What do you think?
Rate this book
In Command of History: Churchill Fighting and Writing the Second World War
Churchill fought the war twice over - as Prime Minister and again as its premier historian. In 1948-54 he published six volumes of memoirs which secured his reputation and shaped our understanding of the conflict to this day.Using the drafts and correspondence for The Second World War, David Reynolds opens our eyes to Churchill the author and to the research 'syndicate' on whom he depended. We see how the memoirs were censored by Whitehall to conceal secrets such as the codebreakers at Bletchley Park, and how Churchill himself censored them to avoid offending current world leaders.This book forces us to reconsider much received wisdom about the war and illuminates an unjustly neglected period of his life - the Second Wilderness Years of 1945-51, when Churchill, now over seventy, wrote himself into history, politicked himself back into Downing Street and delivered some of the most important speeches of his career.
Paperback
First published November 4, 2004
22 people are currently reading
422 people want to read
About the author
David Reynolds
33 books64 followersLibrarian Note: There is more than one author by this name in the Goodreads database. For more information please see David Reynolds.
A Professor of International History and a Fellow of Christ's College, Cambridge. He was awarded a scholarship to study at Dulwich College, then Cambridge and Harvard universities. He has held visiting posts at Harvard, Nebraska and Oklahoma, as well as at Nihon University in Tokyo and Sciences Po in Paris. He was awarded the Wolfson History Prize, 2004, and elected a Fellow of the British Academy in 2005. He teaches and lectures both undergraduates and postgraduates at Cambridge University, specialising in the two world wars and the Cold War. Since October 2013 he has been Chairman of the History Faculty at Cambridge.
A Professor of International History and a Fellow of Christ's College, Cambridge. He was awarded a scholarship to study at Dulwich College, then Cambridge and Harvard universities. He has held visiting posts at Harvard, Nebraska and Oklahoma, as well as at Nihon University in Tokyo and Sciences Po in Paris. He was awarded the Wolfson History Prize, 2004, and elected a Fellow of the British Academy in 2005. He teaches and lectures both undergraduates and postgraduates at Cambridge University, specialising in the two world wars and the Cold War. Since October 2013 he has been Chairman of the History Faculty at Cambridge.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews
April 28, 2018
Forget Clinton, read Churchill!
When former President Clinton released his autobiography some months ago, this was seen as a political and literary event. Yet, it all pales in comparison to when Winston Churchill published his 6 volumes of history on the Second World War - from 1949 to 1954. These works are the subject of David Reynolds highly interesting book "In Command of History."
Unlike Clinton, Churchill was hardly retired; he was leader of the opposition Tory party, giving significant speeches across Europe and North America, renewing his interest in painting - and in 1950 he was also 75 years old. All of Churchill's colleagues would remark on his boundless energy - particularly given the fact that he hardly took any regular exercise.
Churchill was also a prolific author before World War II; having written a history of the Great War, a volume on the Duke of Marlborough (his ancestor) and his "History of the English Speaking Peoples" had yet to be completed.
As soon as Churchill became Prime Minister in 1940 speculation was rising about the future book to be published. Towards the end of the war various publisher's were "frothing at the bit" and Cassell in England and Houghton Mifflin in the U.S. won. As well, there were serialization rights in major English newspapers and in the U.S. The New York Times and the now defunct Life magazine negotiated these rights in the U.S., and in addition provided working vacations for Churchill and his entourage in lavish resorts in France, Switzerland, and North Africa - for "the enhancement of the writing process." Both Henry Luce of Time/Life and Arthur Sulzberger of the New York Times were internationalists who had long admired Churchill.
In his book Reynolds writes that Churchill was writing history within history. He was not writing about events of long ago in which the protagonists were long gone.
The book is divided into 6 sections to correspond with the 6 volumes. It examines the era of the volume versus the time it was actually written in.
In England Anthony Eden was titular head of the Conservative party while Churchill was off writing and speech-making. Also Eden had long been foreseen as replacing the aging Churchill as head of the Conservative Party. This is reflected in the writings of the "Second World War." Churchill claims to have been extremely distraught when Eden resigned as foreign minister from the Chamberlain government. Was this really the case or was Churchill trying to over-play the emphasis Eden had on him? He needed Eden at the time of writing (1948-49) to substitute as head of the Conservative Party for him. At the time of Eden's resignation in 1938, they were not considered to be allies.
Another interesting fact Reynolds brings up is that the British parliament allowed Churchill to publish his own government war memos (of which there were thousands). However, because of confidentiality, Churchill was not allowed to publish responses to these memos. It gives the impression throughout the 6 volumes of Churchill single-handedly managing the war. To some extent this is true - Churchill would involve himself in extreme detail much to the annoyance of those being probed.
There was "positive" or logical censorship in the volumes. Churchill could not divulge that England had broken Germany's war transmission codes - there was still a fear that Germany could rise again via ultra-nationalists groups who could use the code-breakers as another excuse that Germany had been unfairly beaten.
