What do you think?
Rate this book
Churchill: Visionary. Statesman. Historian.
John Lukacs has spent a lifetime considering the complex personality and statesmanship of Winston Churchill. In previous books Lukacs has told the story of Churchill's titanic struggle with Adolf Hitler in the early days of World War II. Now, in Visionary. Statesman. Historian., he turns his attention to Churchill the man and visionary statesman. Each chapter of this book provides an essential portrait of Churchill. Lukacs treats Churchill's vital relationships with Stalin, Roosevelt, and Eisenhower, as well as his complex, farsighted political vision concerning the coming of World War II and the Cold War. Lukacs also assesses Churchill's abilities as a historian looking backward into the origins of the conflicts of which he was so much a part. In addition, the author examines the often contradictory ways Churchill has been perceived by critics and admirers alike. The last chapter is a powerful and deeply moving evocation of the three days Lukacs spent in London attending Churchill's funeral in 1965. In Visionary. Statesman. Historian., Lukacs deftly sets forth the essence of this towering figure of twentieth-century history with the consummate mastery of a great historian.
200 pages, Hardcover
First published September 10, 2002
19 people are currently reading
113 people want to read
About the author
John Lukacs
63 books116 followersLukacs was born in Budapest to a Roman Catholic father and Jewish mother. His parents divorced before the Second World War. During the Second World War he was forced to serve in a Hungarian labour battalion for Jews. During the German occupation of Hungary in 1944-45 he evaded deportation to the death camps, and survived the siege of Budapest. In 1946, as it became clear that Hungary was going to be a repressive Communist regime, he fled to the United States. In the early 1950s however, Lukacs wrote several articles in Commonweal criticizing the approach taken by Senator Joseph McCarthy, whom he described as a vulgar demagogue.[1]
Lukacs sees populism as the greatest threat to civilization. By his own description, he considers himself to be a reactionary. He claims that populism is the essence of both National Socialism and Communism. He denies that there is such a thing as generic fascism, noting for example that the differences between the political regimes of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy are greater than their similarities.[2]
A major theme in Lukacs's writing is his agreement with the assertion by the French historian Alexis de Tocqueville that aristocratic elites have been replaced by democratic elites, which obtain power via an appeal to the masses. In his 2002 book, At the End of an Age, Lukacs argued that the modern/bourgeois age, which began around the time of the Renaissance, is coming to an end.[3] The rise of populism and the decline of elitism is the theme of his experimental work, A Thread of Years (1998), a series of vignettes set in each year of the 20th century from 1900 to 1998, tracing the abandonment of gentlemanly conduct and the rise of vulgarity in American culture. Lukacs defends traditional Western civilization against what he sees as the leveling and debasing effects of mass culture.
By his own admission a dedicated Anglophile, Lukacs’s favorite historical figure is Winston Churchill, whom he considers to be the greatest statesman of the 20th century, and the savior of not only Great Britain, but also of Western civilization. A recurring theme in his writing is the duel between Winston Churchill and Adolf Hitler for mastery of the world. The struggle between them, whom Lukacs sees as the archetypical reactionary and the archetypical revolutionary, is the major theme of The Last European War (1976), The Duel (1991), Five Days in London (1999) and 2008's Blood, Toil, Tears and Sweat, a book about Churchill’s first major speech as Prime Minister. Lukacs argues that Great Britain (and by extension the British Empire) could not defeat Germany by itself, winning required the entry of the United States and the Soviet Union, but he contends that Churchill, by ensuring that Germany failed to win the war in 1940, laid the groundwork for an Allied victory.
Lukacs holds strong isolationist beliefs, and unusually for an anti-Communist émigré, "airs surprisingly critical views of the Cold War from a unique conservative perspective."[4] Lukacs claims that the Soviet Union was a feeble power on the verge of collapse, and contended that the Cold War was an unnecessary waste of American treasure and life. Likewise, Lukacs has also condemned the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
In his 1997 book, George F. Kennan and the Origins of Containment, 1944-1946, a collection of letters between Lukacs and his close friend George F. Kennan exchanged in 1994-1995, Lukacs and Kennan criticized the New Left claim that the Cold War was caused by the United States. Lukacs argued however that although it was Joseph Stalin who was largely responsible for the beginning of the Cold War, the administration of Dwight Eisenhower missed a chance for ending the Cold War in 1953 after Stalin's death, and as a consequence the Cold War went on for many more decades.
