No comments about Churchill's Grand Alliance: The Anglo-American Special Relationship 1940-57.

1 comments about Gladstone: 1875-1898.

1. As the dominant Liberal politician of the nineteenth century, William Gladstone is one of the most important figures in the history of Victorian Britain. His diaries constitute an essential source of information about his life and times, and their publication under the editorship of Colin Matthew, was one of the great historical publishing projects of recent times. This book, a follow-up to Matthew's Gladstone, 1809-1874, collects the introductory essays from the volumes of these diaries; together, they provide considerable insight into the later life and career of the most remarkable politician of Victorian England.
   
   In 1875 Gladstone was a fit 65 years old. Though he had announced his retirement the year before, this meant retirement from politics (which he always saw as a second-order activity), as he devoted himself to a number of theological and ecclesiastical debates. He remained an elemental force in politics, however, and his anger with the massacre of Bulgarian Christians by their Ottoman rulers precipitated his return to the political arena. The result was the famous Midlothian campaign, which Matthew defines as one of the great set-pieces in the history of Victorian Britain.
   
   Matthew argues that Gladstone's return to politics was defined by his earlier retirement. The Midlothian Campaign set the stage for his political activity after 1875, which took the form of "campaigns" inspired by unusual crises and special causes. As a result he discovered the politically abnormal issues and orchestrated politics around them - in effect, as Matthew puts it, giving politics a millenarian tone. Gladstone's campaign for the seat was also notable, though, for the introduction of a new type of political communication - the stump speech. This was a product of the changes that Victorian Britain was undergoing, a result of the expansion of the electorate and the emergence of the popular press - for, as Matthew notes, Gladstone's audience wasn't the listeners but the readers of the newspapers which carried his speeches.
   
   Gladstone's success was reflected in the returns from the general election of 1880, which not only saw him triumphant in Midlothian but the return of the Liberals to government as well. Matthew's account of Gladstone's second administration comprises a quarter of the book, and focuses on the main areas of the prime minister's concern. The first was in foreign affairs, where Gladstone was most committed to restoring right conduct after the excesses of "Beaconsfieldism." Here Matthew sees the prime minister as prescient in his concern about imperial "overstretch," recognizing the importance of the economy in defining Britain's strength and worrying about the burden the empire was placing upon it. Yet the occupation of Egypt in 1882 was a measure far more expansionistic than anything undertaken by Disraeli's government, though Matthew notes that Gladstone considered this intervention much more justified than those of the previous administration. Domestically, Gladstone's government was more successful, particularly with parliamentary reform, which Matthew considers the great legislative triumph of the administration.
   
   Yet it was Ireland that ultimately occupied most of Gladstone's attention, becoming the issue that would dominate the remainder of his political career. Upon returning to office in 1880, his government faced rising tension in Ireland over the issue of land, tension embodied in the rise of the Land League. In response, Gladstone wanted to readjust social and financial relationships without an expensive scheme of land purchase. This meant maintaining the predominantly Protestant landowning class, which he believed was the key to keeping order when in fact the opposite was increasingly the case. By preserving the landowners, land agitation grew, which led to more coercion, which in turn led to the demise of Liberalism in Ireland and the growth of the Home Rule movement.
   
   Faced with this problem, the prime minister eventually embraced Home Rule as the solution. Here Matthew charts Gladstone's intellectual construction of his approach towards Home Rule, noting that his conversion to the issue was by gradual evolution rather than sudden change. The key to this process was recognition of the new pluralism in the region and containing it within parliamentary absolutism - a process rooted in the assumption that the Home Rulers were willing to operate within the constitutional sphere. Yet while Gladstone courted the Home Rulers, his assumption that the Liberals would rally behind the measure - which was in line with his traditional "big bill" approach towards handling his party in the House of Commons - proved disastrously incorrect, splitting the party and setting the stage for the Conservative victory in the election of 1886. Though acknowledging the rejection of Gladstone's proposal, Matthew argues that it provided the framework for discussing constitutional revision of the United Kingdom for the century that followed.
   