When Eisenhower decided to run for president in 1952 some memos had to be doctored to remove less than complimentary remarks. However, scathing remarks about Australian Prime Minister Curtin's decision to remove his troops from North Africa were left in. But Curtin was out of the political picture by then, and Australia was not a power player like the United States in the 1950's.
Reynolds' also brings up documentary emphasis about Churchill's reticence to Operation Overlord (the D-Day landings at Normandy in 1944). Before Churchill's volumes, several books had already been published on the American side alleging this. Churchill deliberately manipulates his writings to attempt to prove that he was always in favour of the landings in France.
He omits certain parts of his war memos that have a strong leaning favouring the extension of the war from Italy into the Balkans, instead of pursuing Overlord. There were strong memories of the killing fields in France during World War I; perhaps this is one reason for this reluctance. D-Day is seen as success today - prior to the landings there was a vast unknown.
Interspersed in his memoirs, is a pet project of Churchill's to lure Turkey in the war with the Allies. Churchill in fact visited with Turkey's leaders in a futile attempt to persuade them to join in the "common cause". This was all a part of his project of extending troops from Italy into the Balkans. Turkey would probably have been a burden in the allied camp - requesting endless military supplies. Reynolds does not inquire into the motives of using Turkey as an ally. Churchill general's said that he had "...one hundred ideas a day - the problem was to decide what the good one was."
I take issue with Reynolds' negative review of the "Gathering Storm" (the first volume of the memoirs detailing the growing Nazi menace). Reynolds misses the point that Churchill was always a strong individualist - never scared to express his own beliefs. Churchill took a tough stand against German expansionism, and India's independence - but it is what he believed.
Churchill could also be remarkably prescient - he foresaw the futility of British involvement in the Spanish Civil War. Franco's Spain was neutral in the Second World War. Franco did not interfere with the Allied build-up in Gibraltar and distanced himself from both Hitler and Mussolini during the war years.
These six volumes of Churchill are probably the most significant work of the past century by a political and literary colossus. As a matter of fact, it was only on the publication of his 6 volumes that the term "Second World War" came into acceptable and common usage. This is what makes Reynolds examination so compelling.
When former President Clinton released his autobiography some months ago, this was seen as a political and literary event. Yet, it all pales in comparison to when Winston Churchill published his 6 volumes of history on the Second World War - from 1949 to 1954. These works are the subject of David Reynolds highly interesting book "In Command of History."
Unlike Clinton, Churchill was hardly retired; he was leader of the opposition Tory party, giving significant speeches across Europe and North America, renewing his interest in painting - and in 1950 he was also 75 years old. All of Churchill's colleagues would remark on his boundless energy - particularly given the fact that he hardly took any regular exercise.
Churchill was also a prolific author before World War II; having written a history of the Great War, a volume on the Duke of Marlborough (his ancestor) and his "History of the English Speaking Peoples" had yet to be completed.
As soon as Churchill became Prime Minister in 1940 speculation was rising about the future book to be published. Towards the end of the war various publisher's were "frothing at the bit" and Cassell in England and Houghton Mifflin in the U.S. won. As well, there were serialization rights in major English newspapers and in the U.S. The New York Times and the now defunct Life magazine negotiated these rights in the U.S., and in addition provided working vacations for Churchill and his entourage in lavish resorts in France, Switzerland, and North Africa - for "the enhancement of the writing process." Both Henry Luce of Time/Life and Arthur Sulzberger of the New York Times were internationalists who had long admired Churchill.
In his book Reynolds writes that Churchill was writing history within history. He was not writing about events of long ago in which the protagonists were long gone.
The book is divided into 6 sections to correspond with the 6 volumes. It examines the era of the volume versus the time it was actually written in.
In England Anthony Eden was titular head of the Conservative party while Churchill was off writing and speech-making. Also Eden had long been foreseen as replacing the aging Churchill as head of the Conservative Party. This is reflected in the writings of the "Second World War." Churchill claims to have been extremely distraught when Eden resigned as foreign minister from the Chamberlain government. Was this really the case or was Churchill trying to over-play the emphasis Eden had on him? He needed Eden at the time of writing (1948-49) to substitute as head of the Conservative Party for him. At the time of Eden's resignation in 1938, they were not considered to be allies.
Another interesting fact Reynolds brings up is that the British parliament allowed Churchill to publish his own government war memos (of which there were thousands). However, because of confidentiality, Churchill was not allowed to publish responses to these memos. It gives the impression throughout the 6 volumes of Churchill single-handedly managing the war. To some extent this is true - Churchill would involve himself in extreme detail much to the annoyance of those being probed.
There was "positive" or logical censorship in the volumes. Churchill could not divulge that England had broken Germany's war transmission codes - there was still a fear that Germany could rise again via ultra-nationalists groups who could use the code-breakers as another excuse that Germany had been unfairly beaten.