Lukacs sees populism as the greatest threat to civilization. By his own description, he considers himself to be a reactionary. He claims that populism is the essence of both National Socialism and Communism. He denies that there is such a thing as generic fascism, noting for example that the differences between the political regimes of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy are greater than their similarities.[2]
A major theme in Lukacs's writing is his agreement with the assertion by the French historian Alexis de Tocqueville that aristocratic elites have been replaced by democratic elites, which obtain power via an appeal to the masses. In his 2002 book, At the End of an Age, Lukacs argued that the modern/bourgeois age, which began around the time of the Renaissance, is coming to an end.[3] The rise of populism and the decline of elitism is the theme of his experimental work, A Thread of Years (1998), a series of vignettes set in each year of the 20th century from 1900 to 1998, tracing the abandonment of gentlemanly conduct and the rise of vulgarity in American culture. Lukacs defends traditional Western civilization against what he sees as the leveling and debasing effects of mass culture.
By his own admission a dedicated Anglophile, Lukacs’s favorite historical figure is Winston Churchill, whom he considers to be the greatest statesman of the 20th century, and the savior of not only Great Britain, but also of Western civilization. A recurring theme in his writing is the duel between Winston Churchill and Adolf Hitler for mastery of the world. The struggle between them, whom Lukacs sees as the archetypical reactionary and the archetypical revolutionary, is the major theme of The Last European War (1976), The Duel (1991), Five Days in London (1999) and 2008's Blood, Toil, Tears and Sweat, a book about Churchill’s first major speech as Prime Minister. Lukacs argues that Great Britain (and by extension the British Empire) could not defeat Germany by itself, winning required the entry of the United States and the Soviet Union, but he contends that Churchill, by ensuring that Germany failed to win the war in 1940, laid the groundwork for an Allied victory.
Lukacs holds strong isolationist beliefs, and unusually for an anti-Communist émigré, "airs surprisingly critical views of the Cold War from a unique conservative perspective."[4] Lukacs claims that the Soviet Union was a feeble power on the verge of collapse, and contended that the Cold War was an unnecessary waste of American treasure and life. Likewise, Lukacs has also condemned the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
In his 1997 book, George F. Kennan and the Origins of Containment, 1944-1946, a collection of letters between Lukacs and his close friend George F. Kennan exchanged in 1994-1995, Lukacs and Kennan criticized the New Left claim that the Cold War was caused by the United States. Lukacs argued however that although it was Joseph Stalin who was largely responsible for the beginning of the Cold War, the administration of Dwight Eisenhower missed a chance for ending the Cold War in 1953 after Stalin's death, and as a consequence the Cold War went on for many more decades.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
December 21, 2020
Page 2 (my book)
In 1940, Churchill, alone, stood across the path of Hitler’s victory.
This book is a series of essays on Churchill. The first one is of him as a visionary, mostly his repeated warnings that began in the mid-1930s of the dangers of Hitler and a rising Nazi Germany. Also, his warnings beginning in 1944 of the threat of the Soviet Union to the suppression of Poland and Eastern Europe, then leading to the famous Iron Curtain speech in Fulton, Missouri in 1946.
He also discusses his relationship to Stalin, Roosevelt, and Eisenhower. Churchill removed negative comments of Eisenhower when he was writing his World War II memoirs because of Eisenhower’s presidential aspirations.
The author examines Churchill’s writings of which there are many, but dwells far too long on his “Marlborough: His Life and Times”; I doubt if there is much of a readership of this today.
He brings up Churchill’s weaknesses, but also defends his errors. Lukacs is much in admiration of Churchill, as am I.
