No comments about Winston Churchill: Winston Churchill (Historic Lives).

No comments about The Politics of Pleasure: A Portrait of Benjamin Disraeli.

No comments about "C": The Secret Life of Sir Stewart Graham Menzies, Spymaster to Winston Churchill.

No comments about Winston Churchill by his Personal Secretary: Recollections of The Great Man by A Woman Who Worked for Him.

3 comments about Great Contemporaries (Churchill, Winston//Early Works of Winston Churchill).

1. There is very little about Sir Churchill that can be considered routine, average, or some standard he can be compared to. Everything he did was generally on a scale that helped to create the Legend he has become, and that he will remain. Even when he erred, it generally was not minor, however rare, but on balance we do not, nor will we have his kind again. He loved his Country, and he loved the US, for he was 50% American, so that even in Washington D.C. today, a statue of him striding forward has one foot on British, and one on American soil.

   His life was long, stretching past the 90-year mark, allowing him ample time to write and give speeches, which are routinely quoted to this day. He was a master at both disciplines, with his writing awarded the Nobel Prize For Literature in 1953.

   "Great Contemporaries" is a book that is more about the men and women he knew than about the Author. He is evident throughout the read, as the impressions of these people of History are his. The 21 profiles he shares with the reader are incredible in their range, and that they were his "contemporaries" is one testament to the History he created and was a part of.

   Contemporary people of fame are often identifiable by a first or last name alone. However as we live in an age where you can chat in real time across the planet, fame does not require the same level of notoriety. The fame is of a different character and caliber.

   The Kaiser, Shaw, Chamberlein, Hindenburg, Foch, Trotsky, these are only a fraction of the essays this man of history will share. Too, there is Lawrence of Arabia who requires a bit more than a last name, but it is not do to his renown, rather the generic nature of the end of his sobriquet.

   These reminiscences are different than those of today's leaders, there was very little distance between these people, they often met alone, and they did not bring an array of lackeys, translators, and gadflies.

   A tremendous sweep of one man's impressions of people whose actions resonate to this day, and in all likelihood will not cease.




2. Consider this passage, about the political climate in Britain before World War One:

   "At the time, conflict unceasing grew year by year to a more dangerous intensity at home, while abroad there gathered sullenly
   the hurricane that was to wreck our generation. Our days were spent in the furious party battles..., while always upon the horizon deadly shapes grew or faded, and even while the sun shone there was a curious whisper in the air."

   Who could the author of such Churchillian lines be but Winston Churchill himself? The stately but rarely stentorian pacing and tone, imitations of which are rarely successful, still impresses upon the reader the power and beauty of the English language.

   These biographical essays, written while Churchill was in political exile in the Thirties, were collected in book at the end of that decade. His majestically simple (or simply majestic) writing brings long-gone controversies and personalities back to life, if unavoidably suffused with the aura of the author's own personality.

   Some notables that would seem to have been natural subjects for this book are missing: Gandhi, Lloyd George, Edward VII. But an American reader only passingly acquainted with the luminaries of early 20th century Britain would be interested in Churchill's memories of the First Earl of Birkenhead, Herbert Henry Asquith, and George Nathanael Curzon. The pieces are light on biographical detail and heavy on evaluation, but Churchill's estimation of most of these people is generous. He dismisses George Bernard Shaw as a jester, gallantly defends the ex-Kaiser from the worst of the late war-time propaganda, and warns of the rising influence of Germany's new chancellor, Adolf Hitler. The reader is also reminded from time to time that Churchill was indeed a politician, as in the essay on Lord Fisher, in which he deflects blame for some WWI naval setbacks onto that gentleman.

   Excepting Walpole, probably no statesman's collected bread and butter writing has ever been so memorable, or made for such good reading.




3. Although Winston Churchill is remember best as a statesman (and in my mind the greatest man of the 20th Century), he made his living through his pen. Churchill though of aristocratic background, was not extremely wealthy. While he could have survived on the family fortune, his expensive tastes and zest for living would have bankrupted him. So he turned to writing to earn his living.
   