When Eisenhower decided to run for president in 1952 some memos had to be doctored to remove less than complimentary remarks. However, scathing remarks about Australian Prime Minister Curtin's decision to remove his troops from North Africa were left in. But Curtin was out of the political picture by then, and Australia was not a power player like the United States in the 1950's.
Reynolds' also brings up documentary emphasis about Churchill's reticence to Operation Overlord (the D-Day landings at Normandy in 1944). Before Churchill's volumes, several books had already been published on the American side alleging this. Churchill deliberately manipulates his writings to attempt to prove that he was always in favour of the landings in France.
He omits certain parts of his war memos that have a strong leaning favouring the extension of the war from Italy into the Balkans, instead of pursuing Overlord. There were strong memories of the killing fields in France during World War I; perhaps this is one reason for this reluctance. D-Day is seen as success today - prior to the landings there was a vast unknown.
Interspersed in his memoirs, is a pet project of Churchill's to lure Turkey in the war with the Allies. Churchill in fact visited with Turkey's leaders in a futile attempt to persuade them to join in the "common cause". This was all a part of his project of extending troops from Italy into the Balkans. Turkey would probably have been a burden in the allied camp - requesting endless military supplies. Reynolds does not inquire into the motives of using Turkey as an ally. Churchill general's said that he had "...one hundred ideas a day - the problem was to decide what the good one was."
I take issue with Reynolds' negative review of the "Gathering Storm" (the first volume of the memoirs detailing the growing Nazi menace). Reynolds misses the point that Churchill was always a strong individualist - never scared to express his own beliefs. Churchill took a tough stand against German expansionism, and India's independence - but it is what he believed.
Churchill could also be remarkably prescient - he foresaw the futility of British involvement in the Spanish Civil War. Franco's Spain was neutral in the Second World War. Franco did not interfere with the Allied build-up in Gibraltar and distanced himself from both Hitler and Mussolini during the war years.
These six volumes of Churchill are probably the most significant work of the past century by a political and literary colossus. As a matter of fact, it was only on the publication of his 6 volumes that the term "Second World War" came into acceptable and common usage. This is what makes Reynolds examination so compelling.
March 23, 2021
A magnificent and elegant work, unique in its construction and scrupulous precision. The subtitle says it all: Churchill Fighting and Writing the Second World War.
From the outset of Winston Churchill's brief military career he offered his journalistic services to newspapers, reporting back on his experiences and earning extra money. Army pay was poor, and he was already a natural storyteller and excellent prose stylist. His aristocratic heritage gave him the prominence to attract attention and the confidence to claim it. Though his father, Lord Randolph Churchill, had married a rich American girl, Jennie Jerome, her family's wealth had not survived his father's profligacy, and young Winston needed to live up to his rank and expectations.
Later, he wrote on historical subjects, including Marlborough: His Life and Times, a biography of John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough, who was his lineal ancestor, and A History of the English-Speaking Peoples, a four-volume history of Britain and its former colonies and possessions.
But most importantly, he perfected the memoir as history format, not simply to record front line experience but to assure his place in it and position him as he preferred.
In Command of History: Churchill Fighting and Writing the Second World War cuts back and forth, in almost cinematic parallelism, between the making of history, after Churchill's ascendance to the British premiership in 1940, and the writing of it, with Churchill never far from the heroic center of the action. Both processes are fascinating, though the hard work of writing the six-volume set The Second World War through the late 1950's, financing it, and publishing it in many forms and languages—with the support of a very talented group they called The Syndicate—would turn out to be a magnificent (if rather esoteric) saga in itself. Stage by stage, as the war evolves so do the books.
The following fairly long but rewarding and rich excerpt gives a sense of the delicate balance required to write history when most of the protagonists are still alive, with credit and respect given and offense avoided. Waiting would destroy all interest in the subject, and with it the profits of publishing:Churchill's neglect of Alanbrooke and the Chiefs of Staff in his memoirs caused deep hurt. This was one reason why "Brookie"started writing "Notes on My Life" to complement his diaries and assist Sir Arthur Bryant, the official biographer commissioned by his old regiment. It was intended that the biography should appear after Alanbrooke's death, but in the autumn of 1954 Bryant looked through the diaries and notes and, finding them "fascinating" and of "immense importance," suggested writing a "preliminary" account before the public lost all interest in the War." Alanbrooke agreed, so Bryant set aside his popular history of England and embarked on The Turn of the Tide. This was built around Alanbrooke's material about the Allied conferences of 1941–1943, but the first third of the text covered the period before he became Chief of the Imperial General Staff in November 1941.