Perhaps the best chapter is on Churchill’s funeral at the end of January, 1965 which he attended. Think of the contrast of two of the 20th century’s greatest adversaries. Churchill’s funeral was poignant and dignified, attended by many foreign dignitaries; Hitler killed himself and his body burnt in a desecrated Berlin.
There is a constant defamation of Franklin Roosevelt by John Lukacs. He claims erroneously that Roosevelt handed Poland and Eastern Europe over to Stalin. This is nonsense. Among other aspects the Yalta agreements called for free and unfettered elections in Poland and were to include members of the Poles who had fled to London in 1939 as representatives in the Polish Government. All this was later to be denied by Stalin who had millions of Red Army soldiers in Eastern Europe. Lukacs gives a very flawed and one-sided view of the Yalta agreements not mentioning the accomplishments of Roosevelt in getting Soviet participation in the United Nations and a commitment to attack the Japanese once the war in Europe was over.
This is still an interesting and opinionated book. Lukacs has a way with words using long extended sentences. But it is still very readable.
Page 196-97
They [The United Kingdom] could have been conquered. Their island history would have come to an end. Their self-respect would have gone for good. Churchill saved them from this fate: and he appealed to them as he did so.
In 1940, Churchill, alone, stood across the path of Hitler’s victory.
This book is a series of essays on Churchill. The first one is of him as a visionary, mostly his repeated warnings that began in the mid-1930s of the dangers of Hitler and a rising Nazi Germany. Also, his warnings beginning in 1944 of the threat of the Soviet Union to the suppression of Poland and Eastern Europe, then leading to the famous Iron Curtain speech in Fulton, Missouri in 1946.
He also discusses his relationship to Stalin, Roosevelt, and Eisenhower. Churchill removed negative comments of Eisenhower when he was writing his World War II memoirs because of Eisenhower’s presidential aspirations.
The author examines Churchill’s writings of which there are many, but dwells far too long on his “Marlborough: His Life and Times”; I doubt if there is much of a readership of this today.
He brings up Churchill’s weaknesses, but also defends his errors. Lukacs is much in admiration of Churchill, as am I.
Perhaps the best chapter is on Churchill’s funeral at the end of January, 1965 which he attended. Think of the contrast of two of the 20th century’s greatest adversaries. Churchill’s funeral was poignant and dignified, attended by many foreign dignitaries; Hitler killed himself and his body burnt in a desecrated Berlin.
There is a constant defamation of Franklin Roosevelt by John Lukacs. He claims erroneously that Roosevelt handed Poland and Eastern Europe over to Stalin. This is nonsense. Among other aspects the Yalta agreements called for free and unfettered elections in Poland and were to include members of the Poles who had fled to London in 1939 as representatives in the Polish Government. All this was later to be denied by Stalin who had millions of Red Army soldiers in Eastern Europe. Lukacs gives a very flawed and one-sided view of the Yalta agreements not mentioning the accomplishments of Roosevelt in getting Soviet participation in the United Nations and a commitment to attack the Japanese once the war in Europe was over.
This is still an interesting and opinionated book. Lukacs has a way with words using long extended sentences. But it is still very readable.
Page 196-97
They [The United Kingdom] could have been conquered. Their island history would have come to an end. Their self-respect would have gone for good. Churchill saved them from this fate: and he appealed to them as he did so.
September 17, 2009
For what it is, it isn't terrible: a short defense and hagiography. As you go on, it becomes perfectly obvious that Lukacs can acknowledge Churchill's flaws, such as his vision of the white man's burden and the civilizing mission of the British Empire. Lukacs just doesn't think they're very important.
I don't mind a good dose of hero-worship, and with some serious qualifications, Winston Churchill is a worthy object. But calling him the "savior of Western civilization" as Lukacs does is going a bit too far. I also find it objectionable that Lukacs uses "English" as a compliment. It's embarrassing to see a wit and intellect like the author of this book adopt such a worshipful attitude towards an entire nationality, no matter what that nationality is. I don't care if Lukacs thinks the residents of East Timor are the greatest people on earth, or the English, or Americans, or anyone else. It's unseemly and compromising for a historian.