   Great Contemporaries is a series of essays written between 1929 and 1937 on the "great" leaders of the day. Churchill knew many of these leaders personally, and is able to supplement what might otherwise be a dry recitation of the facts of a career with personal stories and vignettes.
   
   Perhaps the most famous of the essays is on "Hitler and his Choice, 1935." This essay is often cited by neo-Nazis and far leftists as proof that Churchill actually admired Hitler. But finally getting the chance to read the essay shows that any such analysis takes Churchill's words extremely out of context. Hitler was to be Churchill's great antagonist in the coming decade. In 1935, Churchill recognized that Hitler was facing a choice - would Hitler take a moderate road and perhaps be remembered as the leader who restored German honor, or who Hitler take the road of war. Churchill ends the essay with a warning, that German rearmament was continuing, and, of course, tragically, Churchill's misgivings were played out.
   
   One problem, with this book is that many of the "great" men described are almost forgotten today, at least outside their home countries. Men like the Earl of Rosebery (Prime Minister in the 1890s) or King Alfosno XIII of Spain probably make no impression on the American reader while George Curzon is remembered, if at all, as the man who roughly proposed the border between Poland and the Soviet Union (the "Curzon Line").
   
   The book includes essays on well-remembered men such as George Bernard Shaw, Clemenceau and Churchill's protégé T.E. Lawrence (better known as "Lawrence of Arabia"). These essays, full of personal remembrances by Churchill, are well worth the time.

No comments about Winston Churchill.

No comments about Thoughts and Adventures.

4 comments about Churchill: The Unexpected Hero (Lives and Legacies Series).

1. Though Winston Churchill has never wanted for biographers, over the past few years the publication of brief studies of his life have come into vogue. Written by some of the leading historians of the period - John Keegan, Geoffrey Best, Stuart Ball - they offer an accessible (if condensed) examination of one of the dominant figures of the twentieth century. Paul Addison's book is the latest addition to their ranks, and one that deserves to be ranked as among the best of these efforts.
   
   Addison argues that the heroic status that Churchill enjoys today belies much of his career. Considered an irresponsible genius by his contemporaries, he was a polarizing figure who was never completely trusted by any side of the political divide. Yet as prime minister during the Second World War he went on to become "the embodiment of national unity," a symbol of Britain's determination to defeat Nazi Germany. Addison provides a more nuanced view of Churchill's career, noting his ideological consistency in a politically turbulent age. When war came, the man and the moment were ideally matched; indeed, many of the traits that his opponents deplored - his enthusiasm for war, his advocacy of impossible ideas, even the fact that he was half American - became assets in the conflict and were keys to his successful leadership.
   
   Developed from his entry on Churchill for the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Addison succeeds in providing an insightful introduction to the life of one of the dominant figures of the twentieth century. Though hardly a hagiographical account - he freely acknowledges such faults as Churchill's massive egotism - his portrait is a sympathetic one, depicting the prime minister as "a hero with feet of clay." The result is a good read and a great starting point for anyone seeking to learn more about this fascinating figure.



2. 
   I've waited the past two months to receive a copy of this short biography on Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill. Reading this book does not disappoint.
   
   This short work, though fair and favorable to Sir Winston, also discusses the controversies of his career. Not everyone in Britain was a fan of Churchill, with some disliking him, with others fearing he would ever have any part of the government. In spite of his monumental contributions to the World War II years, some never lost their mistrust nor dislike of the man.
   
   As an American, I see him as the beacon of hope for war-torn Britain. The best possible man to lead the country during those years, an uncrowned king giving the British people the hope and stamina needed to go on, day by day, overcoming all the suffering World War II brought them. Should he not have been the best, surely there existed no one better. When one thinks today of World War II Britain, one must think of Winston Churchill. They have become intertwined and inseparable.
   
   Even from his earliest years, Churchill always felt he was a person of destiny; so was able to equally accept and act in that role. One must wonder what England would have been without him. Prior to the war he was seen as too strident and hawkish, once the war began however his views and demeanor coincided exactly to the needs of the time. Once the war was over, most of the country turned their backs to him at the polls, feeling he was not up to running a tamer, peacetime government.
   
   Being neither British, nor ignoring his earlier government service prior to World War II (he was 65 in 1940 at time of his becoming Prime Minister with many years of government service behind him), I cannot agree with their post war thinking. And as discussed in this slim volume, I agree with the author that the mistrust and distrust of earlier Liberal versus Tory episode was ever overcome. Too many felt they just could not count on, nor place their full trust in this man.
   
   Winston Churchill is my 'cup of tea'. One of the few 20th Century men of both character and leadership. True, he had both great flaws and great abilities as well; and this book fairly shows both.
   
   Recommended reading.
   
   Semper Fi.



3. Paul Addison has written a competent introduction to a life more interesting, in the sense of history, than any other of the twentieth century. His book is enlivened by many vivid quotes from a broad assortment of people who had reason to know Winston Churchill. However, I think the author, in an excessive attempt at balance, bends too far over backward in making use of certain highly negative assessments-- such as one offered by Evelyn Waugh at the time of Churchill's death.
   
   While he may have had feet of clay, his name remains remembered in Westminister Abby--and elsewhere over the globe.



4. Addison knows that Churchill's life has received almost as many words as Churchill wrote himself, as one of the most prodigous authors of the twentieth century, known and admired by many as the greatest figure of his time, "saving the world" from Nazi Germany, the right man at the right place at the right time.
   
   But Addison is not so sure. Churchill was maddeningly erratic, not only changing political parties twice but also inflaming deep hatred during his long, varied career as a military figure, prison escapee, politician, cabinet member, and prime minister. Much of the peculiarities about Winston we can attribute to his relationship with his parents, an American debutant and a half-crazed father who died young. Lacking their affections, and wanting to make a name for himself, Churchill took on risks and positions with abandon.
   
   Addison has done a thorough study, more remarkable for its brevity when describing a man whose life has been chronicled many times before in thousands of pages. While leading England during World War II, Winston came to symbolize the twentieth century but he was in many ways a man of the nineteenth or even eighteenth century, believing in the Empire and being more of an egoist than an egotist. Yes, he was a racist in today's terms, with his contempt for what we would today call "developing countries" and their peoples, but for his time Churchill was not out of step. He was, at times, indecisive and, yes, out of step with popular feelings. His writings were often efforts to cast himself in the best possible light. This was especially true when he wrote his memoirs of World War II, right after he was thrown from office at his moment of triumph. This cathartic and somewhat self-serving post-war writing process regained him 10 Downing Street, it also left him as the primary arbiter of his reputation from the war -- the leader of the victorious nations gets to write history.
   
   He was a fickle, spoiled, epicurean of sorts who seemed to love a good fight -- even a good war -- if it helped him get ahead and helped England stay ahead or stay alive. Loved or hated, he deserves to be admired for what he got right, not for what he got wrong. Addison is critical yet quite balanced in this treatment of this great yet flawed figure. And for those who want the concise Churchill story, this is it.

No comments about The Young Churchill: The Early Years of Winston Churchill.

5 comments about John Major: The Autobiography.

1. As I watched the results from the 1997 General Election from the sidelines of America (remembering that ten years prior I had been in the thick of things, on the floor of a count and being shown on BBC intently staring at the bank teller drafted to count the box in which I had an interest), I was variously amazed, pleased, saddened, and in the end, pleasantly surprised at the good humour of John Major, who said very simply, 'Okay, we lost.'

   I met John Major first when he was a rising parliamentary star recruited to come to the constituency of the backbencher for whom I worked. He came to give a pep talk to the local Conservatives on a local radio programme; this constituency (Basildon) was considered a dead loss, so much so that the PM and various other Cabinet names wouldn't waste their time making a stop--but John Major came, and, we won.