The reason why was made clear early on, where Bryant insisted that the "miracle" of the Dunkirk evacuation depended on a prior miracle: "the Army reaching the coast at all." This was "due mainly to one man": General Brooke, then a corps commander covering the long exposed flank opened up by the Belgian surrender. His "lightning action" averted "the greatest disaster of British military history." Yet, said Bryant, "the man who saved the Army at Dunkirk and helped to chart the road to victory is best known today as a lecturer on bird films and ex-President of the London Zoo." This was the first and most important objective of Bryant's book: to ensure that the spate of memoirs did not swamp the contribution of what he called Britain's "greatest soldier" of the war. His larger purpose was to show what the British had contributed to victory, not just by heroic survival in 1940 but by shaping the strategy that, he argued, won the war by grinding down Germany in North Africa and Italy before thrusting across the Channel. This "concentric" approach prevented Hitler from using his strategic reserve to destroy a premature cross-Channel attack of the sort advocated by Marshall and the Americans, whose "experience of modern warfare was very small." Although not "the sole originator" of this strategy, Brooke "took the lead" in pressing it on the Americans at wartime conferences. He did this, the book emphasized, at great personal cost—turning down the Middle East command in 1942 because he felt he was needed in London, only to be passed over for the Normandy invasion because Roosevelt and Churchill decided in 1943 to appoint an American.
In such a book, Bryant had to deal head-on with Churchill. He did so right at the start in a "Prelude" entitled "A Partnership in Genius," which presented Brooke as "the necessary counterpart" and "complement" to the great leader. "No statesman since Alfred has done England such service as Churchill," Bryant asserted. Among his "immense" virtues as a war leader were courage, imagination, oratory, and humor. He always looked to attack; he "would never take No for an answer." But those virtues, pushed too far, became failings. The "tireless energy" bred "impatience," the "soaring imagination" led to "impetuosity," prompting Churchill "to essay enterprises which, had he not been dissuaded, would have ended in disaster." It was Brooke's role to say no, or at least "not yet"—to see the war as a whole and in sequence, persuading Churchill not to dissipate Britain's forces in premature or peripheral operations.
Having sketched this portrait in the prelude, Bryant then develops it with color and detail from Alanbrooke's diaries and notes. There are references to Churchill's propensity to make decisions by "intuition" not logic, his tendency "to stick his fingers into every pie before it was cooked", and his "eagerness to do everything simultaneously instead of concentrating on one thing at a time." We read of Brooke's frustration as he tries to wean Churchill away from pet projects such as attacking Norway and learn that it is he, not the Prime Minister, who is the truly consistent advocate of a Mediterranean strategy. All this, however, is balanced by frequent tributes from Bryant or Brooke's diary to Churchill's supreme achievements—his courage and decisiveness after the fall of France, his wooing of Roosevelt and the Americans in 1940–1941, his fortitude in the desperate weeks after Pearl Harbor—"The Prime Minister never flinched. Disaster brought out all that was greatest in him." At the end of the book, after chronicling the Brooke's anguish at losing the D-Day command, Bryant quotes the diary entry on Churchill for 30 August 1943: "He is quite the most difficult man to work with that I have ever struck, but I would not have missed the chance of working with him for anything on earth."
Bryant submitted his manuscript to Norman Brook, who read it in September 1956 (as the Suez crisis neared its climax). The Cabinet Secretary made no objection on official grounds; in fact, he said he had "enjoyed the book very much," particularly Bryant's own part, which had "a splendid sweep." But in what he called "an informal expression of my personal views," Brook registered real concern about the effect of the book on Churchill's public image. Although he felt that Bryant's prelude offered "a very fair and balanced judgment of the complementary roles" of Churchill and Alanbrooke, the same could be said of the isolated diary entries, written, as Bryant himself noted, as "a safety valve for repressed irritation." Yet it was these momentary explosions that would be picked up by the press. "Praise of Winston Churchill is not 'news'; any criticism of his conduct of the war, however slight, is material for headlines." For this reason, Brook concluded, "I could have wished that the book was not to be published in Sir Winston Churchill's lifetime. And I cannot refrain from asking what steps are being taken to prepare him for the kind of publicity which (if I am not mistaken) it will receive.
Brook admitted that he was "looking at it purely from Winston's point of view," but his sage advice spurred a belated response. In December 1956, Alanbrooke added a foreword about his relations with Churchill, noting that a diary was "necessarily an impulsive and therefore unbalanced record of events" and insisting that "scattered expressions of irritation and impatience at the defects that arose out of his very greatness are insignificant when set against the magnitude of his achievement." In February 1957, the month of publication, Alanbrooke sent Churchill an advanced copy with an inscription proclaiming "unbounded admiration, profound respect, and deep affection" and asking him to discount a few "momentary" criticisms, "written at the end of long and exhausting days." This embarrassed note was too little, too late. "Brookie trying to have it both ways," observed Clementine Churchill tartly. Ismay felt that Bryant had done Alanbrooke "grievous injustice" by presenting him as a combination of "Marlborough and Napoleon" who felt that he alone was winning the war, "with occasional assistance from the Almighty." Churchill sent Alanbrooke a brief note on 12 March: "On the whole, I think I am against publishing day to day diaries written under the stress of events so soon afterwards. However, I read it with great interest, and I am very obliged to you for what you say in your inscription."