The best straw men he can find to beat up on are Irving and Charmley. I would have preferred he had not bothered. Arguing with them on minutiae only legitimizes their revisionist opinions.
Churchill may have been the leader that England needed when it needed one most. He was extraordinarily witty, his mind was quick and capacious, and he was the only leader of a major power who proved willing to stake his political future and the blood of his armies on opposing Hitler in defense of Poland, but that still doesn't change that history books shouldn't drool.
I don't mind a good dose of hero-worship, and with some serious qualifications, Winston Churchill is a worthy object. But calling him the "savior of Western civilization" as Lukacs does is going a bit too far. I also find it objectionable that Lukacs uses "English" as a compliment. It's embarrassing to see a wit and intellect like the author of this book adopt such a worshipful attitude towards an entire nationality, no matter what that nationality is. I don't care if Lukacs thinks the residents of East Timor are the greatest people on earth, or the English, or Americans, or anyone else. It's unseemly and compromising for a historian.
The best straw men he can find to beat up on are Irving and Charmley. I would have preferred he had not bothered. Arguing with them on minutiae only legitimizes their revisionist opinions.
Churchill may have been the leader that England needed when it needed one most. He was extraordinarily witty, his mind was quick and capacious, and he was the only leader of a major power who proved willing to stake his political future and the blood of his armies on opposing Hitler in defense of Poland, but that still doesn't change that history books shouldn't drool.
November 2, 2017
The book has its best content discussing the relationships between Churchill and the other key figures of his time: he provides reasoned explanation for Churchill’s attitudes towards Stalin, though honestly I don’t know enough on the subject to verify. At least it makes sense and he explains himself. However, the author consistently espouses American anglophilia, particularly in the final chapter (more on that later), and praises Roosevelt as much as Churchill, going a bit off topic at times. Eisenhower and Truman also get some praise, but they’re not the main subjects of the periods the book covers. When the book is factual, I think the contents are useful, but my qualm is that they are probably better and more objectively presented elsewhere, with less baggage in other material.
Since Churchill is generally criticised for being too lenient with Stalin, practising his own sort of ‘appeasement’, and Lucacs defends him with an interesting question raised of Russian nationalism (more immediately apparent) versus international communism (in the long term). Since he wants to talk about Churchill both as ‘Historian’ and ‘Visionary’ (i.e. making accurate predictions of the future), I think this was a good demonstration of both traits. (Further on this subject, he hopes for a book on “Churchill the Historian” but there’s already a book called “Churchill as Historian” – is there a big difference?) On the other hand, it was interesting to see how oracular he could be: Churchill predicted greater scale wars in 1901, and warned about Hitler’s rise as a threat while the Nazi Party was still small.
The implied idolatry just in the title is a little much – we’ve had enough of this already, and biographies should aim to be balanced and not hagiographic. Lucacs tends to acknowledge but downplay Churchill’s flaws, which is better than not mentioning them at all but still reveals his bias where he elevates Churchill’s virtues, he can be antagonistic and dismissive of his detractors, and his examples of detractors (David Irving and John Charmley, both holocaust deniers and easy targets) are reductive and deliberately neglectful of the more valid criticisms of Churchill’s character, especially on the subjects of colonialism, globalism, and race relations.
More time could have been devoted to discussing and defending Churchill’s opinions on the end of empire: as noted in the book, Churchill said withdrawal from India would “lose us our moral sanctions”. Surely we didn’t have them in the first place?
On other topics, I think he’s almost there on the Confederacy ‘winning’ the war of values: more elaboration on this would have been good. (Also, he literally says God allowed Churchill to be the defender of civilisation – taking it a bit far, even as a figure of speech.) The chapter on his failures and critics is useful, since it is still rare (almost taboo here in the UK) to see Churchill criticised, even if Lucacs chooses to underplay them. It makes it the more unfortunate that the critics he chooses (Irving and Charmley) are not reasoned or relevant choices at all, and, given their work, are best ignored. If he really wanted to devote a chapter to refuting Churchill’s critics, he let himself down by choosing such easy targets, which seems deliberate. He acknowledges the duality of Churchill but sees ‘both sides’ of him as ultimately ‘good’ – I think this is the problem.
