Customer Reviews

Winston Churchill: The Flawed Genius of WWII

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

 

 

I found Christopher Catherwood's most recent work on Churchill to be well written with an interesting thesis that captures, with a unique twist, what others have also said about Britain's great leader. Catherwood's latest offering doesn't necessarily pave new ground (by the author's own admission) but does put together the historical facts in a way that shows that Churchill's strengths had their weak side. What I appreciate most about Catherwood's historical writing is the way he weaves the facts together in a story that makes the past more than just a collection of what happened and when. He gets behind the scenes and paints the picture of what drove Churchill's decision making and strategic planning, erred at times as it was. What emerges is a portrait of the man that the title of the book suggests: a flawed genius, and just the right man for just the right time.

Imagine, if you will, a new book about, say, the Titanic which purports to produce newly discovered "hard evidence" to prove the Captain's culpability based on the premise "had the iceberg not been there, there would not have been a collision and by striking that iceberg, therefore, it must have been the Captain's fault." Yes I know, it doesn't make any sense at all. It does, however, make about as much sense as this book.

Any biography, especially one about such a complex man as Churchill - soldier, journalist, hero, accomplished painter, orator, Nobel laureate, politician and leader of nations, should include that which is good, bad and even the ugly so that we may gauge exactly which qualities made him what he was. Dwelling on just the "good" would wrongly suggest he was an angel just as any concentration on the ugly would provide an equally false picture. In this work, however, we are taken beyond human characteristics and into the realms of fantasy as author Christopher Catherwood describes events which never actually occurred in order to expose his perception of Churchill's flawed character. Throughout his tirade of anti-British rhetoric, Catherwood's fundamental arguments are not based on actual facts and events but on `but if this had happened' then Churchill was wrong to have done whatever and `if that had happened' then Churchill should never have done as follows...

By introducing such confusing factors into what purports to be a serious biographical account, there is a very real danger of this fiction finding its way into factual history. In a shoddy, badly written and very dull work, the continual theme is as sound as American modern history being rewritten on the basis that, had President Kennedy not gone to Dallas on that fateful day, he would not have been shot. But he did and he was and any other scenario is, as I can only repeat, fictional.

Instead of exposing Churchill as less than perfect, however, Catherwood's unremitting diatribe only serves to reveal his own inadequacies as a historian who is now without credibility. This is the work of an insecure person who seeks the approval of others by slaying a Dragon and claiming the heroic status that goes which such an accomplishment. In order to do this, however, he must first convince the reader such a beast exists and there he fails quite miserably.

Devoid of objectivity and readable prose, all we have is the invention of doubtful, sometimes even ridiculous, principles from which the author seeks to develop his laborious and defective arguments. It is not Churchill who is shown to be flawed by this book, but the author. Most lamentable of all is his having lost sight of the most important consideration of any writer which is to hold the reader in the highest possible esteem. Without the reader, there is no point in writing anything from road signs to poetry or from books to shopping lists and by using fiction to create spurious arguments from which to extract alternative outcomes in history - outcomes that were never possible, Catherwood has taken his potential readership for complete fools.

No country or race has a monopoly on great people and nobody has ever suggested Churchill (or anyone else) was the greatest of all time - certainly not! Privately, we might all possess a bias towards our own countrymen, but that's just an extension of my dad's bigger than your dad and has no place here. I am confident that whatever Churchill did or did not do, will be judged on the basis of what actually occurred and what was known to him at the time and that this work will be consigned to the dustbin and the content not considered by any serious historian.

NM

Several of the professional reviewers have characterized Catherwood's style as clear and readable. I would add "dumbed-down to the level of ninth graders". He achieves clarity by reiteration of key ideas in a style that I can only compare to military training manuals. I am a fan of Churchill and was looking forward to a contrarian view. Catherwood's statement of his obvious flaws broke no new ground for anyone who has made even the most superficial study of WSR.
I am a frequent buyer through Amazon, but note that my opinions mentioned above seem to be justified as my copy came from the remaindered table at $5.00.

I have read numerous books on Churchill and this one is one of the best. The authors basic premise is that Churchill, while clearly a great hero, delayed by up to almost 2 years the D day landings in Normandy. The Americans, led by George C Marshall, wanted to attack the Continent before Germany had built up its "Atlantic Wall" and additional defenses along the coast. Churchill put the brakes on the plan by claiming, amongst other things, the West did not have the landing craft necessary. The author, as did Marshall, disagreed and offer as proof landing craft was available everywhere else in the world i.e. the Pacific, and the Mediterranean for the advances on Sicily and the Italian mainland. The Americans thought entering the Continent through Italy was merely a side show and that all resources should have been sent to Normandy.

Most interesting to me is what would have happened had the Normandy landings happened in 1942 or 1943. The author suggests the Americans would have clearly beaten the soviets to Poland and Czechoslovakia. Had that happened millions fewer people, including those caught up in the Holocaust, would have survived and millions more would not have become subject to the harsh government of Stalin and the Soviets. Had Poland and the Czech's been liberated by the Americans or British the balance of power during the Cold War would have been significantly altered.

A very intersting read. I gave the book 4 stars instead of 5 because I, like a couple of other reviewers, thought the writing itself was somewhat cumbersome, but worth the effort to read.

Catherwood's thesis may be summed up as follows: The D-Day landings would have been much easier to carry out if only everyone had had less time to prepare for them. It was due to Churchill that they did not.

David Emanuel's review provides the details of why this book is awful in so many ways. Suffice it for me to add that Catherwood never even attempts to provide the evidence that the planning, logistical and industrial support as well as the military operational readiness necessary for a successful invasion could have existed more than a year earlier than was the case. Don't waste your time.

This book is revisionist history at it best, or worst, depending on your view. I think it's very useful to try and understand Churchill's reluctance to take on the German army directly. The indirect approach explains the attempt to save Greece, the North African campaign, Sicily, and Italy in ways I'd never thought about before. It makes me wonder if Dieppe was designed to fail in order to support the other campaigns. It also made me think Churchill realized the British (and Commonwealth) army was, for various reasons, no longer the instrument of force it once was. It you add Dunkirk, Singapore, Dieppe, Tobruk, Caen, Arnhem and the Battle of the Scheldt together you don't get a very happy picture; one defeat or delay after another. For a Churchill fan like myself, Winston Churchill: The flawed Genius of WWII is like a bucket of cold water; refreshing but uncomfortable.

Mr. Catherwood provides a well reasoned overview of the Anglo-American strategic debates during WWII and Churchill's contribution to the process. Importantly, the author examines several controversial aspects of western allied strategy including the British ill-fated intervention in Greece and resulting extension of the North African Campaign, the debates over Operation Roundup in 1943, and a review on the merits of the Italian campaign including the feasibility of Churchill's preference for an allied advance through the Ljubljana Gap.

It is clear that the author's objective is to provide a concise summary on some of the more controversial aspects of allied strategy in the Mediterranean, and in this effort he succeeds. Interested readers would do well to pursue additional reading on the subject for a more in-depth study of various topics introduced by Mr. Catherwood's book. To that end, as part of this endeavor Catherwood also includes a good introduction to some of the more important historiography that has served to shape these debates over the years.

Admirers of Churchill will not necessarily be happy with some of Mr. Catherwood's conclusions. However, as readers of David Reynold's book "In Command of History" (a book used by Mr. Catherwood in support of his thesis) will attest, Churchill's history of the war was written in a selective manner. For those who have only been exposed to the Churchill "version" of events to date, Mr. Catherwood's book will serve to provide an interesting and new perspective on the formation of allied strategy during the war.

Great book.

The author shows how Churchill rescued Britain in 1940.

He agrees with George C Marshall and Ike's plan to launch D-Day in 1943. Many don't agree with this, though Stephen Ambrose (Band of Brothers) would be with Catherwood on this one.

Christopher Catherwood's "Winston Churchill: The Flawed Genius of World War II" provided me with a different insight into what made Churchill tick. I always knew he was a genius, and Mr. Catherwood definitely acknowledges Mr. C. as one, but I had never really taken a look at how that genius was flawed and how that flaw played out in WWII.

This book is well written, interesting, and tells the part of the story that has not been focused on before. It is interesting, well done, and Mr. Catherwood's genius comes through as well. I also enjoyed his Book Review on C-Span last weekend. Mr. Catherwood is one of Britain's great historians. I would highly recommend this book and if you have the opportunity, please view the above mentioned Book Review on C-Span.

Anyone interested in Churchill should also read Mr. Catherwood's work "Churchill's Folly." Also very well done.

Ernestine Smith

Catherwood's central argument: Winston Churchill, who replaced Neville Chamberlain as the British prime minister in 1940, saved his country from a Nazi invasion while waiting for the U.S. to enter the war, but he made a terrible mistake two years later when he successfully delayed an American-led invasion of Europe. The result: Churchill inadvertently "prolonged the fighting, enabled Stalin to win the struggle for much of Europe, and allowed over a million extra Jews to die in the Holocaust," Catherwood writes. It's a bold position, bound to ruffle feathers, as some of the more virulent reviews here suggest. My advice: take those reviews with a grain of salt. Catherwood has written a balanced, well-argued book, and it's a strong response to the revisionist historians now trying to defend Chamberlain's policy of appeasement with Adolph Hitler. Highly recommended.