Privately, several of Churchill's wartime contemporaries believed that the portrait in Turn of the Tide was apt and essentially fair. Clement Attlee told Bryant, "We who worked with him knew how quickly he could change from the great man to the naughty child." Sir James Grigg, Secretary of State for War in 1942–1945, felt "it was necessary to reduce him from a god before he could be appreciated as a great man." The historian, G. M. Trevelyan found that the book had raised rather than lowered his estimation of Churchill. Although "not very considerate of his advisers," he asked for advice and sometimes took it, sometimes contrary to what he had first thought himself," whereas Napoleon and Hitler treated their generals as "servants" and eventually paid the price. Churchill's "habit of taking counsel," said Trevelyan, "combined with his own personal qualities, is what won the war."
These were private comments, however, and few would say as much in print. A rare exception was Raymond Mortimer, who felt the book showed Churchill as "nothing if not human—a self-centered genius with faults that he seeks neither to curb or to conceal." But this was in the the Sunday Times which was serializing Bryant's work. Some reviewers took up the theme of the "partnership in genius," but others dwelled, as Norman Brook feared, on irreverent trivia, such as the image of Churchill upturned, like Humpty Dumpty, by the Mediterranean surf. The impression conveyed, said Robert Pitman in the Sunday Express, was of "a lovable, rumbustious but rather naughty child when it comes to the art of war . . . just the front man behind whom a greater strategist performed his quiet work." In a caustic piece, "Meet General Superman," "Cassandra" in the Daily Mirror claimed that Alanbrooke had jumped from total obscurity to occupy "the highest literary military pedestal built within living memory." Bryant had heaped on him "a sickening, sweetened slime of unending praise" while presenting Churchill as "muddle-headed, impetuous, and positively dangerous when it came to the major decisions of war." Considering this chronicle of "violent and continuous disagreement" between Churchill and his generals, Alan Tompkins in the Sunday Dispatch felt it "a wonder that Britain won the war."
[This excerpt from Chapter 32, Leaving It To History 1955–1965 p518]
July 12, 2018
A wonderful book that paints a rich and nuanced picture of Churchill as a historian of WW2. I am in awe of the sheer volume of research required to put such a book together.
May 26, 2021
Au lendemain de la DGm Winston Churchill est éjecté du pouvoir par Athlee. Il se met à écrire son histoire de la Deuxième Guerre mondiale à ne pas confondre avec ses mémoires. Il écrit 6 volumes qui traitent de la période 1933 à 1945. Loin d'être historiquement impartiales ses livres vont être des ouvrages de référence pour plusieurs puisque Winston est le seul des dirigeants des pays alliés à écrire sur ce conflit. Franklin Delano Roosevelt est mort, le Général de Gaulle publie rien avant 1963 et Staline ne tient pas à écrire sur le conflit. Les livres de Churchill vont donc être des bestsellers et leur auteur va être l'écrivain le mieux payé de l'histoire à l'époque. Il va même gagner un prix Nobel de littérature pour son travail. Ce livre passe à travers chacun de ses volumes et explique qu'est-ce qu'il est dit ou non dit et pourquoi en plus de remettre la publication de chacun de ses livres dans leur contexte. L'écrivain à fait un gros travail de recherche et j'ai été capable de trouver les sources d'anecdotes de Churchill qui m'ont toujours fait bien rire mais dont je doutais de leur véracité. Je le conseille, mais pas comme première lecteur sur Winston Churchill parce que vous n'y trouverez pas votre compte
February 22, 2018
Excellent.
October 3, 2022
Interesting survey of Churchill as author and subject of the Second World War as well as a survey of his “second wilderness years.”
Like the books of which it writes, it is good but prolix.
Like the books of which it writes, it is good but prolix.
December 23, 2009
"In Command of History" explains how, with the help of a "Syndicate" of (paid) expert assistants and historians drawn from the British Army and Government, Winston S. Churchill actually wrote his now-classic, six-volume masterpiece -- "The Second World War" -- after his defeat in July 1945 that removed him from power as Prime Minister. "The Second World War" formed and shaped -- for ill or good -- many still-held views of a significant number of historical events of World War II; it was a concerted, conscious and intentional effort on the part of Churchill to be among the first and certainly one of the primary historians to write, and hence shape, its history. The effort to complete the planned five, but eventually six, books principally occupied his (second) "wilderness" years, 1945-1951, before he resumed office as Prime Minister. During this period, Churchill, already over seventy years old, "wrote himself into history, politicked himself back into 10 Downing Street, and delivered some of the most vital oratory of his career, including his pivotal 'iron curtain' speech." The sixth volume, started before the election that put him back into power, was, to an even larger degree than any of the previous five, written primarily by the members of his paid "Syndicate." Yet, the stamp of Churchill's famous style is in every word, because he selected and frequently rewrote those written for him -- in his own style, as the Syndicate members who wrote drafts for him learned to write like him. Yet, many whole sections, which are actually the original product of these fertile minds, remain virtually unchanged from their original as prepared for and turned over to Churchill; only a few in-the-know were ever aware that what has long been assumed to be some of Churchill's greatest prose was actually not his, but only bore his stylistic stamp (and, of course, approval).
If you like to read World War II history, Churchill himself, or about Churchill, this will be a fascinating book. If you have never read the six volumes of "The Second World War" then reading this book FIRST as an introduction would be an excellent approach. There was so much Churchill couldn't say (especially about the Ultra secret), and wouldn't say (e.g., what he really thought about Stalin, Roosevelt, and Eisenhower, plus many of the British Generals and Cabinet Ministers). But the author had access to the (now-declassified) original papers used by Churchill and his paid research staff, as well as all of the drafts of the volumes and Churchill's communication with his American and English publishers, so we're now able to see what Churchill was thinking, and really wanted to say, but didn't, as well as what was left out because of space or time limitations.
Although the revelations puncture a few of the still-held Churchill myths, the actual result is even more admiration for the accomplishments of the real, albeit flawed, great man, who was just what Britain and its still-paralyzed Government and the soon-to-be-labeled "free world" needed.
If you like to read World War II history, Churchill himself, or about Churchill, this will be a fascinating book. If you have never read the six volumes of "The Second World War" then reading this book FIRST as an introduction would be an excellent approach. There was so much Churchill couldn't say (especially about the Ultra secret), and wouldn't say (e.g., what he really thought about Stalin, Roosevelt, and Eisenhower, plus many of the British Generals and Cabinet Ministers). But the author had access to the (now-declassified) original papers used by Churchill and his paid research staff, as well as all of the drafts of the volumes and Churchill's communication with his American and English publishers, so we're now able to see what Churchill was thinking, and really wanted to say, but didn't, as well as what was left out because of space or time limitations.
Although the revelations puncture a few of the still-held Churchill myths, the actual result is even more admiration for the accomplishments of the real, albeit flawed, great man, who was just what Britain and its still-paralyzed Government and the soon-to-be-labeled "free world" needed.
June 25, 2010
It has been over 50 years since Churchill wrote his six-volume memoir, "The Second World War". We've known for decades that the Ultra decryption work went unmentioned; that Churchill's retrospective is biased in some areas; and that his view of the war was very British-centric (leaving major Soviet battles untouched).
Reynolds books is excellent at plumbing these historic issues and in the history of writing and editing "The Second World War". Though large blocks of early chapters about English tax and secrecy law were difficult for me to plow through, this level of detail is necessary, showing Churchill's concerns with foreign affairs and responding to criticism -- and how they changed the final drafts of the six volumes in dozens of places.
This is a first class historical work, with dozens of issues to deal with:
* Churchill's constant blame-shifting onto local commanders
* The prime minister's weaknesses in military affairs
* The lack of understanding of how aviation had revolutionized warfare until after the Battle of France, major losses in Norway, disaster in Crete (and near-disaster in Malta), and the sinking of two battleships at Singapore
* Complete discounting of the Japanese military threat by Churchill
There are some real surprises in the book too: it wasn't until 1949, when he was assembling the book, that Churchill became aware that American intelligence was reading Japanese code with Magic decrypts since 1941. Britain had been using Ultra decryption of German messages (not revealed until 1974) but Churchill was unaware of the American work.
Non-historians may also be surprised by the extent of Churchill's reliance on collaborators in writing the history. "The Syndicate" of writers changed during the seven years in which Churchill's volumes were written, but their expertise provided what Reynolds calls "cutting-edge research" on the V-rocket war and in the narrative of the desert war in North Africa.
A couple of events receive scant or no coverage. Reynolds refers to the Rudolph Hess affair (as does Churchill) but never says that Hess's letter has never been declassified, weakening his analysis of what occurred. And there is no mention of the British Security Coordination (BSC), a propaganda and spy organization actively managed by Churchill to influence American affairs. Jennet Conant's book, "The Irregulars", written about Roald Dahl makes it clear that one of the goals of the BSC was managing American politics to its favor, including efforts to force Vice-president Henry Wallace from the Democratic ticket in 1944.
Both of these are understandable, given the range of "In Command of History" but leave a place for other historians to continue the analysis of Churchill's war leadership.
Reynolds books is excellent at plumbing these historic issues and in the history of writing and editing "The Second World War". Though large blocks of early chapters about English tax and secrecy law were difficult for me to plow through, this level of detail is necessary, showing Churchill's concerns with foreign affairs and responding to criticism -- and how they changed the final drafts of the six volumes in dozens of places.