   While an elderly figure after his defeat in 1885-6, Gladstone retained much of his vigor. Unlike the aftermath of the Liberal defeat in 1874, Gladstone was committed to winning another election in order to form another government which would successfully pass Home Rule. Apart from some initial approaches to Parnell (an overture that was thwarted by the sensational O'Shea divorce case), however, Matthew argues that Gladstone did little to formulate a party consensus on the particulars of a new Home Rule Bill prior to taking office once more as Prime Minister after the weak Liberal victory in the 1892 election. The legislation which emerged was more limited than its predecessor, and though passed by the Commons it was defeated in the Lords, thus frustrating Gladstone's last great legislative measure. With his age increasingly beginning to tell, Gladstone retired in 1894, dying four years later.
   
   Few books can equal this volume in its perceptiveness about Gladstone's later years. A winner of the prestigious Wolfson History Prize when it was first published, it is nessesary and rewarding reading for anybody seeking to understand the life and career of one of the most important figures in modern British history.

1 comments about Gladstone 1809-1874 (Oxford Lives).

1. William Ewart Gladstone is one of the giants of nineteenth century British politics. First elected to House of Commons in 1832, he went on to serve in a number of offices, most notably as prime minister for an unprecedented four times over a 26-year period. The leader of the Liberals, he left an indelible stamp on the party which spent a generation emerging from underneath his long shadow.
   
   There are few more qualified to study Gladstone's life than H. C. G. Matthew. An accomplished historian, he was co-editor of the third and fourth volumes of the published edition of Gladstone's diaries and lead editor for the remainder of the series. This project forms the basis of his book; taken from the introductions to the third through the eight volumes of the series (with two original chapters added to cover Gladstone's early years), they offer a penetrating examination into the man in the context of his times.
   
   Born in Liverpool in 1809, Gladstone was the fifth child in an Evangelical household. The son of a wealthy merchant, he attended Eton and Oxford, where he excelled academically. Matthew details Gladstone's intellectual and social development during this period, examining both his studies and the circle of friends he had in school. It was the father of one of these friends, the Duke of Newcastle, who offered Gladstone a seat in Parliament from a pocket borough, thus launching the young man on the political career he sought.
   
   Matthew notes that at the start of his career Gladstone was a Tory and a staunch opponent of many of the reform measures being introduced by the Whig governments of the era. Yet while deemed by many to be "the Tories' best hope" for the future, Gladstone's politics were still evolving. Matthew sees the decade from 1841 to 1851 as the crucial period of Gladstone's political development, as he broke from the Conservatives on the issue of free trade and completed his separation with his attack on Disraeli's budget in 1852. Yet as Matthew shows, the decade that followed proved to be the most personally complex period of Gladstone's career. Like most Peelites, Gladstone had no great attachment to the Liberals; in fact, throughout the 1850s his personal inclinations continued to lay more with the Conservatives than with Palmerston. Cooperation ultimately foundered on the social implications of Gladstone's taxing schemes and Disraeli's presence - in the end, Matthew states, Gladstone became a Liberal by process of elimination.
   
   At the same time as he was building his political career Gladstone was also starting a family, marrying Catherine Glynne in 1839 and presiding over a steadily growing household. Matthew provides an insightful examination of Gladstone's private life, particularly with regards to his faith. Embracing Tractarianism after Oxford, he was usually in attendance at church on a daily basis and in many of his writings he attempted to reconcile Christianity to modern civilization. His faith also found expression in an unusual form in his "rescue work" with London prostitutes. Matthew's analysis of this aspect of Gladstone's life is one of the most sophisticated in the book, interpreting his involvement as motivated in part by Gladstone's acknowledgement of (...) the need to confront and overcome temptation - a process that sometimes included self-scourging. In spite of the appearance of this work, though, Matthew concludes that Gladstone ultimately remained within contemporary social conventions and was never unfaithful to his wife.
   
   In 1852 Gladstone joined the Aberdeen coalition as Chancellor of the Exchequer, serving in that office - with a four-year gap between 1855 and 1859 - until July 1866. Matthew considers this the most successful ministerial period of Gladstone's career, as well as the most satisfying on a personal level. Embracing the Liberal ethos of limited government, Gladstone strove throughout his tenure to reduce its role in the economy by minimizing expenditures and shifting finances from tariffs towards a mixture of direct and indirect taxes. Matthew's account of such an intricate and inherently dull subject is excellent, clear in its analysis and straightforward in its explanation of how these policies fit into Gladstone's vision of government and society. This period also saw Gladstone's emergence as a national politician, the unquestioned heir to the Liberal leadership after Palmerston's death in 1865 and Lord John Russell's retirement in 1867.
   