Some parts of the book are just bizarre:
The author is critical of ignoring ‘Great Man’ or at the very least ‘person-focused’ view of history. Maybe we sometimes swing too far the other way, but I still think surely patterns matter to historians? (Strangely, he also says that history doesn’t repeat itself, without explaining what he means, but surely patterns and running themes do matter to historians?) Modern and/or ‘democratic’ historians aren’t saying that the key figures don’t matter by studying economic or social history, but are acknowledging that leaders aren’t the be all and end all – traditionally we often elevate or condemn leaders according to how they perform regardless of how easy or difficult their circumstances are (a bit off topic, but King John is a good example of this – he wasn’t a good king, but even the most capable monarch would struggle with the problems he faced).
The book is weirdly blasé on the war effort for someone so gung-ho about Churchill: there’s a note on p.29 (my edition) on potential Evelyn Waugh depictions of British troops stationed (hypothetically) in Ukraine.
The last chapter, on Churchill’s funeral, is frankly atrocious, and not relevant to the rest of the book at all – I had thought at the beginning, when Lucacs covers Churchill’s relationships with Stalin and Roosevelt with some helpful insight, that this might be a 3-star book, but I would rate the last chapter independently as one star. I was unsure about another reviewer’s calling it ‘hagiography’ until all became clear in this part. It’s filled with uncontrolled, rather embarrassing nostalgia and romanticism of what to me sounds like normal Londoner observations (though to be fair, as a native maybe I don’t realise how odd it seems to an outsider). He seems to see the English, particularly the middle class, as almost like a ‘special’ race unto themselves – I have actually been rereading The Lord of the Rings and I couldn’t help but see parallels between how Tolkien depicts elves and how Lucacs describes us: as ethereal aliens, but with an added coat of awkwardness and repression.
The fact that he died and that the funeral happened, and was a time to reflect on Churchill’s values, is fair enough but is only relevant to his impact, not relevant to the purported themes of the book. It makes the book incoherent and makes the whole exercise less serious once he begins to focus on sentiment over historical accuracy. The reactionary rambling about his over-romanticised view of the English takes the whole book down a notch once you realise there isn’t much value or interest in reading it, and reflects poorly on the rest of the book, making it seem like the author is more concerned with imposing these values and stereotypes on us through Churchill than actual analysis of character. At least he is semi-apologetic in advance, but it makes it unfortunately clear what the real motivation behind the book is: idealism, not historicity.
Since Churchill is generally criticised for being too lenient with Stalin, practising his own sort of ‘appeasement’, and Lucacs defends him with an interesting question raised of Russian nationalism (more immediately apparent) versus international communism (in the long term). Since he wants to talk about Churchill both as ‘Historian’ and ‘Visionary’ (i.e. making accurate predictions of the future), I think this was a good demonstration of both traits. (Further on this subject, he hopes for a book on “Churchill the Historian” but there’s already a book called “Churchill as Historian” – is there a big difference?) On the other hand, it was interesting to see how oracular he could be: Churchill predicted greater scale wars in 1901, and warned about Hitler’s rise as a threat while the Nazi Party was still small.
The implied idolatry just in the title is a little much – we’ve had enough of this already, and biographies should aim to be balanced and not hagiographic. Lucacs tends to acknowledge but downplay Churchill’s flaws, which is better than not mentioning them at all but still reveals his bias where he elevates Churchill’s virtues, he can be antagonistic and dismissive of his detractors, and his examples of detractors (David Irving and John Charmley, both holocaust deniers and easy targets) are reductive and deliberately neglectful of the more valid criticisms of Churchill’s character, especially on the subjects of colonialism, globalism, and race relations.
More time could have been devoted to discussing and defending Churchill’s opinions on the end of empire: as noted in the book, Churchill said withdrawal from India would “lose us our moral sanctions”. Surely we didn’t have them in the first place?
On other topics, I think he’s almost there on the Confederacy ‘winning’ the war of values: more elaboration on this would have been good. (Also, he literally says God allowed Churchill to be the defender of civilisation – taking it a bit far, even as a figure of speech.) The chapter on his failures and critics is useful, since it is still rare (almost taboo here in the UK) to see Churchill criticised, even if Lucacs chooses to underplay them. It makes it the more unfortunate that the critics he chooses (Irving and Charmley) are not reasoned or relevant choices at all, and, given their work, are best ignored. If he really wanted to devote a chapter to refuting Churchill’s critics, he let himself down by choosing such easy targets, which seems deliberate. He acknowledges the duality of Churchill but sees ‘both sides’ of him as ultimately ‘good’ – I think this is the problem.
Some parts of the book are just bizarre:
The author is critical of ignoring ‘Great Man’ or at the very least ‘person-focused’ view of history. Maybe we sometimes swing too far the other way, but I still think surely patterns matter to historians? (Strangely, he also says that history doesn’t repeat itself, without explaining what he means, but surely patterns and running themes do matter to historians?) Modern and/or ‘democratic’ historians aren’t saying that the key figures don’t matter by studying economic or social history, but are acknowledging that leaders aren’t the be all and end all – traditionally we often elevate or condemn leaders according to how they perform regardless of how easy or difficult their circumstances are (a bit off topic, but King John is a good example of this – he wasn’t a good king, but even the most capable monarch would struggle with the problems he faced).
The book is weirdly blasé on the war effort for someone so gung-ho about Churchill: there’s a note on p.29 (my edition) on potential Evelyn Waugh depictions of British troops stationed (hypothetically) in Ukraine.
The last chapter, on Churchill’s funeral, is frankly atrocious, and not relevant to the rest of the book at all – I had thought at the beginning, when Lucacs covers Churchill’s relationships with Stalin and Roosevelt with some helpful insight, that this might be a 3-star book, but I would rate the last chapter independently as one star. I was unsure about another reviewer’s calling it ‘hagiography’ until all became clear in this part. It’s filled with uncontrolled, rather embarrassing nostalgia and romanticism of what to me sounds like normal Londoner observations (though to be fair, as a native maybe I don’t realise how odd it seems to an outsider). He seems to see the English, particularly the middle class, as almost like a ‘special’ race unto themselves – I have actually been rereading The Lord of the Rings and I couldn’t help but see parallels between how Tolkien depicts elves and how Lucacs describes us: as ethereal aliens, but with an added coat of awkwardness and repression.
The fact that he died and that the funeral happened, and was a time to reflect on Churchill’s values, is fair enough but is only relevant to his impact, not relevant to the purported themes of the book. It makes the book incoherent and makes the whole exercise less serious once he begins to focus on sentiment over historical accuracy. The reactionary rambling about his over-romanticised view of the English takes the whole book down a notch once you realise there isn’t much value or interest in reading it, and reflects poorly on the rest of the book, making it seem like the author is more concerned with imposing these values and stereotypes on us through Churchill than actual analysis of character. At least he is semi-apologetic in advance, but it makes it unfortunately clear what the real motivation behind the book is: idealism, not historicity.
November 26, 2019
This is more an essay by an historian settling scores with other historians than a biography regarding one of the 20th Century's most iconic figures. Those looking for a biography need to look elsewhere...
July 28, 2018
While not all of the book is that compelling, Lukas’s makes some interesting points about Churchill’s relationship with Roosevelt, Stalin, and Eisenhower. His praise is responsible and measured (I.e. he continually emphasizes that Churchill‘s main legacy is in keeping England from defeat, not necessarily in leading England toward victory). What earns the book 5 stars, however, is Lukacs’ magnificent first-hand account of Churchill’s funeral, of which the final chapter consists. His telling of the three days he spent in London for the observance of this somber ceremony is nothing short of stunning.
December 23, 2015
Algumas considerações relevantes sobre esse livro:
No geral uma exaltação exacerbada do autor por Churchill, em uma escrita fluida e gostosa de ler. Excelente exploração do nefasto Acordo das Percentagens entre Churchill e Stalin, além da polêmica "Declaração da Europa liberada" e de como na verdade esse documento foi interpretado por Stalin como seu direito de posse de todas as áreas que seu exército havia libertado reconhecido .
Exemplo de exagero escancarado: o autor escreveu, sobre as cartas entre o presidente Roosevelt e Churchill: "um monumento equivalente, digamos, ao Coliseu na era de Roma, ou à cidade de Paris na Era Moderna." E mais: "Na realidade, no relacionamento com Roosevelt, Churchill foi o mais franco, mais emotivo, mais romântico, menos reservado e menos desconfiado."
Algumas excelentes teorias conspiratórias, minhas favoritas! O autor cita uma transcrição de um dos telefonemas entre Churchill e Roosevelt, interceptada e divulgada pelos alemães, que teria sido falsificada".
No que se refere a Churchill como historiador, o autor basicamente retrata a desavença de Churchill com outros historiadores (e seus possíveis erros) e trata menos das motivações pelas quais Churchill escrevia.
Boa crítica do autor sobre as obras de Churchill relacionadas às guerras:
*A Crise Mundial (1920) 5 volumes
*A Segunda Guerra Mundial (escritas entre 1948 e 1953) 6 volumes
Excessiva preocupação do autor em criticar outros autores...como citar John Charmley, que chegou a ponto de afirmar que, mesmo durante a Segunda Guerra Mundial, Churchill devia ter considerado um acordo com Hitler. Na minha opinião, acho que não era necessário se dar ao trabalho...
Excelente capítulo sobre as críticas e fracassos de Churchill, como seu desempenho controverso na Marinha, com a qual tinha pouca familiaridade; ou a operação Dardanelos, que foi um fracasso, e seu fracasso como Ministro das Finanças.
E, finalizando, verdadeiramente comovente o relato sobre a morte de Churchill e seu impacto para o mundo.
Recomendo a leitura!
No geral uma exaltação exacerbada do autor por Churchill, em uma escrita fluida e gostosa de ler. Excelente exploração do nefasto Acordo das Percentagens entre Churchill e Stalin, além da polêmica "Declaração da Europa liberada" e de como na verdade esse documento foi interpretado por Stalin como seu direito de posse de todas as áreas que seu exército havia libertado reconhecido .
Exemplo de exagero escancarado: o autor escreveu, sobre as cartas entre o presidente Roosevelt e Churchill: "um monumento equivalente, digamos, ao Coliseu na era de Roma, ou à cidade de Paris na Era Moderna." E mais: "Na realidade, no relacionamento com Roosevelt, Churchill foi o mais franco, mais emotivo, mais romântico, menos reservado e menos desconfiado."
Algumas excelentes teorias conspiratórias, minhas favoritas! O autor cita uma transcrição de um dos telefonemas entre Churchill e Roosevelt, interceptada e divulgada pelos alemães, que teria sido falsificada".
No que se refere a Churchill como historiador, o autor basicamente retrata a desavença de Churchill com outros historiadores (e seus possíveis erros) e trata menos das motivações pelas quais Churchill escrevia.
Boa crítica do autor sobre as obras de Churchill relacionadas às guerras:
*A Crise Mundial (1920) 5 volumes
*A Segunda Guerra Mundial (escritas entre 1948 e 1953) 6 volumes
Excessiva preocupação do autor em criticar outros autores...como citar John Charmley, que chegou a ponto de afirmar que, mesmo durante a Segunda Guerra Mundial, Churchill devia ter considerado um acordo com Hitler. Na minha opinião, acho que não era necessário se dar ao trabalho...
Excelente capítulo sobre as críticas e fracassos de Churchill, como seu desempenho controverso na Marinha, com a qual tinha pouca familiaridade; ou a operação Dardanelos, que foi um fracasso, e seu fracasso como Ministro das Finanças.
E, finalizando, verdadeiramente comovente o relato sobre a morte de Churchill e seu impacto para o mundo.
Recomendo a leitura!
July 25, 2009
It's a book of history, but it reads as easily as a novel; John Lukacs really knows how to write history books that grabs the reader from page 1...
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews