whogivesabook's review
4.0
I decided on a book about Churchill because I view him as a sort of lodestone around which the iron filings of contemporary british history gather. A landmark of a person, which we can use to orient ourselves. So continues my efforts to learn a little more from the world.
I have spent four hours trying to write this review in a way that might avoid any social landmines. I have deleted about four thousand words and gotten nowhere. Best off to be forthright and damn the consequences.
Basically, I went into the book thinking that he was two things. (1) The personification of wartime propaganda bent on saving us from the threat of fascism, a man who did the impossibly difficult job of keeping the country together during a time of heavy threat. And (2) secondly as a man who was racist and cruel, who didn’t care for many of the subjects of the empire of the time. And persisted in propping up the empire long after it was shown to be the source of great misery.
I was left with a question, heading in: could a man be both?
After finishing the book, I realised that really he wasn’t either. People have just filled in gaps in their understanding with these broad strokes.
He was of his time, holding onto yesterday but at the same time way ahead in some respects as well. He was just a man though. Same as every evil man. Same as every saint.
By the end of the book I now know that a lot of things said about him are absolutely not true. And quite a lot of things he did, terrible things, aren’t really known about at all. But none of that outweighs the contribution his made to the modern world. You got to crack eggs, to put it crudely.
As always, I encourage you to learn about people who you ‘think’ you know. Get a better picture of things. My days of judging people I’ve never met based on other people’s ill-informed testimony are long behind me.
I have spent four hours trying to write this review in a way that might avoid any social landmines. I have deleted about four thousand words and gotten nowhere. Best off to be forthright and damn the consequences.
Basically, I went into the book thinking that he was two things. (1) The personification of wartime propaganda bent on saving us from the threat of fascism, a man who did the impossibly difficult job of keeping the country together during a time of heavy threat. And (2) secondly as a man who was racist and cruel, who didn’t care for many of the subjects of the empire of the time. And persisted in propping up the empire long after it was shown to be the source of great misery.
I was left with a question, heading in: could a man be both?
After finishing the book, I realised that really he wasn’t either. People have just filled in gaps in their understanding with these broad strokes.
He was of his time, holding onto yesterday but at the same time way ahead in some respects as well. He was just a man though. Same as every evil man. Same as every saint.
By the end of the book I now know that a lot of things said about him are absolutely not true. And quite a lot of things he did, terrible things, aren’t really known about at all. But none of that outweighs the contribution his made to the modern world. You got to crack eggs, to put it crudely.
As always, I encourage you to learn about people who you ‘think’ you know. Get a better picture of things. My days of judging people I’ve never met based on other people’s ill-informed testimony are long behind me.
pennyleigh's review
adventurous
challenging
emotional
informative
inspiring
reflective
slow-paced
5.0
romymc's review
5.0
I don't read/listen to many biographies as long as this, but it was worth the time spent. The book details his public and private life, not shying away from any negative aspects. I learned a great deal about Churchill as well as the times in which he lived. The narrator was excellent and even sounded like Churchill.
rross374's review
5.0
Churchill walking with Destiny is the complete words of Andrew Roberts. This tomb of knowledge could not have been written and published at an earlier time because of the release of private diaries of King George VI, Queen Elizabeth’s Father. King George VI died young at 56 from Lung Cancer in 1952. The Kings diaries and several of Churchill’s family diaries were released about 50 years after their deaths. The author spins the all-inclusive life of Winston Churchill by studying what would have materialized if Churchill had not been Prime Minister during WWII. Neville Chamberlain had been Prime Minister before Churchill and favored appeasement toward Adolf Hitler. This would have allowed Hitler to pick off each county one at a time. Churchill organized the allies in an effort to team up to save all the Western Civilization. The author weaves the tale of Churchill’s relationship with his Father Lord Randolph, Lord Randolph was a Statesman and member of Parliament. His father didn’t respect his son and didn’t think he would amount to much. Churchill still respected and loved his father. Since Lord Randolph died young at 45, he never was able to see the achievements of his son. Perhaps this connection had something to do with Churchill’s striving to be so successful in life. Churchill was always active he was Prime Minister from 1940 to 1945 and again from 1951 to 1955, he was a member of Parliament from 1900 to 1964 except for 2 years between 1922 and 1924. Churchill wrote 43 books in 72 volumes. He was a Statesman, Politician, Soldier, writer and winner of the Noble Prize for literature. His enthusiasm and optimism are what allowed us to survive World War II.
pcbernhard's review
5.0
If this book was a fictional book nobody would believe the story. But this guy was actually real. It takes 980 pages to tell his story and it was a page-turner to the very last page. You really get under his skin so you really get the feeling that you're walking with Winston while he is walking with destiny.
jagfinke's review
5.0
Amazing read. It is quite a long book, but I got the audiobook, so I was able to go through it with no problem.
PROS: Churchill´s life story is truly amazing to read about. Every part of his story molds the person he became and the reason he is one of the greatest figures of the 20th century.
CONS: The author, sadly, spends too much time trying to defend Churchill from criticism, at times not letting the facts speak for himself and giving an air of bias. No need for that in my opinion. Everyman is imperfect and a biography should not shy away from that.
Truly recommended.
PROS: Churchill´s life story is truly amazing to read about. Every part of his story molds the person he became and the reason he is one of the greatest figures of the 20th century.
CONS: The author, sadly, spends too much time trying to defend Churchill from criticism, at times not letting the facts speak for himself and giving an air of bias. No need for that in my opinion. Everyman is imperfect and a biography should not shy away from that.
Truly recommended.
jasanin's review
4.0
4.5 from me. This was a massive book that took me a while to read, but it was enjoyable the whole time and I'm glad to have read it.
socraticgadfly's review
4.0
As other reviewers have noted, why a new Churchill, especially with Martin Gilbert’s iconic tome?
Roberts, a fine writer himself, has new sources, including King George VI’s diary. The king, even several months after calling for Churchill, still wasn’t sold on him. He may not have been totally sold until El Alamein and Torch.
He also got to read Pamela Digby Churchill Harriman’s love letters, providing more background on the Churchill family. Among the more scandalous references is that Winston and Clementine apparently knew of one of her affairs during WWII but did NOT immediately tell Randolph.
The best plus otherwise? Roberts looks at all different versions of the scene where Halifax and Churchill meet Neville Chamberlain in the effort to decide who will be the new prime minister.
And, the story that sounds most likely to be true most reinforces Churchill’s nature. Roberts lays them all out, with analysis, in detail.
Second? His twisted relation with Eden. On one side, Churchill saw him as a surrogate son for the wastrel Randolph. On the other, he treated him in his second premiership with something bordering contempt. And, Eden put up with it. He could have threatened resignation had Churchill not offered his own resignation two years earlier than he actually did. After his first more severe stroke in late 1952, it was time for Churchill to go. He could have stayed on through Elizabeth’s coronation, then gone into the sunset. And he should have. Speaking of?
That’s one of the nits with this book. Roberts as interpreter, as historians are, doesn’t officially come out for that.
But, a few more pluses, first.
One is offering more detail on Churchill as the father of the tank, by best arguments.
Another is his general magnaminity to political foes.
A third is being generally honest about Churchill’s racism (except for being philo-Judaic), and other black marks.
A fourth is showing how his love, his god, his mammon was the British Empire.
Biggest nits?
1. Occasionally, Roberts disagrees with himself. Nowhere more than on Operation Anvil. Contra Churchill, even if the Brittany ports had been seized largely undamaged, the extra supply from Marseilles would have been a plus, in addition to the Ljubljana Gap being a dead end. In reality, Marseilles as a port was vital. But, Roberts sometimes appears to agree with the American and British General Staffs in supporting it, and other times to agree with Churchill in opposing it.
2. Without accusing Churchill of promoting genocide in Bengal related to the 1943 famine, one can ask if he really did all he reasonably could, even given the exigencies of war, and at a minimum, not exonerate him as fully as Roberts does. Read Wiki for more; I think Roberts is simply wrong. (And his historical compatriot Max Hastings is among those who agree that he's wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943)
3. More on his relationship with Randolph would have been nice.
4. More on his pre-1957 relationship with Macmillan would have been nice, as he strongly supported Mac replacing Eden.
5. Whether Churchill was a "functional alcoholic" or not, Roberts seems unaware of the concept in discussing ad libitum Churchill's drinking history.
This is a four-star book overall, but, it could really be a 4.5 star. I revised the original five-star on further reflection about the Bengal famine and Roberts' take on it.
I personally vehemently disagree with Churchill on the “need” for America to enter the First World War. We had no vital interest involved, there were no huge moral issues, and both submarine warfare zones AND blockade by extension violated international law. We should have let Europe beat itself senseless.
Roberts, a fine writer himself, has new sources, including King George VI’s diary. The king, even several months after calling for Churchill, still wasn’t sold on him. He may not have been totally sold until El Alamein and Torch.
He also got to read Pamela Digby Churchill Harriman’s love letters, providing more background on the Churchill family. Among the more scandalous references is that Winston and Clementine apparently knew of one of her affairs during WWII but did NOT immediately tell Randolph.
The best plus otherwise? Roberts looks at all different versions of the scene where Halifax and Churchill meet Neville Chamberlain in the effort to decide who will be the new prime minister.
And, the story that sounds most likely to be true most reinforces Churchill’s nature. Roberts lays them all out, with analysis, in detail.
Second? His twisted relation with Eden. On one side, Churchill saw him as a surrogate son for the wastrel Randolph. On the other, he treated him in his second premiership with something bordering contempt. And, Eden put up with it. He could have threatened resignation had Churchill not offered his own resignation two years earlier than he actually did. After his first more severe stroke in late 1952, it was time for Churchill to go. He could have stayed on through Elizabeth’s coronation, then gone into the sunset. And he should have. Speaking of?
That’s one of the nits with this book. Roberts as interpreter, as historians are, doesn’t officially come out for that.
But, a few more pluses, first.
One is offering more detail on Churchill as the father of the tank, by best arguments.
Another is his general magnaminity to political foes.
A third is being generally honest about Churchill’s racism (except for being philo-Judaic), and other black marks.
A fourth is showing how his love, his god, his mammon was the British Empire.
Biggest nits?
1. Occasionally, Roberts disagrees with himself. Nowhere more than on Operation Anvil. Contra Churchill, even if the Brittany ports had been seized largely undamaged, the extra supply from Marseilles would have been a plus, in addition to the Ljubljana Gap being a dead end. In reality, Marseilles as a port was vital. But, Roberts sometimes appears to agree with the American and British General Staffs in supporting it, and other times to agree with Churchill in opposing it.
2. Without accusing Churchill of promoting genocide in Bengal related to the 1943 famine, one can ask if he really did all he reasonably could, even given the exigencies of war, and at a minimum, not exonerate him as fully as Roberts does. Read Wiki for more; I think Roberts is simply wrong. (And his historical compatriot Max Hastings is among those who agree that he's wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943)
3. More on his relationship with Randolph would have been nice.
4. More on his pre-1957 relationship with Macmillan would have been nice, as he strongly supported Mac replacing Eden.
5. Whether Churchill was a "functional alcoholic" or not, Roberts seems unaware of the concept in discussing ad libitum Churchill's drinking history.
This is a four-star book overall, but, it could really be a 4.5 star. I revised the original five-star on further reflection about the Bengal famine and Roberts' take on it.
I personally vehemently disagree with Churchill on the “need” for America to enter the First World War. We had no vital interest involved, there were no huge moral issues, and both submarine warfare zones AND blockade by extension violated international law. We should have let Europe beat itself senseless.