Customer Reviews

Churchill: Visionary. Statesman. Historian.

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(5)
2 star:		(4)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

John Lukacs has written a number of books about and involving Winston Churchill. Most deal with his role in World War II. In this little volume, really just an extended essay, he waxes poetic on a man he clearly admires deeply. The book is divided into short chapters in which Lukacs considers a number of different aspects of Churchill's character and personality. First he considers Churchill as a visionary by examining some of Churchill's well known, Cassandra-like predictions such as the danger of Hitler and after the war of Soviet aggression. In the section on Churchill as statesman, Lukacs looks at Churchill's complicated relationships with Stalin, Roosevelt and Eisenhower. Lukacs also discusses Churchill's views on Britain's relationship with Europe and his take on the policy of appeasement. In a chapter on Churchill as historian, Lukacs looks critically at Churchill's most important works, in particular, his "Life of Marlborough", his biography of his father, "Lord Randolph Churchill" and his history of the First World War, the "World Crisis". Lukacs appreciates Churchill's talents as an artist of the written word. He demonstrates why Churchill's work succeeds not just as history but as literature. In the next section, Lukacs effectively refutes Churchill's severest revisionist critics in a chapter entitled "His Failures, His Critics". It may interest the reader to know that their exist so-called historians whose purpose in life seems to be to blame Churchill either for fighting Hitler or for losing the empire and world leadership to the United States. As Lukacs argues, this is ridiculous. Finally, in a beautiful essay that is alone worth the price of the book, Lukacs describes his feelings while attending Churchill's state funeral in 1965.

Quite a bit is covered in such a small book but as a Churchillphile, I thoroughly enjoyed it. Lukacs has a true appreciation of human greatness and this book demonstrates why Churchill was a great man, one of the greatest of the modern era. Great does not mean perfect of course and Lukacs eloquently explains why Churchill, with all his flaws, was truly great. This is not a book of history or an appropriate reference for a study of Churchill. Nor is it the proper starting point for one seeking to learn about Churchill's life. But for one who already loves and reveres the memory of this great man, this book is balm for the soul. It makes the case, quite clearly for Churchill's greatness. It is at once poignant and eloquent. It is well worth reading.

About halfway through Lukacs' chapter on Churchill and Eisenhower, I wrote down the phrase I used to title this review. One of the author's missions is to explore how Churchill's study and writing of history shaped his politics, statesmanship, and "vision." And sure enough, just a few dozen pages later, Lukacs himself, modifying a phrase of J.H. Plumb, described Churchill as "a historian-statesman and a statesman-historian" (p. 102).

John Lukacs is himself a great writer and interpreter of history. And though I've read lots of things about Churchill over the years, few historians have impressed me as he has with their ability to synthesize and interpret. By all means, still read the longer biographies -- Gilbert, naturally, as well as Best and Jenkins more recently. But let Lukacs help you sort out what it all means. Among other things, you may well find yourself agreeing with him that Churchill "was not The Last Lion" (p. 17).

Lukacs' description of Churchill as a patriot but not a nationalist (as contrasted with Hitler, who was a nationalist but not a patriot) is also a revealing one -- especially in an era when the two are too easily confused.

Hundreds or thousands of volumes have been written on Churchill as statesman and war leader. But only one (Maurice Ashley's "Churchill as Historian," 1968), plus a few journal articles, have viewed him as a student and writer of history and tried to assess how that affected his other spheres of life. Lukacs views it as central, giving Churchill, as it did, a philosophy of history (p. 123) as well as a world view that allowed him to place events and ideas in their larger historical context (Lukacs sees this as the essential difference between Churchill and Eisenhower).

Given the resurgence of interest in Churchill -- which never entirely wanes, of course -- post-9/11, several of Lukacs' insights and conclusions may come as a surprise, or be considered "controversial": notably, that Churchill's famous "Iron Curtain" speech in Fulton was less about the dangers posed by communism *per se* than about those inherent in a divided Europe; that Churchill's glory was not that he won a great victory, but rather that he prevented a great defeat; and that in his dealings with Stalin during and after the war, he tried "to save what was possible" (p. 182). This last point Lukacs deploys (in an excellent chapter on Churchill's failures and his critics) against those who hold Churchill to blame for the "loss" of Eastern Europe to communism (through the Machiavellian "percentages deal," for example). Lukacs argues that Churchill recognized there were only two real options: All of Europe dominated by Hitler, or half of Europe dominated by Stalin. There was, Lukacs says, no third way.

Duff Cooper, a Churchillian, once wrote that one of the problems with democracies is that too few democratic leaders have read any history. Lukacs shows how Churchill's own reading and writing prepared him for the challenges of his century. Readers of this book, in turn, emerge with a clearer view, not only of those challenges, but also of The Man of the Century himself. Very highly recommended.

And a tolerably worthwhile throwaway, considering Lukacs's knowledge of his subject. If you have decent familiarity with the issues, this book won't weigh you down and it adds nuance to the accepted portrait of Churchill. But this is certainly not an introduction to Churchill and the author's biases, particularly against Eisenhower, mar the presentation. This chafed at me in particular, and I hold no particular brief for Ike. But Lukacs is an historian, yet he swipes at Eisenhower throughout the second half of the book, almost never building an argument but rather using innuendo. He largely assumes that the reader shares his biases, more in the way of punditry than scholarship. I don't regret reading the book, but I am sure I could have made more productive use of the time and money on another Churchill work.

John Lukacs' essays on Winston Churchill are short and easily digestible--which is a good thing, because a full-length biography in Lucacs' style would be almost unendurable. It's not that Lukacs can't write -- he turns many eloquent phrases, particularly in his closing account of Churchill's funeral. And it's not that his overwhelmingly positive appraisal of Churchill is off-the-mark, or that he lacks insight into critical moments of the great man's career (such his pivotal refusal to consider a negotiated peace in 1940).

The problem is that neither Lukacs' writing or his judgment are as good as he thinks they are -- and at times he seems to have an even higher opinion of his own faculties than he does of Churchill's.

Despite the brevity of this book, readers who are looking for a short introduction to Churchill should begin elsewhere. Lukacs presumes a more than basic familiarity with Churchill's career, and English political history generally. He habitually tosses off references to largely forgotten figures and events without the slightest context. (To give just one example, he makes several references to Churchill's disastrous intervention in the "abdication crisis" of 1936, without explaining what he did or why it was so poorly received.)

Lukacs writes like he's giving a lecture -- or, more precisely, running a graduate seminar. Instead of telling a story, he is constantly announcing what he's about to talk about, or launching into a digression and then cutting it off, reminding us that he must get back to the subject at hand. He is prone to announce that a particular topic has yet to receive its definitive treatment, as though he were suggesting thesis topics to grad students. He stuffs his sentences with parenthetical references that highlight his erudition but invariably divert the narrative flow. What is the purpose of these digressions if they are not worth following? An editor could have been employed to strain a reasonably good book from all the pulp.

Lukacs does have his lyrical moments, and there's no doubt that he has some insights into Churchill's unique character and historical importance. He has written extensively in the past about Churchill's role in 1940 (most notably in Five Days in London), but doesn't have much new to add here. At times, he can be a bit obsessive about his Five Days thesis, to the exclusion of other high and low points in Churchill's career. Even in this short book, the amount of repetition is surprising.

Moreover, Lukacs adopts a needlessly haughty and dismissive tone about others who have written about Churchill, whether pro or con. At times he sounds more like an archly opinionated theater critic than a judicious historian. He casually dismisses the value of many books that do a much, much better job of capturing Churchill's multifaceted genius than this adulatory but overwrought volume.

Lukacs is a historian and an academic. Although Lukacs the historian makes this book very insightful and accurate, Lukacs the academic makes the book less gripping. The writing style and the content are not intended for casual readers who intend to learn about Churchill by reading this book alone.

For casual readers, I would suggest other Churchill books like "Winston Churchill" - by John Keegan.

This is another of the "short" Churchill books that have become popular over the last several years which 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 other books it should come as no surprise that this one 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 I found some "new" perspectives and food for thought in the above.

On the downside, several of the other chapters - i.e. 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.

John Lukacs is a Catholic anglophile and a conservative Christian Democrat who fled from Hungary at the beginning of the cold war. At the same time he has never forgiven the Republican party right for its refusal to help Britain (and the rest of Europe) at her darkest hour. Winston Churchill has always been his hero. About fifteen years ago Lukacs wrote a book on the 80 day "duel" between Churchill and Hitler in the summer of 1940. A few years ago he wrote a more popular book that looked at ten of those days. This third book concentrates on Churchill, and it is the most disappointing yet.

Lukacs looks at Churchill "the visionary," and his relationships with Stalin, FDR, and Eisenhower. He then discusses appeasement, Churchill's skill as a historian, his failures, and then concludes with his memories of Churchill's funeral. Basically this book is a shallow collection of essays which add nothing to our knowledge of the man. There are not even many telling details or pungent anecdotes. There is nothing wrong in arguing, as Lukacs does, that Churchill was right not to make a deal with Hitler, and that he is not to blame for the fact that postwar Poland was a Communist dictatorship. But most historians have never doubted these matters, and Lukacs has nothing new to add. Lukacs has never really cared for archival research, nor has he really paid much attention to what other scholars say. At one point he states that the Soviet Union was not really interested in defending Czechoslovakia in 1938, nor was it really interested in negotiating an alliance with France and Britain the following years. Perhaps, but it is important to point out that in recent years Hugh Ragsdale and Michael J. Carley have produced well documented arguments to the contrary, and that Lukacs not only does not refute them, he appears to be unaware of their existence. Likewise, the chapter on Eisenhower and Churchill concentrates on Churchill's proposals in 1953 to try to make a deal with the post-Stalin leadership, which Eisenhower peremptorily brushed aside. Was an opportunity to end, or shorten, the cold war carelessly thrown away? Perhaps, but other scholars, such as John W. Young and Jaclyn Stanke, have discussed the issue in far greater detail than Lukacs. Many scholars dislike Stephen Ambrose for his terminus into plagiarism and middlebrow eminence. Notwithstanding that, his argument that Eisenhower and his small armies could not have snatched the honor of taking Berlin from Zhukov's larger forces still stands, and Lukacs does nothing to refute it.

Lukacs exaggerates Churchill's perceptiveness. Contra Lukacs, Churchill's fears of German revenge in 1924 were not boldly original, but a commonplace among the British. It did not take great insight after the 1930 German elections to realize, as Churchill did, that Hitler was an important politician. And Churchill was not alone in 1935 in fearing a possible war from Hitler. The chapter on Churchill's histories is indulgent and complacent, as Lukacs applauds Churchill for his style and memorable image. Unfortunately, this confuses history with journalism, and Lukacs is less informative on this than David Reynolds and J.H. Plumb. Lukacs mentions Churchill's faults, but his account of the Dardanelles fiasco, the catastrophic return to the Gold Standard and Churchill's opposition to Indian independence are brief and apologetic. Christopher Thorne is more accurate on Churchill's bigotry and the price of his imperialist illusions. David Cannadine is far more acute on his awful family who, with the exception of his wife and his daughter, Lady Soames, were incredibly selfish and irresponsible. Cannadine is also acute on Churchill's ignorance of modern day life, noting that Churchill took the underground only once, and he had to be rescued, because he didn't know how to get off.

"Churchill and Hitler were, at any rate, the two protagonists of the dramatic phase of the last war, even though Roosevelt and Stalin played the decisive role in its epic phase, at the end." As a distinction, this does not work very well. Was there nothing dramatic about the defense of Leningrad and the battle of Kursk? But for Lukacs it is important to view the conflict as one between Hitler and Churchill, even though he is well aware that Churchill could not have won without the USA and the USSR. For Churchill is an icon, a symbol of the liberal, aristocratic order. When Churchill saved Britain in 1940 he redeemed this order's honor. One can only contrast with the actual ruling class of interwar Hungary who led that country into a vicious, genocidal war. That contrast is more interesting than anything Lukacs has to say in this book.

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.

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.

one of the best books of john likacs about sir winston the other being five days in london .