political career for more than two decades. Churchill had gotten his shot at the big time (by becoming First Lord of the Admiralty) and had blown it. When he got his second chance, he showed that he had learned effectively nothing in the intervening period about military operations. Throughout World War II, he would attempt to undertake various zany military campaigns, most of which were politely ignored by the Allied commanders.

   While demonstrating Churchill's ineptitude in this area, Charmley (clearly a Neville Chamberlain apologist) builds a reasonably convincing case for Chamberlain, arguing that Chamberlain was using appeasement more as a tool for buying time than anything else. Far from being the naive optimist, Chamberlain was quite sure, argues Charmley, that Hitler was not to be trusted in any agreement. While giving Hitler what he wanted, Chamberlain was quietly building up Britain's military strength for the war he was sure to come. Because one cannot create a potent fighting force overnight, Chamberlain knew he had to buy time by whatever means necessary. Churchill, by contrast, was ready to rush into war with Germany in 1937-38, when Britain was in no way prepared to fight a continental war.

   Up to this point, Charmley's treatment of Churchill is reasonable from a scholarly standpoint. He can make coherent arguments and back them up with citations and evidence. However, Charmley's main beef with Churchill has never been that he was reckless & impetuous, or that he wasn't the great military mastermind. Charmley's problem with Churchill is that he lost the British Empire. At this point, Charmley's book begins to fall apart.

   Charmley is writing from the perspective of someone who thinks the British Empire was a pretty neat thing, and wishes that Britain still had its empire, just like the good old days. In subsequent writings, Charmley has taken his argument even further, casting FDR as an anti-imperial villain who had, as one of his wartime goals, the deliberate destruction of the old colonial empires. In Charmley's opinion, the primary goal of the British High Command during World War II should have been the preservation of the British Empire. The defeat of the Nazis and containment of the Soviet Union? Sure, the British could have tried to do that also, but the preservation of the Empire was the important thing.

   In fact, the British High Command was trying to do exactly that, and was continually butting heads with General George Marshall over priorities in strategy. The US wanted as its goal the invasion of Europe proper, and had hoped to launch the Normandy campaign in 1943, a full year before D-Day. The British, by contrast, favored a peripheral approach, sending valuable resources to reclaim portions of British territory that had been seized by Germany & Japan. The British also wanted opportunities for their commanders (such as Montgomery) to win glory on the field. The concessions the US made to Britain, it can be argued, prolonged the war in Europe by up to a year.

   So Charmley's argument that Churchill did not do enough militarily to preserve the Empire is not particularly valid. Charmley probably understands this, because he also comes as close he can to stating (without actually doing it) that maybe, just maybe, Churchill might have been well-advised to cut a deal with the Nazis, keep the Empire intact, and focus on the real enemy, which was (in Charmley's conservative viewpoint) the Soviet Union. Charmley does not explicitly say this, because he would then run the risk of being lumped into the same category as the likes of David Irving. However, he makes this argument repeatedly, in as an oblique a fashion as he can muster.

   The whole problem is that Charmley bases his argument on the premise that the British Empire could in fact have been saved, and this is where the biggest flaws in this book creep in. Charmley would like to ignore the fact that the British Empire had been slowly coming apart at the seams since the Boer War. Even during Victoria's reign, Britain had been struggling to provide the resources necessary to maintain Imperial control. The attrition of World War I was effectively the final nail in the Imperial coffin; it was only a matter of time before the inevitable occurred. One only has to look at post-war France, which tried to restore its colonial empire by force, to see how things probably would have turned out for Britain.

   One can also ask the question, is Charmley's belief that the Empire deserved to be preserved valid? This is definitely a matter of perspective. Did the British Empire ultimately do more harm than good? Conservatives like Charmley and Thomas Sowell may think that the British Empire overall was a good thing, but I do not agree with that at all. When you get right down to it, the Empire was simply the subjugation by Britain of other peoples & cultures by naked military force. I don't recall too many subject people voluntarily entering the British Empire. If FDR wasn't bent on destroying the British Empire, he should have been.

   While Charmley does provide some valid criticism of Churchill in this book, overall his most important criticisms are based on some seriously flawed premises. In the end, this calls into question the ultimate scholarly value of the book. While it has certainly been controversial enough, does this book truly contribute much to the scholarly debate over Churchill and the history of the 20th century? I don't believe so.