   Major has put together an interesting account of his time in office. Thankfully he concentrates on his political career (not spending hundreds of pages giving us the sort of childhood information that rarely adds value to a political autobiography), starting with his first victory coming to the House of Commons in 1979 (Margaret Thatcher's first victory as leader) and culminating with the 1997 electoral defeat, which he took with relatively good grace and rather few recriminations. And, whereas many political figures spend a large part of their memoirs in a 'If I were still there' mode, Major only devotes a few pages to the follow-up and future (in a five-page chapter entitled Aftermath) preferring not to speculate on irrelevant imponderables, and avoiding the problem of which he was most critical in his predecessor--that being of not wanting to let go.

   It was no secret that one of the things the press and public eagerly sought in this book was Major's opinions on the continued attempts by Thatcher to exert an influence in leadership. His rocky relationship with the former prime minister has many examples through the text, some explicit and some subtle (such as the caption from a photo taken at the 1990 Conservative Party Conference, which reads 'Still on good terms with Margaret following the announcement of our entry into the ERM.').

   In general, this is a well-written book, and John Major's tenure of office is rather more interesting than popular memory or the press would have one believe, perhaps understandable due to following a person of such flash and sparkle as Thatcher--who could compete with that? Major did in many ways, and, as his autobiography shows, he won in many ways, and when he lost, he was a gentleman.




2. John Major's autobiography is a clear and balanced account of his early life and of his time in office leading the United Kingdom. He forcefully defends most of his policies and a few times admits that he got some important things wrong.
   
   The first nine chapters are chronological and recount his childhood, his early life in business and politics, his rise within Thatcher's cabinet, and finally his attaining the Prime Ministership. The remaining nineteen chapters deal with his days in office. Each chapter addresses a topic or issue, beginning with his first international test in leading the UK through the first Gulf War. He deals with domestic issues like Ireland and the poll tax, but spends much time on Europe as European issues hogged the agenda during most of his tenure. He explains his position as a pragmatic Eurosceptic. On one hand, Major has always wanted to remain British and fears the coming of a United States of Europe; on the other hand he sees the foolishness of the UK giving up its influence by refusing to participate.
   
   Pragmatism colours all of Major's decisions and policies. Unfortunately, Major led a party polarized by extreme views on Europe, on Monetary union, and even on the question of Ireland and to many at the time his pragmatism looked weak or lacking in beliefs. It was not. Major convincingly recounts how he was trying to save the Tories from splitting. He saw the Conservative party as a crucial institution, one whose survival in the long term mattered much more than the transient questions of Europe. But Major is an opinonated pragmatist. He believes in the basics of Toryism and then had to watch in frustration as New Labour under Tony Blair appropriated (Major bluntly says "stole") basic Tory social and fiscal policies.
   
   Thus pragmatism had drawbacks. It caused Major to back off a little in order to appease; he accepts responsibility for the Conservative failure and the new Labour landslide.



3. John Major said it himself - if he had been the only candidate in the 1997 election he would have come second. The usual view of his premiership is of an interlude between the eras of Thatcher and Blair. Historians in due course may see it otherwise, but the first thing that needs to be said is that as a historical record these memoirs are first class. For candour, fair-mindedness, lack of ego and clarity in separating fact from inference and opinion I have never read their like from anyone who ever attained such a position.
   
   The candour doesn't stretch to telling us absolutely everything. Like Jimmy Carter John Major was unlucky on top of his own errors, but one great piece of good luck was that his affair (while in a junior post) with a parliamentary colleague Edwina Currie did not come to light until he had left office. It was the funniest story in 20th century British politics and it highlights what was always his problem - he wasn't taken seriously. His face was against him, his voice was against him, and his bank-managerish way of expressing himself at times, such as I have borrowed for my caption to this review via Private Eye, was a gift to the satirists and the chattering classes. Otherwise his style of writing is, in all important and relevant respects, excellent. I cringed on reading `...the huge constituency and its rich variety of interests'; or `...he was always ready with a good-humoured story'. His innocent pride at his own little jokes and bons mots is pretty embarrassing too, but some of his more acid asides such as regarding the overlooked hopefuls whose self-ascribed talents would have needed a long-range telescope to be discerned are actually much better, although he floored me with his remark about the `column inches' devoted by the papers to Hugh Grant after his famous arrest.
   
   There I go. It's all too easy not to take him seriously, and it's all wrong too. This man was a national leader through some pretty momentous times. I can't say that his narration of the gulf war added much to what I already knew, but nobody else was in a position to enlighten us so much about the economic ups and downs of the 80's and 90's, and especially about the issue that more than any other wrecked his government, namely relations between Britain and Europe. Unlike many national leaders, Major understood economics. His rise to the top was mainly via the Treasury, and when next, I wonder, will we ever see an economic narrative like this, told by a man who knows what he's talking about, who was right at the centre of decision-making, who is or appears to be completely willing to tell the whole story, and who is able to put it across with such lucidity? If you think economics is complicated, try understanding the British Conservative party and its behaviour over Europe. Here we find Major the historian at his superlative best. The behaviour of his `euro-sceptic' MP's was a psychologist's field-day, and Major assesses them individually with a dispassionate calmness that is staggeringly impressive considering the hell they put him through. It would all have broken many a lesser man (or woman). I never voted for his government nor would I if I had the chance again, but I can't see how his bitterest critic can fail to be impressed by the way he kept his nerve, and by the way he can stand back from his own performance under that sort of pressure and assess it as if he were marking an exam paper.
   
   As if all this were not enough, he had Northern Ireland to deal with. If it would be fair to say that he was out of his depth with the issue, the same could be said about every other prime minister who has tackled it. Major made a bold and honest attempt to cope, and some of it has stuck, and Blair has been the beneficiary as he has been in a significant number of other ways. Above all, Blair inherited a sound economy after all the travails of the previous 10 years, Major knows that, and he's sore about the lack of recognition of the fact. Major was unlucky to come to office at the time he did - Thatcher and Blair were elected on a wave of disgust at the failures, real or perceived, of the preceding governments, up with whose shortcomings, as the phrase goes, we were fed. Major entered 10 Downing Street at a time when changes were going on that he only partly understands and, characteristically, doesn't claim to understand fully. He came from a poor background, and he is a `compassionate' conservative. Those have actually been around for a long time, witness Disraeli himself. Witness also Macmillan, the premier who said `We are all socialists now'. Macmillan was quite unquestionably compassionate, but he belonged to a tradition, and in an era, when the Conservative party had every reason to believe that power was its birthright. These days it still thinks so, and, worse, acts as if it does. Its problem is that the rest of us think otherwise. Labour's shortcomings are manifold and monstrous, but it doesn't make that mistake and that could be Labour's salvation for quite a long time. If I'm right, Major's thoughtful musings, while valid in point after point, are missing the main one. He was a good manager, but he failed as a leader and as a politician. Blair could see, as FDR could all those years ago, that if you at least act as if you understand what people are asking for they will put up with a great deal. For all his humble origins Major failed to connect, partly through his own fault as he can see very well, but mainly because nobody associated the Conservative party with the values that he himself is most interested in - health, safety, pensions, schools, hospitals and so on. These are traditionally Labour's strong suits, and, largely through his inheritance from Major, Blair has slain the dragon that Labour can't be trusted with the economy. That leaves the Conservatives rowing over Europe on the assumption that what matters to them must therefore matter to the rest of us. Their own chairman and advertising magnate Lord Saatchi has grasped the point perfectly well `Who needs the Tories now?' Blair is running into trouble through pushing his phenomenal luck a little too far and he will be going shortly in any case, but as he faces his fifth Conservative opponent in 8 or 9 years I expect he and his successor will make short work of whoever it is because they have grasped this point. I wonder whether Major has come to see it this way too by now.



4. I wanted to read this book both because of the Speaker Series and because I will be going to London later this year. It has taught me about some of the culture and politics of that great land. Yet, John Major drones on about topics in way too much detail. I usually enjoy the first 10 pages of every chapter at which point he chooses to drag the subject into areas that often don't seem related.



5. I did a report on the history of the Conservative Party from 1990 to 1997. We were asked by our instructor to use at least ten sources, you really only need one and it's this book! It is presented in chronological order and is easy to understand. The rift over Europe helps explain why the Tory Party was so badly beaten in the 1997 General Election. A great source for anybody doing research into this time in British history!