Warlord: A Life of Winston Churchill at War, 1874-1945

by Carlo D'Este

Carlo D'Este's brilliant new biography examines Winston Churchill through the prism of his military service as both a soldier and a a descendant of Marlborough who, despite never having risen above the rank of lieutenant colonel, came eventually at age sixty-five to direct Britain's military campaigns as prime minister and defeated Hitler, Mussolini, and Hirohito for the democracies. Warlord is the definitive chronicle of Churchill's crucial role as one of the world's most renowned military leaders, from his early adventures on the North-West Frontier of colonial India and the Boer War through his extraordinary service in both World Wars.

Even though Churchill became one of the towering political leaders of the twentieth century, his childhood ambition was to be a soldier. Using extensive, untapped archival materials, D'Este reveals important and untold observations from Churchill's personal physician, as well as other colleagues and family members, in order to illuminate his character as never before. Warlord explores Churchill's strategies behind the major military campaigns of World War I and World War II—both his dazzling successes and disastrous failures—while also revealing his tumultuous relationships with his generals and other commanders, including Dwight D. Eisenhower.

As riveting as the man it portrays, Warlord is a masterful, unsparing portrait of one of history's most fascinating and influential leaders during what was arguably the most crucial event in human history.

Genres: Biography, History, Nonfiction, World War II, Military History, World War I, War

845 pages, Hardcover

First published November 11, 2008

About the author

Carlo D'Este retired from the U.S. Army as a lieutenant colonel in 1978, having served overseas in Germany, Vietnam, and England. Born in Oakland, California, he received his B.A. from Norwich University and his M.A. from the University of Richmond and an honorary doctorate of Humane Letters from Norwich in 1992.

Reviews

[Joe · Rating 5 out of 5]

BRILLIANT

The author, a military historian, tackles the long and eventful life of Winston Churchill through the prism of Churchill as a military man, from young "Winnie" playing with his toy soldiers, (he was always the general), through World War II when Churchill was Britain's Prime Minister and Commander in Chief. The result is an excellent and thoughtful biography. This is a very blunt, warts and all look at Churchill's life and although positive in many respects D'Este removes the kid gloves when describing Churchill's complex personality, his treatment of others and his military decisions - Many of the latter incredibly wrong.

Churchill was a willful stubborn child, often alone, who stepped on many toes; who then grew up to be an adult with the same characteristics, but with a much larger sphere of influence. It's difficult to imagine anyone else with the fortitude to stand up to Hitler's Nazi Germany as Churchill did during England's darkest hours, but there was a cost. This is masterfully chronicled here in Warlord - the good, the bad and at times, the incredibly ugly facets of Winston Churchill.

At 700 pages, (plus notes, etc.), Warlord is not a "Life" of Winston Churchill. The book ends in 1945 with the Allied victory over Nazi Germany and Churchill being voted out of office. In fact Warlord is not even an exhaustive biography of Churchill's life up to that time. This is not a knock, but a credit to the author's ability to stay focused on its subject in the context of his military life, which becomes blurred while chronicling Churchill as soldier, reporter and politician. Churchill never understood the boundaries in his duties, responsibilities and interaction with others. So while everyone else may have felt the need to follow the rules, Churchill did not. He demanded and usually prevailed in getting his way.

Churchill's military journey - his toy soldiers, being raised by indifferent, (at best), parents, training at Sandhurst, soldiering - and reporting - in India, Afghanistan, South Africa and the trenches of World War I, tenure as First Lord of the Admiralty and his Wilderness Years outside of the British Government during the 1930's - culminates in his being named Prime Minister on May 10th, 1940 just as the Nazis invaded France and Belgium. On May 11th Churchill named himself Minister of Defense, unique in British politics and history. Unlike the US President the British Prime Minister is not the de facto Commander in Chief.

World War II takes up virtually the second half the book and, (not to minimize the first half), is fascinating as Churchill brings to bear his full capacity to save Britain, (and the world), and win the war.

If one looks at the scope of a warlord's responsibilities Churchill was brilliant at envisioning the goal - "Never Surrender", etc., and the means - weapons, tanks, battleships, and airplanes.(This also includes the use of technology, i.e. Ultra, to crack the German's radio code which proved invaluable for the Allies.) Unfortunately military strategy and tactics - something Churchill confused regularly - were not his forte. In fact in reading this book it seems a wonder at times that England and the Allies were able to succeed because of Churchill's constant meddling, inexcusable treatment of subordinates, hare-brained schemes and inability to recognize that not only was he lacking in this regard, he could never admit he was wrong. The examples cited - and there are plenty of them here - make for some difficult reading and show Churchill at his childish, pigheaded, petulant worst. On the other hand it's difficult, if not impossible, to imagine anyone else assuming Churchill's role - let alone succeeding in it.

Sir Alan Brooke, Churchill's military chief of staff, (for lack of a better term), summed up Churchill's leadership as follows, "God knows where we would be without him, but God knows where we shall go with him."

This is an excellent book and although I'm hesitant to recommend it as a starting point, it should be on the short list of Churchill books to read.

[Singleton Mosby · Rating 5 out of 5]

What a magnificent read.

[Calzean · Rating 4 out of 5]

Quite interesting look at Churchill focusing on his exploits in the Army, as a war correspondent then during WW1 and WWII. The author had a love hate relationship with his subject. Understandably as Churchill comes across as quite a petulant child even in his 70s.

[Mike · Rating 4 out of 5]

The inestimable Carlo D'Este has written a work on Winston Churchill consisting entirely of his life at war, in the military, and/or dealing with the military.
The book begins with Churchill's childhood, and the time he spent at boarding and military schools as a youth. Winston's imperious and unloving father apparently gave him the drive and ambition to do big things, however, his lackluster and insolent performance gave his teachers and fellow students cause for doubt.
Churchill spent time in India, then off to Egypt to fight at Omdurman, and finally to South Africa to fight the Boers, where he was actually taken prisoner, but daringly escaped his captors. As a soldier, Winston simultaneously impressed and exasperated his superiors. Never one to hold his opinion back, Winston spoke many times when the best course would have been to stay silent. Throughout this time, he penned a newspaper op-ed article, and had his mother, Lady Randolph Churchill (Jennie Jerome), attempt to pull strings for him, usually unsuccessfully, using his late father's influence.
The book takes us through Churchill's time as a young MP, First Lord of the Admiralty, his disastrous Gallipoli campaign, and finally his low point out of office during the 1930s.
The final half of the book deals of course with World War II, and his fight with Germany. It cannot be overstated the dire circumstances Britain found itself when Winston became Prime Minister in 1940. The Battle of Britain was heating up, the US was still a year and a half from joining the war, France had been overrun....Britain was standing alone against the Axis. Working seven days a week, driving his aides and generals to distraction, Winston had his hands on all levers of military action and/or coordination. His sometimes fantastical ideas had to be tamped down by more sober military commanders, which would then lead Churchill to believe they were were indecisive and weak.
Terrible news and military defeats ruled the day until 1943 and the north Africa campaign. With the US now involved, Winston began to see his influence on military issues slowly wane. General Eisenhower was now the leading commander in Europe (and by default President Roosevelt.) Nevertheless, Churchill continued to work with the US commanders, reluctantly accepting his diminished role.
When VE day finally arrived in May 1945, an exhausted Britain celebrated an exhausted Churchill and his part in beating the Axis. Unfortunately, Winston would be turned out of office in July 1945 by a tired electorate that was now more concerned with jobs and full employment.
To say Churchill singlehandedly saved Britain during the early years of the war would be wrong, but he was the driving force in mobilizing and steeling his country for the awesome job of defending their island from the Nazi onslaught.

[Victoria & David Williams · Rating 4 out of 5]

"His schooldays at Harrow left few pleasant memories. ... Years later he grumbled over his dislike of examinations: 'I should like to have been asked what I knew. They always tried to ask me what I did not know. When I would have willingly displayed my knowledge, they sought to expose my ignorance.'"

[Caroline · Rating 4 out of 5]

Some men are born for war, and Winston Churchill was one of them. As Carlo D'Este argues in this excellent book, to understand Churchill as a politician or statesmen is to miss a hugely important, indeed seminal aspect of his character. From his earliest days playing with toy soldiers to his final days, Churchill thought of himself as a soldier - and it is likely few other British Prime Ministers had the experience of war that Churchill had.

He saw action in India in the North West Frontier against Pathan tribesmen; took part in perhaps the last great cavalry charge in the Battle of Omdurman in the Sudan; covered the Boer War as a newspaper reporter and was captured bearing arms and subsequently escaped; and served in the trenches in WW1 after leaving the Admiralty in the wake of the Dardanelles fiasco.

All of these experiences served to give him a singular outlook on military affairs during the war years as Prime Minister, where he combined the military role of defence minister with that of the political role of Prime Minister. This combination of the military with the political had its defects as well as its benefits: to the end of his days Churchill retained a somewhat outdated Victorian vision of war, despite his endeavours not to repeat the mistakes of WW1, and his enthusiasm for getting involved in military and strategic decisions often led to the micromanaging of campaigns and the interference in command decisions on the ground.

D'Este really seems to understand Churchill, and this book is no hagiography - he doesn't hesitate to highlight Churchill's frequent bouts of intransigence, egoism, petulance, ignorance, wilful self-delusion and rashness. But he recognises that Churchill combined such petty qualities with true greatness, and as he writes, "his romantic view of war and his inability to understand various aspects of its prosecution notwithstanding, Churchill nevertheless was the only man in Britain who could have led his nation from the dark hours of defeat with unwavering vision and bulldog tenacity."

[Debra · Rating 5 out of 5]

Took me a while to get through this 30 hour beast, but I love love loved it.

[Dr G · Rating 4.25 out of 5]

This is a fascinating book.
Carlo D’Este was an American; he was awarded his B.A. (magna cum laude ) from Vermont in the 1950s and his M.A. in the 1970s from Virginia. It is difficult to find the details of his career but it appears that he joined the army after graduating. He retired from the army in 1978 with the rank of Lieutenant Colonel, having had two combat tours of Vietnam.
After retirement, he took to writing military history, publishing especially on a number of aspects of World War II including biographies of Patton and Eisenhower. He seems not to have been an academic historian at any time.
I mention all this because it is notable that he, an American, should have written a substantial work on the iconic wartime British Prime Minister, Winston Churchill. And he has titled the book, Warlord , a term not commonly applied with a complimentary connotation. And as much as various politicians have talked of a special relationship between Britain and the U.S.A., I would suggest that Trump and Vance have not been alone amongst their countrymen in viewing Britain disparagingly.
Obviously, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with a biographer coming from a different country than the subject’s. From time to time, D’Este’s work refers to various U.S. operatives, usually as a form of comparison with a particular event or situation in which Churchill was involved. Again, there is nothing wrong with this; it just rather overlooks the fact that the book’s readership might well include non-Americans and, I think, reflects a default American perspective. (I do object, though, to an American writer americanising the British Department of Defence into The Department of Defense!)
It is commonly commented that Warlord A Life of Winston Churchill at War 1874-1945 is very fair to Churchill. This critique needs to be scrutinized. In his Epilogue , D’Este writes: “While opinions and assessments of Churchill will continue endlessly, one conclusion is beyond dispute. It is this: His romantic view of war and his inability to understand various aspects of its prosecution, notwithstanding, Churchill, nevertheless, was the only man in Britain who could have led his nation from the dark hours of defeat, with unwavering vision and bulldog tenacity." Comments of this tenor are sprinkled throughout the book.
Yet the paradox is that careful reading of the book leads the reader to a contrary judgment.
Churchill’s unmatchable contributions were (1) his brilliant speeches; (2) his being a strong leader at a time when Britain had no other, (3) his iconic physical appearance (the “rather ungainly portly figure whose perpetual props were hat, cane, and the ever-present unlit cigar.") and (4) his repeated supportive appearances after blitz attacks.
However, the other side of the ledger includes (1) his impetuous decision-making without regard for contrary points of view and without consideration of possible failure; (2) His incorrigible insistence on ignoring boundaries of responsibilities and intruding into other people’s domains; (3) his petulance when he was not able to call the tune; (4) his attraction to ideas because they were outrageous or eccentric; (5) his refusal to discard an idea either when its impracticality was pointed out or when the opposition to it was shown to be insurmountable; (6) his refusal to accept the blame for his ideas which went wrong; (7) his Trumpian dismissal of anyone who did not acquiesce to his ideas; (8) his infatuation with war.