4. I was sorely disappointed when finishing the book, not because of poor authorship, but, on the contrary, because Charmley's abrupt ending after a laborious examination of Churchill's political career did not seem at all adequate. He begins with a lurid examination of Churchill's early life and transformation into a political maverick, assaying his beginnings as a freshman MP in 1901 to his rise as one of the most powerful statesmen in the world. Among the most engrossing, although not necessarily new, criticisms are the Prime Minister's deference to the Roosevelt administration's foreign policy, which the author believes, with very much justification, was a catalyst that helped to bring about the Cold War and the eventual dismemberment of the British Empire. Charmley also draws parallels with Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler in 1938 with that of Churchill's handling of Stalin in 1945, and infers Churchill was hypocritical in his criticism of the Munich Pact, in part because of his later policies with regard to the Soviet Union. But after the chapter on the fall of the Churchill government in 1945, the book wraps itself up with a conclusion of little more than two pages; this is hardly befitting such a monumental undertaking. Charmley does not take interest in documenting Churchill's postwar exploits, and makes almost no reference to his Fulton speech or his return to power in 1951. For those already familiar with the standard "song and dance" given by most Churchill biographers, this work is definitely worth your time, but those expecting a more plenary reference on all of Churchill's political career, not just that until 1945, should look elsewhere.



5. John Charmley did not do his homework. There are so many things about Churchill he missed. He greatly understates his case that Churchill, by fighting World War II, lost Britain's empire. Far from being a vigorous and foresighted leader, Churchill was incredibly lazy and inept, and Charmley misses this. Churchill failed to prevent the spread of television, failed to stop the invention of the transistor and the integrated circuit, was completely asleep at the switch during the invention of the jet engine and the intercontinental jet airliner. And these are only a few of the things that Churchill didn't stop! Of course, it was these, combined with the continued outward spread of the Enlightenment from Europe, that lost Britain its empire. So, if the lost empire is the "fruit" of Churchill's leadership, at least let's be complete in our condemnation of the man. Otherwise, he might be seen as a leader of bottomless courage, able to inspire an entire nation to rise above itself and distinguish itself for all time, while in the bargain saving Western Civilization. Churchill knew evil when he saw it. Given how difficult it was to launch the D-Day invasion, the mind boggles at what would have happened had Britain gone down.

1 comments about Margaret Thatcher Volume One: The Grocer's Daughter.

1. This well-researched book covers the life of Margaret Thatcher from her birth and her childhood in Grantham to her election as Prime Minister in 1979. Her youth and education are dealt with in the chapters Dutiful Daughter, Serious Schoolgirl and Oxford Tory, whilst the chapter Young Conservative recounts the story of her first job, her marriage to Denis Thatcher and her first spirited election campaigns in safe Labour seats.
   
   The birth of her children, her life as a mother and housewife and her legal studies are discussed in chapter six: Superwoman. This chapter concludes with her stunning victory in the Finchley constituency in the 1959 election. The next two chapters describe her life as a backbencher and a junior minister. Between 1964 and 1970 with the Conservatives in opposition, Thatcher held many different portfolios: junior spokeswoman on pensions, housing and economic policy and member of the shadow cabinet for power, transport and finally education.
   
   After the Tory victory in 1970 she was education secretary for more than three years. The Conservatives were defeated in 1974 and the next year she was elected leader of the opposition, the role dealt with in the chapter of the same name. The exciting election campaign of 1979 is covered in the chapter Into Downing Street, which also deals with the beginning of her long and glorious reign as Prime Minister.
   
   The text is filled with quotes from newspapers and people who played a role in her life. The author has gone to great lengths to be as thorough and meticulous as possible; the research cannot be faulted. Furthermore, Campbell manages to capture the mood of the times very well in his analysis of British history and politics and succeeds in making the detail interesting. For example, the election results for Margaret's Finchley constituency are provided throughout the book, for every election.
   
   As a great admirer of Thatcher, I do not agree with his every conclusion or every single point of opinion, but his work is exhaustive and impressive. It is also quite readable although the avalanche of facts, figures and analysis do sometimes reach overload.
   
   Of the book's 33 black and white photographs, my favourites include a picture of Margaret aged 4 with her sister, the proud mother with twins in 1953 and the future Prime Minister holding a calf in the 1979 election campaign. The book includes 41 pages of notes and references, a vast bibliography and an index.
   
   Along with volume 2: Margaret Thatcher, Volume II : The Iron Lady, this excellent book will surely stand the test of time as the most authoritative biography of this remarkable woman. I also recommend Thatcher's book Statecraft: Strategies for a Changing World, a highly readable and insightful look at world politics at the beginning of the 21st century.

2 comments about MARGARET THATCHER: IRON LADY VOL 2.

1. The mid-90's pop band Spice Girls called the ultimate Girl Power as Margaret Thatcher. The British singers were on the money because Thatcher was a revolutionary Prime Minister. She kept her own counsel and could not be manipulated by the popularity polls. This account of her political career is the ultimate study in what Henry Kissinger once said "power is the ultimate aphrodisiac". Churchill and Thatcher proved that Britain produced two formidable leaders who survived Machiavellian daggers over and over again and got their way before being ousted.



2. While she was still Leader of the Opposition, Margaret Thatcher paid a visit to Yugoslavia, where she had a meeting with President Tito. The conversation turned to China, where Chairman Mao's widow had recently been stirring up trouble for the leadership. Tito remarked that he disapproved of women interfering in politics. "I don't interfere in politics, " declared his guest, eyes ablazing, "I AM politics."
   
   Therein can be found both the secret of Margaret Thatcher's success and the seeds of her downfall. Her supreme confidence helped overcome widespread doubts that a woman could lead her party and her country, but in the end her arrogance alienated the very people she needed to retain power.
   
   Thatcher's story presents a unique challenge to political biographers, largely because her overpowering personality and strident views make a fair assessment difficult to achieve. The writer has to tread a fine line between hagiography and demolition job. Happily, John Campbell's book manages to avoid these pitfalls, and his account of Thatcher's life and times is even-handed, thorough and highly readable. The first volume
   of Campbell's biography - The Grocer's Daughter - covered Thatcher's early life and career, concluding with her arrival on the threshold of Number Ten. This second volume concentrates on her entire eleven-and-a-half years as mistress of Downing Street, as well as the aftermath of her removal from power.
   
   The first thing to say is that it's a huge read - over 800 pages. But this is no more than the subject deserves, given Thatcher's dominance, not only in her role as Prime Minister, but also as an inveterate meddler in the work of her ministers. From health and education to local government finance and foreign affairs, there was barely an aspect of policy which Margaret Thatcher did not seek to influence.
   
   All the important events of her premiership are there - the three election victories, the Falkands, Westland, the miners' strike, the Poll Tax, and her dramatic departure at the hands of her own party. But the book goes beyond the big stories to put her premiership in a wider context. Take housing: Campbell shows that Thatcher's policy of encouraging council tenants to buy their own homes, while prohibiting local authorities from building new houses with the proceeds, led to a massive shortage of affordable housing, and by extension to the high
   numbers of homeless people still seen on British streets today.
   
   Campbell's thorough research shines brilliantly throughout the book, but U.S. readers may find this depth of detail just too much information to take in. During some passages, even my eyes started to glaze over at so many references to obscure events and personalities from Britain's political past.
   
   Of greater interest may be the sections covering Thatcher's dealings with Ronald Reagan. Thatcher apologists often claim that Britain's standing in the world grew taller as a result of her strong support for the U.S. President. But Campbell makes good use of Reagan's archival papers to reveal the true relationship of these political soulmates.
   
   While they undoubtedly got on well, the President rarely let their friendship get in the way of his policy objectives. Thatcher believed they were working as partners to save the world from tyranny, but Reagan failed to consult her even on such important matters as the invasion of Grenada (a British Commonwealth territory) or his suggestion to Mikhail Gorbachev at the Reykjavik summit that the US and USSR should abolish
   all nuclear weapons. Even so, Thatcher never lost an opportunity to catch the presidential ear. Campbell recounts Reagan breaking off from one of her many telephone rants to observe: "Isn't she marvellous!"
   
   One of the most enjoyable sections of the book focuses on the burnishing of the Thatcher image, especially in the later years of her premiership. Campbell documents the change from the clothing of a "middle-class mimsy" to the power-shoulders of a leading lady, and her increasingly imperial airs. The regal touch was most memorably on show when she emerged from Number 10 to announce "We have become a grandmother." But
   the author also offers a reminder of her qualities as a consummate actress. In 1990 she delivered a conference speech in which she compared the new bird of freedom logo for the Liberal Democratic Party to the dead parrot from the Monty Python sketch. She had never seen the routine, but delivered it with perfect timing to laughter and cheers from her audience. The following month, she was an ex-Prime Minister.
   
   Margaret Thatcher's fall from power was pure political theatre, and those of us who watched it unfold on our television screens will never forget those dramatic days. The big question in my mind was: could Campbell's account rise to the occasion? The answer: a resounding yes. Every twist and turn of the spectacle is followed, without recourse to melodrama or purple prose, and what could easily have been a disappointing damp squib of a section turns out to be a fine account of a political career in meltdown.
   
   For me, the most intriguing part of the book describes Thatcher's life after leaving Number 10. Politically-speaking, she was dead in the water - there is no role in the British constitution for an unemployed prime minister. But Campbell is astute enough to highlight the human aspects of her new situation. Only days earlier, she was being feted by
   President Mitterrand at Versailles. Now, shorn of the Downing Street machine, she had difficulty even using the telephone to find a plumber. Thatcher's refusal to adapt to her new situation caused her successor much grief, and the book relates the despair which John Major felt at her off-stage sniping , especially when he was trying to rebuild bridges
   to Britain's European partners.
   
   Having already documented the lives of two former Prime Ministers - Lloyd George and Edward Heath - Campbell is able to view the Thatcher years with a historical perspective. The conclusion of this book, however, is disappointing. A work of this magnitude deserves a resounding finale, but instead it runs into the sand, offering little more than a couple of pages to sum up Thatcher's impact. It's not a bad ending, but I feel that the author could have done justice to the rest
   of the book by bringing together more effectively the various strands of Thatcher's life.
   
   That said, the book is a masterpiece of political biography,
   meticulously researched and written in that enviable style which both informs and entertains. It may be too soon to call it the definitive biography of Britain's first woman prime minister, but the next time an author sets out to write Margaret Thatcher's premiership, this is the first book they should turn to.

No comments about ROOSEVELT AND CHURCHILL.

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.

No comments about The Last Lion Part A: Winston Spencer Churchill, Alone, 1932-1940.

5 comments about Disraeli: The Victorian Dandy Who Became Prime Minister.

1. Christopher Hibbert is one of the greatest and best-beloved contemporary historians. His biography of Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli is an excellent, informative, entertaining work that lives up to Hibbert's outstanding reputation. Disraeli is not easy to like. Though brilliant and highly talented, he is sarcastic, critical, and at times a bit of an arrogant snob. But Hibbert's prose is so fluid, and his skills so very well honed, that the book is a joy to read. I recommend it highly.



2. As those before me have said, DONT BOTHER. It's sad that so great an author as Christopher Hibbert was allowed by his publisher to put out this book which is just a rehash of a book he wrote about Disraeli 30 years ago. Except that mostly it's with a lot of additional material that is only excerpt from letters he wrote and those written to him.
   
   Soooo much of the book is wasted on discussions of people who meant nothing to him in his later life and seem like nothing but fill. If this was a student paper it would fail.
   
   There is a very good short bio by Edgar Feuchtwanger, and two monstrous volumes (over 700 pages) by Robert Lord Blake, and Stanley Weintraub.



3. This is not so much a biography as an itinerary. Benjamin Disraeli went to a country house in High Bascombe-on-Boring, the seat of Lord Irrelevant Nobody, and his wife, the daughter of Viscount Who Cares? and the cousin of the mistress of the architect of another country house Disraeli visited ten years later. Oh, and he was vain and self-promoting, but gave great speeches. Or so he says, in his letters, which (as noted in the other reviews) appear to be the author's exclusive sources. We don't know what they were about, but, boy, did he ever think they were great! I don't know what the author thought, either, about Disraeli, or why he wrote such a book. What puzzles me, and what I have yet to figure out, is, who is the intended audience? Who would ever want an utterly non-political book about Benjamin Disraeli? His only interest to posterity -- which is substantial yet ignored here -- is as a politician and statesman. Everything else -- and especially his travelogue and endless fetes with foreign dignitaries --is unworthy of our attention. This is an astonishingly lazy book by a writer who apparently only wanted to add another impressive title to his bibliography. Fine. But leave us out of it.



4. An embarrasing and lazy pastiche of quotes from Disraeli's correspondence woven with an old fashioned snobbish viewpoint. There is no historical context and no discussion of what made Disraeli the importasnt figure he was. Disraeli comes off as a self-serving, superficial and useless fop, lusting after high-class recognition. This bojk should have been rejected in manuscript. Whatever reputation Mr. Hibbert may have had, it is vitiated by this piece of sophomoric drivel.



5. A miserably rendered biography of one of the most complex men in British history. Hibbert writes from within his comfortable, unexamined cell of "Britishness." He superficially dismisses Disraeli's Jewish upbringing with a wave of the hand, showing not a whit of insight or interest into how it may have affected Disraeli's adult behavior--his choices of dandyism, novel writing, and even his peculiarly powerful oratory. Hibbert just neatly fits Disraeli into categories he, Hibbert, pulls out of his own experience from within what's normal and usual in British life. Moreover, the book quotes huge, unedited swaths not only of Disraeli's letters and journals (somewhat defensible) but also from other recent biographers. So it reads like the work of an undergraduate. Ultimately, Hibbert is not at all inquisitive about what led this man of many and great parts to find such a singular way to live, and to succeed in what, in the book's only success, we see was a terribly hostile social environment for a Jew(populated by powerful anti-Semites like Carlyle and Dickens, Trollope, etc.). This is poorly done work.

No comments about Churchill: Man of the Century.