   The final three chapters cover Gladstone during his first ministry. In the aftermath of the 1868 election the administration existed on a foundation of sand. Lacking a counterpart to John Gorst, the Liberals failed to build a party organization in the country, as Gladstone relied on his considerable political skills to maintain his government. Here Matthew concentrates on the issues the prime minister dealt with himself; the broader achievements of his administration, in such areas as education and army reform, are addressed in passing, as Matthew focuses on foreign policy and Gladstone's "mission" to pacify Ireland by addressing discontent over religion, land, and education. The failure of the Irish Universities Bill in March 1873 prompted the resignation of the cabinet; Disraeli's refusal to form a Conservative government forced its return, exhausted and fatally weakened by scandal. When Gladstone decided on dissolution the next year, the result was a Conservative victory and his retirement from politics. Though two more decades remained in political career, at this point he had already left a considerable legacy, one that Matthew has analyzed with an ability and expertise that is unlikely to be bettered.

No comments about Winston Churchill in the Mirror: His Life in Picture and Story.

No comments about There Is No Alternative: Why Margaret Thatcher Matters.

No comments about Jennie: The Life of the American Beauty Who Became the Toast--and Scandal--of Two Continents, Ruled an Age and Raised a Son--Winston Churchill--Who Shaped History.

1 comments about Churchill (Profiles in Power Series).

1. By most reasonable standards, Sir Winston Churchill was one of the great leaders of the Twentieth Century - - if not the greatest.
   
   Robbins portrays him as the ultimate conniving and opportunist whose only persistent idea was to 'Defeat Germany.'
   
   As Robbins writes, "Indeed, Churchill had to admit that he very rarely detected genuine emotion in himself and normally lacked 'a keen sense of necessity or of burning wrong or injustice' such as would make him 'sincere'. It could be, therefore, that politics was an activity without values."
   
   During World War I, Prime Minister Lloyd George wrote of Churchill and the ill-fated Gallipoli campaign, "When the war came he saw in it the chance for glory for himself and has accordingly entered on a risky campaign without caring a straw for the misery and hardship it would bring to thousands, in the hope that he would prove to be the outstanding man in this war."
   
   In retrospect, looking back for a hundred years, is such an attitude better or worse than the burning ideologi8cal certainty of leaders such as Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Mao Tse Tung, Hidekei Tojo and others who fanatically tried to inflict their beliefs on the world?
   
   Maybe the opportunist, always trying to satisfy the latest wishes and whims of "the people", is the ideal leader for a democractic world.
   
   Consider, for example, the impact of true believers such as the neo-cons of the Bush administrataion compared to the relaxed opportunism of the Clinton years.
   
   As for Lloyd George, Prime Minister of Britain during World War I, he had no shame in sending hundreds of thousands of young British men to their deaths under the command of hopelessly inept but properly aristocratic generals in the trenches of Europe. Churchill at least tried an end run at Gallipoli, instead of constantly trying to bully through the middle in futile power plays.
   
   Churchill may have blundered at Gallipoli; but, it's more likely the blunders were due to obstruction by Lord Kitchener and Sir John Fisher. Faced with a new idea, they doomed this innovative maneuver. Instead, their always seemed to favour the "glory" of a spirited rush by a mass of determined men to overwhelm defenders with machine guns.
   
   Granted, Gallipoli wasn't Churchill's only blunder. He erred as badly in the spring of 1940 in assuming Norway could not be conquered, due to the presence of the Royal Navy in Scapa Flow. So, instead of invading by ship, the Germans used airplanes. The Royal Navy beat a hasty retreat, just as at Gallipoli.
   
   A few weeks later, Churchill became Prime Minister.
   
   Clearly, he was an opportunist - - always willing to respond to most of the people most of the time on most issues. It seems, right or otherwise, that's what democracy is all about. It's not the ideological purity and ansolute certainty of being always right all of the time on all issues; it's responding to the people, and having the courage to admit and correct mistakes when they occur.
   
   Because, mistakes will occur. The true test of good government is not the mistakes, it is how they are corrected. This Churchill knew how to accomplish. The last century, like the dynasty of father-and-son Bush presidency, shows the perils of dynasties, ideologues and incompetents who cling to power.
   
   Churchill, as Robbins makes clear, appreciated the British ability "to manage political change in such a way that bright stars who shone under one dispensation could continue to do so in very different political circumstances."
   
   Sometimes, Churchill didn't shine very brightly. But, as Robbins eloquently portrays, he shone very brightly when a guiding light was most needed.

3 comments about Churchill: The Unruly Giant.

1. I am a great fan of Churchill and am always expanding my collection of books about and by the great man. I purchased this book shortly after its publication. I was impressed by Rose's crisp narrative and ability to describe the salient points of Churchill's life. He is able to do this in one volume - not easy to do when the offical biography runs 8 volumes! The only negative about this work is the length to which Rose goes to remain as impartial as possible. I say this is a negative because oftentimes there is much enjoyment to be gotten by reading a book about Churchill where the author's bias is clear. (Since most Churchill biographies are written by obvious admirers - like the yet incomplete William Manchester series; or evident detractors like Charmley.) This work is, sometimes painfully, without bias. This attribute makes "Churchill: The Unruly Giant" a fine introductory work for any reader wanting to learn more about Churchill; and form their own opinion on the greatest man of the 20th Century.



2. Rose does a good job of providing a one volume biography of Churchill. However, it was obvious to me that he was neither as familiar with Churchill as Martin Gilbert nor as talented a writer as Manchester. His strength is in his objectivity which yields a fair view of the giant.



3. This book is an easy to read competant one-volume biography of Churchill. Neither as detailed or as erudite as Manchester's (The Last Lion: Winston Spencer Churchill, Alone 1932-1940), but Manchester never finished his. It is also not as exhaustive as Mr. Gilbert's, but that is ok because Churchill deserves an accesible one volume biography. He was a legend in his own time several times over. In India, the Boer War, Cuba and then in the government in the First World War he became deeply interested in non-conventional assaults on the Central Powers through such places as Gallipoli. After the war he was instrumental in the intervention against Bolshevism and in the creation of Iraq and the support of the British Mandate in Palestine. But then he fell fromf avor over India and his support of the King. He was 'alone' in the 1930s and derided as a war-monger because he dared to warn of the coming war. Brought in in 1939 and 1940 by the government as a last gasp with many feeling that he would be left to sue for peace he instead delivered victory. Dropped in 1945 he returned one last time and helped warn the world of the danger of Communism.
   
   This is a nice biography and a fair one as well, not hagiographic.
   
   Seth J. Frantzman

2 comments about The Character And Greatness Of Winston Churchill: Hero In A Time Of Crisis.

1. To his credit, Stephen Mansfield illustrates the decisive importance of religious faith in the life of Winston Churchill since his encounter with his influential nanny, Mrs. Elizabeth Everest (pg. 41, 50, 192). The vision of death that Churchill experienced when he was a teenager could also have fortified his faith (pg. 212). Too often, Churchill's faith is downplayed in the abundant literature available about his words and deeds (pg. 34, 221-227). Churchill was a strong-willed nonconformist who rarely chose the well-worn path for which he sometimes paid a heavy price in his life as Mansfield correctly states (pg. 43, 99-100, 203-206). Randolph Churchill, his emotionally distant father, had no much faith in his son until his premature death in 1895 (pg. 160). Randolph Churchill thought that Winston was just good for a military career, not clever enough to go to the bar (pg. 47, 96-97).
   
   During his military service in India, Churchill realized that he had huge gaps in his learning in contact with men of his own age who benefited from both breadth of knowledge and ease of discourse. Driven by curiosity and ambition, Churchill embarked on a demanding program of readings on his weakest subjects. This eager pursuit of knowledge was a turning point in Churchill's life (pg. 54, 99-102, 161-162). It marked the end of youth and progressively revealed Churchill's emergence as an exceptional man (pg. 101).
   
   Churchill probably best summarizes his life's philosophy in a three-tier question and answer in Savrola, his only novel:
   
   1) Would you rise in the world? You must work while others amuse themselves (pg. 57, 131). To merely exist was no better than death (pg. 134). Churchill's high talent and amazing energy were both praised and criticized (pg. 69-70, 85-86, 120, 129, 178, 188-190). Churchill could not stand the routine and the tedious. He was never idle. History transfixed Churchill and fed his vision of the world (pg. 70, 108, 139-141, 144-145, 209). Churchill deeply believed in action; he had a goal, a plan and an iron will to get things done (pg. 109-110). Churchill possessed an almost mystical knowledge in knowing the facts and seeing them as they were, as a critical step towards ultimate triumph (pg. 144). As Mansfield correctly points out, Churchill's weapons were his words, passionate words loaded with faith and vision (pg. 84, 147-150, 174, 179).
   
   2) Are you desirous of a reputation for courage? You must risk your life (pg. 57). Churchill had little regard for his personal safety, was not concerned with criticism where his principles were involved, and regularly stood firm before the most determined opposition (pg. 77, 79, 82, 120, 123-126, 130, 195-198). Churchill, however, was open to genuine self-criticism (pg. 155-158, 160). Unsurprisingly, Churchill was perceived as a political opportunist, a maverick without deep loyalty to any political party as he switched back and forth between Conservatives and Liberals between 1904 and 1924 (pg. 66). Furthermore, Churchill regularly flirted with death first during his military career and then in politics (pg. 57, 104-106). Yet behind the public persona that radiated an aura of power and confidence, Churchill could sink in periods of depression that reminded him of his weaknesses (pg. 155-156, 171, 213). Churchill acknowledged that without the help of the Almighty, he could have never succeeded (pg. 64, 72, 84-85, 115-117, 152-153).
   
   3) Would you be strong morally or physically? You must resist temptations (pg. 57, 132, 161). Churchill only asked of others what he required of himself (pg. 57, 106). Churchill never gave in except to convictions of honor and good sense (pg. 151). Churchill was not ashamed to show his emotions and compassionate nature (pg. 163, 172, 184). Churchill's happy marriage to Clementine Hozier is a testimony of their faith in each other, despite the many differences existing between them (pg. 119-122, 135-138). Churchill and his wife had to show much fortitude when dealing with the troubles of three of their four children (pg. 138, 153-154).
   
   Churchill's character was forged in adversity. Churchill often learned the hard way. This rich experience he gained progressively turned him into a towering presence that could see farther than most people did. Churchill's enduring faith in both his destiny and the future of mankind was the ultimate driving force behind his greatness.



2. This could have been a very interesting book; however, in order to truly examine how Churchill's faith and worldview made him a great leader, Mansfield would have risked disproving his primary "black and white" thesis: Winston Churchill was a great leader because he was a Christian... or at least "Christian" as defined by Mansfield's largely conservative, evangelical American audience. However, much of this audience would likely have major issues with Churchill's Freemasonry and later Druidic involvement, or in Churchill's belief in and reliance upon oratory-which included evoking British mythology-to rally the undermanned and underarmed British and hold the Germans at bay until more substantive military assistance arrived. In some Christian circles, particularly those up in arms over the Harry Potter books that draw upon much of the same British mythology Churchill did, this might be considered borderline sorcery. As the Nobel committee noted when awarding him the 1953 prize for literature (not peace), "His every word is half a deed."
   
   Going to the other untenable extreme as conspiracy theorists across the `Net have done, claiming that Churchill's involvement with the Freemasons (like FDR's) and Druids proves that he is just as Satanic as Hitler, is certainly not an academic nor intellectually honest alternative; however, glossing over and outright avoiding relevant facts and sketching Churchill as a two-dimensional "Christian" hero any good card-holding Christian Reconstructionist could proudly hold up as a Christian leadership paradigm does nothing more than cast this complex man (who apparently had a more complex, idiosyncratic, and potentially problematic faith and worldview than Mansfield lets on) as a modern-day King Arthur. However, given Churchill's love of and belief in the power of myth, particularly English myth, perhaps Mansfield's speaking the Myth of Churchill into existence is perfectly appropriate in Churchillian terms. If this were truly Mansfield's motive, the book might have been more accurately titled, The Greatness and Power of the Churchillian Myth. [...]
   Structurally, Mansfield's brief case-study examination of Churchill as leader bears a passing similarity to how Howard Gardner examined the various internal/cognitive and external influences that create and shape leaders in Leading Minds: An Anatomy of Leadership (even though I personally thought Gardner did a better job of applying Mihalyi Cszikszentmihalyi's theories in an earlier book, Creating Minds). Based on a passing reference to Gardner's multiple intelligence theories in one of his other books, The Faith of George W. Bush, I wonder if Mansfield's treatment of Churchill isn't at least somewhat inspired by Gardner's work. However, reading this glossed-over, thesis-driven "study" just made me wish that Gardner had conducted this case study of Churchill in the first place.

5 comments about Churchill and America.

1. 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.



2. 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.



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. 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."



5. The actual content was very interesting; but there were some problems with the CD's; there were two substantial bad sections.