This is a first class historical work, with dozens of issues to deal with:
* Churchill's constant blame-shifting onto local commanders
* The prime minister's weaknesses in military affairs
* The lack of understanding of how aviation had revolutionized warfare until after the Battle of France, major losses in Norway, disaster in Crete (and near-disaster in Malta), and the sinking of two battleships at Singapore
* Complete discounting of the Japanese military threat by Churchill
There are some real surprises in the book too: it wasn't until 1949, when he was assembling the book, that Churchill became aware that American intelligence was reading Japanese code with Magic decrypts since 1941. Britain had been using Ultra decryption of German messages (not revealed until 1974) but Churchill was unaware of the American work.
Non-historians may also be surprised by the extent of Churchill's reliance on collaborators in writing the history. "The Syndicate" of writers changed during the seven years in which Churchill's volumes were written, but their expertise provided what Reynolds calls "cutting-edge research" on the V-rocket war and in the narrative of the desert war in North Africa.
A couple of events receive scant or no coverage. Reynolds refers to the Rudolph Hess affair (as does Churchill) but never says that Hess's letter has never been declassified, weakening his analysis of what occurred. And there is no mention of the British Security Coordination (BSC), a propaganda and spy organization actively managed by Churchill to influence American affairs. Jennet Conant's book, "The Irregulars", written about Roald Dahl makes it clear that one of the goals of the BSC was managing American politics to its favor, including efforts to force Vice-president Henry Wallace from the Democratic ticket in 1944.
Both of these are understandable, given the range of "In Command of History" but leave a place for other historians to continue the analysis of Churchill's war leadership.
June 6, 2016
IN COMMAND OF HISTORY-Churchill Fighting and Writing the Second World War
by David Reynolds
Finished reading on 01232014
This is a long read but only because it covers Churchill from 1940 to his death in 1965. David Reynolds breaks down the great literary work that Churchill wrote about the second World War by the volumes and then each individual book within each volume. With obvious extensive research, Mr. Reynolds guides the reader not only into how this masterpiece was written but also how Churchill was involved in the events that each book/volume covers. It is a great insight not only into England's most well known Prime Minister but many details about how the war was fought that one does not learn from ordinary history books. For example, despite Churchill's famous morale inspiring speeches he did feel it was possible England would not win the war against Hitler and he, along with many of his Parliamentary colleagues, would die. Also, the development of the atomic bomb did not originate in the United States which, as far as I can remember, those of us who grew up in the United States, i.e. post-war baby boomers, grew up believing the United States developed the atomic bomb through their own efforts. Actually, England provided the United States with the original blueprint in developing the bomb due to England was not in the position to continue the research. Also, one learns it is possible the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima happened only because Russian diplomats procrastinated in sending England and the United States Japan's decision to accept surrender conditions. One, also, gets a glimpse of a Russia that existed before the actual "cold war" ensued and how it seems that, especially through Churchill's eyes, Stalin was just a puppet of the Communist extremists who would actually lower the "iron curtain" after the end of the world war.
These are just a few of the many highly interesting details of a critical period in the world's history. And, interspersed in the war details are glimpses into Churchill's private life before, during, and after his Prime Ministership. I definitely would recommend this book to any history lover.
by David Reynolds
Finished reading on 01232014
This is a long read but only because it covers Churchill from 1940 to his death in 1965. David Reynolds breaks down the great literary work that Churchill wrote about the second World War by the volumes and then each individual book within each volume. With obvious extensive research, Mr. Reynolds guides the reader not only into how this masterpiece was written but also how Churchill was involved in the events that each book/volume covers. It is a great insight not only into England's most well known Prime Minister but many details about how the war was fought that one does not learn from ordinary history books. For example, despite Churchill's famous morale inspiring speeches he did feel it was possible England would not win the war against Hitler and he, along with many of his Parliamentary colleagues, would die. Also, the development of the atomic bomb did not originate in the United States which, as far as I can remember, those of us who grew up in the United States, i.e. post-war baby boomers, grew up believing the United States developed the atomic bomb through their own efforts. Actually, England provided the United States with the original blueprint in developing the bomb due to England was not in the position to continue the research. Also, one learns it is possible the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima happened only because Russian diplomats procrastinated in sending England and the United States Japan's decision to accept surrender conditions. One, also, gets a glimpse of a Russia that existed before the actual "cold war" ensued and how it seems that, especially through Churchill's eyes, Stalin was just a puppet of the Communist extremists who would actually lower the "iron curtain" after the end of the world war.
These are just a few of the many highly interesting details of a critical period in the world's history. And, interspersed in the war details are glimpses into Churchill's private life before, during, and after his Prime Ministership. I definitely would recommend this book to any history lover.
April 12, 2016
Fortunately for historians and researchers looking for answers behind the decisions made by Winston Churchill during the Second World War, we have available not only the usual official primary source documents associated with a Prime Minister, but also his own memoirs on the war. Churchill wrote extensively after the war, perhaps to justify and explain his decisions but also to contribute to a general history of the war. To introduce this subject, a great source is David Reynold’s In Command of History: Churchill Fighting and Writing the Second World War. Weeks specifically covers the writing and publishing process in the first five chapters, which are admittedly tedious compared to the rest of the book. The next six chapters each take a look at the six volumes of Churchill’s mighty tome The Second World War. In a way this book is superior to Churchill’s own volumes because not only does it provide background information about his works, but also expands on topics Churchill did not want to or could not include himself, such as classified information. Despite the author’s efforts though, In Command of History ends up arbitrarily choosing which of Churchill’s many stories to develop and which to gloss over. To best understand Churchill and his point of view, read his own writing and use secondary sources such as Weeks for further support and elaboration.
March 2, 2014
A fascinating idea - to follow Churchill from beginning to end through the process of conceiving, negotiating, researching and writing 'The Second World War'. On the way Churchill overcomes one obstacle after another - those in the Cabinet Office who want to restrict his access to official papers, those in Britain's Inland Revenue who want to apply Britain's heavy post-war tax rates to what he earns - and the shortage of time and energy that might deter most men in their seventies who are still leading a major political party. Reynolds' research and writing is masterly - the book is long and detailed, but with justification. It provides a fascinating glimpse of Churchill's finances at this late stage of his life, but they have never been tackled from cradle to grave. This is the subject which I have been researching, and on which I hope to publish next year.
April 15, 2009
This book is about the writing of "The Second World War", which was written by a syndicate led by Winston Churchill. Churchill planned to write about the war and was able to have policies put in place allowing him access to papers that others would not. He was alleged to have said we'll leave that to history but "I'll be one of the historians." As with most memoirs, issues were left out, conflated and/or distorted to put the 'author' in the best light possible. This was important to Churchill because he remained in politics. Reynolds does a great job of showing the politics involved in writing Churchill's 'memoir' and of the difficulties in publishing "The Second World War." It's a great book about writing even if you only have time to read the first half.
November 29, 2009
I enjoyed this and certainly learned a great deal about Churchill and the War, but I did have to push myself through some of the analysis. I don't believe this is a negative reflection on the author or the book, but rather an indication of my preference to move immediately into the events of the War. By way of example, I've just started An Ace of the Eighth and will have completed that book in three days. In retrospect, I wonder if I might prefer Churchill's actual volumes, as opposed to In Command of History, although reading this book first might prove to be valuable in that I would better understand the politics of the day.
Want to read
October 15, 2009I'm still only on page 85, but I have the feeling I've read a good bit of this about the Syndicate of researchers and the negotiations with publishers. It must have been in Jenkins' biography.
The method of compilation: (compare with the Canadian Pacific Railroad) of laying down the tracks (the minutes and papers etc from the archive) and then adding the stations (newly written narratives.) Various experts from the Syndicate ( Deakin, Allen, Pownall, Ismay, Kelly) write papers. Some of Deakin's even written in the first person, as if by WSC.
The method of compilation: (compare with the Canadian Pacific Railroad) of laying down the tracks (the minutes and papers etc from the archive) and then adding the stations (newly written narratives.) Various experts from the Syndicate ( Deakin, Allen, Pownall, Ismay, Kelly) write papers. Some of Deakin's even written in the first person, as if by WSC.
August 9, 2015
Wonderfully written and detailed account of how Churchill "wrote" his memoirs of the Second World War--with a team of dedicated assistants and the cooperation of the British government--while balancing the demands of Cold War politics and his return to the premiership in the early 1950s. I would recommend this as a necessary companion piece to Churchill's memoirs, best read either before or after the memoirs themselves.
April 3, 2013
Of all the books I've read about both Churchill and historiography, this remains one of the most edifying and enjoyable. Reynolds takes would could, in lesser hands, have been a lethally plodding topic and makes it come alive, using the process of writing to illustrate not only Churchill's life and methods, but also the larger political context in which he was operating. Masterful.
December 22, 2009
If you've read Churchill's magnus opus on the second world war then this is mandatory reading.
Fascinating stuff - it interleaves the history of the war, the subject of Churchill's books and the background to Churchill's life as he was writing them
Fascinating stuff - it interleaves the history of the war, the subject of Churchill's books and the background to Churchill's life as he was writing them
Read
April 7, 2016
January 13, 2024
History will be kind to me for I intend to write it. Churchill not only fought WWII as a command leader also as the oficial British historian of the conflict. How he shaped the history, according to his view of the conflict is simple amazing. Very dense book and a recommendable one.
September 15, 2007
Good for history buffs and fans of Churchill. The story of how his memoirs were crafted.
Read
January 18, 2010In Command of History: Churchill Fighting and Writing the Second World War by David Reynolds (2005)
March 4, 2012
Very detailed, sometimes hard to follow, but enlightening and informative. A deep insight into the workings of a brilliant politician.
December 12, 2015
An invaluable companion to Churchill's Second World War volumes. I read it alongside the Churchill books and it added great historiographical depth.
August 19, 2014
In Command of History David Reynolds tells how Churchill shaped WWII history to his own advantage. Gripping story of a courageous albeit flawed statesman
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews