A review by socraticgadfly
Churchill: Walking with Destiny by Andrew Roberts
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.