The negative characteristics tend to have become increasingly apparent as World War II ground on. However, many of them were all too obvious much earlier. A few excerpts from D’Este will give a sense of this side of the critique:
The Dardanelles: Churchill’s "attempt to place blame for the failure of the operation on others while ducking his own culpability must now be viewed as entirely self-serving. In microcosm the Dardanelles fiasco represented everything that was at once brilliant and flawed in Churchill. The idea was audacious, the reward of potential significance, and the result, execrable. Overly dazzled by the prospects of a great prize, Churchill and the War Cabinet seem never to have seriously considered the dire price to be paid if the plan failed”
Churchill’s obsession with obstructing Hitler’s iron and steel trade with neutral Norway: “As for Churchill, he seems to have learned little from the Norway venture, particularly, he did not learn that large-scale military operations cannot suddenly be altered on an impulse without serious consequences…The Norway campaign was uncoordinated, flawed in concept, and massively mismanaged by Churchill, who hardly ever seemed able to make up his mind, and when he did make it up, invariably worsened an already unwinnable campaign by making decisions as if he were the commander in chief, and by violating every known principle of war.”
After World War I: “a man whose peers distrusted his unpredictable temperament and highly questionable judgment… the real Winston was a lonely, rather remote figure…Winston had gone through life as an individual, absorbed in himself, and rapt in his thoughts and plans. He wasn’t really interested in other people”
Early in World War II: “Not only was Winston Churchill’s assumption of the role of generalissimo unprecedented, but unlike previous prime ministers in British history who were responsible for the political direction of a war, he would also be, like the U.S. president, the commander in chief of the armed forces. It was also an audacious act that he undertook without the authority of Parliament.”
“The lesson for Churchill - one that he never really quite grasped - was that filling the role of commander in chief required more than just an aggressive approach to war. His desire to avoid the mistakes of the static warfare of 1914-18 is understandable; however, the itch to play soldier in chief instead of commander in chief was ever present”.
Relations with his generals: “By bombarding Wavell and, later, Auchinleck, with advice and directives (some simply impossible to carry out), Churchill helped them to fail, not only by his incessant meddling but also because he sapped their confidence and diverted their attention from the business of command.”
Strategic decision-making: “prompted Churchill to make the most serious misjudgment of the war in February 1941, when he ordered reinforcements from the middle east sent to Greece…This removal disastrously changed the course of the war by spawning disastrous setbacks in Greece and North Africa - and later in Crete.”
Refusal to accept chain of command from the time of “Overlord”, the Normandy invasion: “Whereas Roosevelt left matters of strategy to his generals, Winston Churchill used every possible means to persuade the Combined Chiefs to bend to his will. He also tried but generally failed to exert the same influence over Eisenhower as he did over his own generals, admirals, and airmen. A not inconsiderable portion of Eisenhower's time was spent dealing with Churchill, often to curb the prime minister's adventuresome approach to war."
Response to having his wishes regarding a Balkan campaign countermanded: “Churchill neither forgave nor forgot being snubbed by his ally. His war memoir was uncharacteristically harsh and blithely ignored the truth in favor of carping that it was the fault of the United States.”
His general understanding of modern warfare: "Churchill's great war mentality never adapted to the fact that the dramatic changes in warfare altered the landscape of the modern battlefield... nor did he quite grasp the dramatic changes in naval warfare. While he well understood the menace of the submarine, Churchill thought battleships still ruled the sea when real naval power lay with the aircraft carrier and its ability to deliver lethal airstrikes against enemy ships, as the U.S. Navy demonstrated at Midway Island in June 1942.”
General decline: “There is a great deal to observe of Winston Churchill in 1944-45 that is reflective of a leader on a downward spiral, whose powers and influence were nearing rock bottom. Failing health, frustration, bad temper, loss of concentration, and bone weariness, combined with a determination to remain relevant, were all very much in evidence."

This is a reasonably random collection of the book’s conclusions about Churchill but it surely shows why I was mildly surprised when the book’s final judgment was as positive as it is.
That aside, what was my impression of the book? I think it gives a very fair (although slightly Americentric) picture of Churchill. The criticisms seem to me to be fair and balanced. There is no doubt that Churchill’s early life provides an absorbing story. Mind you, Churchill’s own My Early Life: A Roving Commission , which was presumably one of D’Este’s sources, is livelier. I found the detail of D’Este’s coverage of the wars impressive. His examination of sources, particularly those showing Churchill’s interactions with politicians and military leaders, but also with family members, was most impressive.
My understanding of Churchill himself and of the milieu in which he operated have been greatly enhanced by Warlord: A Life of Winston Churchill at War, 1874-1945.

[Urey Patrick]

I would call this a specialized biography of a historical giant... specialized in that the author has limited himself to an examination of Churchill's childhood, adolescence and those periods in Churchill's adult life in which he was in the military, attending a war or involved in wartime leadership (WWI & WWII). Now it must be said that Churchill's wartime experiences and involvements are the basis for his unquestionable historical eminence. He will not be remembered as a giant bestriding the currents of history in the 20th Century for his activities between the wars. In fact, his brilliance in World War II can be at least partially attributed to his failures in World War I. The book is well written, and an "easy reader". D'Este is clear minded and objective about his subject, although limited on detail, tides of war, political and strategic currents given the scope of events encompassed. The book is more an examination of personality coupled with illustrative experiences and anecdotes. Having said that, it is a good read, and an enjoyable and educational work. D'Este has a perceptive and discerning eye that he brings to bear. The author's main point is legitimate: "While opinions and assessments of Churchill will continue endlessly, one conclusion is beyond dispute. It is this: His romantic view of war and his inability to understand various aspects of its prosecution notwithstanding, Churchill nevertheless was the only man in Britain who could have led his nation from the dark hours of defeat with unwavering vision and bulldog tenacity. As with so much else about Churchill, no examination of his role as warlord can ignore the riddle of his genius and his imperfections."



Churchill succeeded in the face of overwhelming odds. He prevailed when, arguably, only he could have done so. This is an examination of how he came to be that historically unique figure, at that critically necessary time. There are more comprehensive, more detailed biographies available - and this one should not be the only book to read about Churchill... but it most definitely should be one of the books read about him!!

[David · Rating 5 out of 5]

I really liked the book. I've read two other biographies by D'este, Patton and Eisenhour, and think Carlo D'este does a very good job presenting people as they are/were. I was interested in the childhood of Winston and events that influenced him. The book seems to have ended abruptly. Perhaps that is how it was for Winston too. He worked so hard to keep England together then after the Americans got in the war and got their war machine up to speed it passed Winston by and he was passed by too. The book addressed that but there was such a build up then it was over for Churchill at least as "Warlord".

I would recommend this book to anybody interested in WWII history!

D'este touched on it a bit but I'm intrigued now about the fall of the British empire. I'll be looking for more books with an explaination of that.

Dave

[Rob · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very good summary of Churchill's role as war leader almost to the exclusion of everything else. An engaging narrative with sturdy prose. The only thing missing to my (current?) taste was the lack of analysis and judgement on the part of the author. I understand (and respect) his desire to be impartial, but besides mentioning the judgement of others, I'd've enjoyed more analysis of the decisions made by Churchill as war leader--were they good? Should he have known better, what could he have done? Still, an excellent portrait of a strong-willed and (not fatally, by any means) flawed leader--one of the great men of the twentieth century, to be sure.

[TheF7Pawn · Rating 5 out of 5]

Perhaps the author would object, but this is his own finest hour. His warts-and-all portrait of one of the greatest figures of the 20th Century is enjoyable, informative, and fair-minded. D'Este makes a persuasive case that Churchill was a poor warlord, a second-rate strategist, and an infuriatingly poor judge of good generalship. And yet, for all these faults, he was the only man - quite literally - who could save Britain in the time of its greatest peril. Superbly researched, briskly organized, and chock full of insights from the personal to the strategic, Churchill's life as a military leader holds tremendous lessons for all of us. Highly, highly recommended.

[Tim · Rating 2 out of 5]

Poorly written and bothersome to read. I was hoping for a better showing as Churchill has always been of great interest to me. Of course, no one can do better than the old grouch himself at telling the story of his life.

[Jeffrey Plummer · Rating 3 out of 5]

Appreciated how the book presents both positive and negative attributes and a more balanced biography than many.

[Bill Christman · Rating 4 out of 5]

Winston Churchill was a great wartime leader but that does not mean he was a military genius. Churchill was a very frustrating and exasperating superior for the British military to deal as ideas popped out of his head so fast, each which he wanted checked out, that the military found itself reviewing many ideas that were not feasible. Carlo D’Este’s biography examines Churchill strictly from the military standpoint and, as he did with George Patton in Genius for War, does this extremely well.

The book is split evenly, with the first half covering Churchill from his days as a young officer in India through his service in World War I. Then the second half covers his leadership during World War II, the richer part of the book. Churchill’s usage of the English language and his leadership in Parliament were the backbone of his greatness, he rallied the free world and forever labeled the Nazi regime. At the time Churchill was the politician with the most military experience so for Britain to turn to him in this trial was almost a natural move.

He was one of the founders of the tank and a supporter for the creation of an independent air force. Churchill’s fertile mind became unleashed by the desperate situation that the English found themselves in, an unequipped army after Dunkirk, an air force that was outnumbered and lacking offensive equipment, a navy that suddenly found itself vulnerable to air power of the enemy, and was stretched over every ocean on earth. For this situation he expanded the British Special Forces to harass the Germans, and he came up with the design of the Mulberry Harbors for the day when an invasion would occur and became so crucial in the days after D-Day. This last idea is touched with irony as the military staff in dismissing many of Churchill’s strategic ideas used the limitations of British logistics. Churchill, like Erwin Rommel the great German field commander in North Africa, did not seem to have a total grasp on the importance of logistics in modern warfare. He also seemed to not understand the importance of air cover, still married to 19th Century ideal of naval supremacy, as the failures in Crete and the sinking of the Prince of Wales attest to. The old views of military strategy can also be seen in his selection of generals. The image the general projected was sometimes more important than ability or at least was a major trait Churchill looked for in commanders.

Churchill could get obsessed with certain ideas. During the war, up to the final months, he never let go of the idea of invading Norway. This despite of the difficulty in providing air cover for this particular operation, and the dubiousness nature what this would accomplish towards the defeat of Germany. The British staff fought Churchill on this for his entire war. But it would be in discussions with the generals where Churchill did his greatest service, as he peppered the generals with questions about their plans, or their rejection of his, he pushed the generals intellectually. The generals ill prepared with adequate responses or ‘just because’ responses gained Churchill’s wrath. Many on the General Staff admitted after the war they hated this process but, also acknowledged it made them better as Churchill was very probing in his questioning. D’Este brings out that Churchill earned a loyalty from them that he may have never understood the true depth of.

D’Este’s book was questionable at several points as he made comparisons of these past actions to the contemporary war at the time of his writing in Iraq. This was distracting as the book could have been a military standard but the references, which were always critical of the war in Iraq, took away from the power of some of the historical arguments in the book. It is perhaps this focus against his contemporary war that had D’Este lose focus in claiming that FDR got the Lend Lease Act through a stubborn Republican Congress in 1941, to make them look bad when the Democrats controlled Congress in 1941 and were just as stubborn in voting against it.

These mistakes and loss of focus aside, Carlo D’Este has written a very good book examining this part of the Churchill legacy. One that is intriguing, educational, much of it well argued, and worth the time spent reading.

[Brian Manville · Rating 4 out of 5]

To the casual observer, Winston Churchill bears a resemblance to a doting grandfather who is known solely as the leader of England during World War II. Said observer may also know about his Iron Curtain speech or other speeches he has given; mostly, he is held up as an icon in world history. While that is indeed true, it should be remembered that our heroes are fallible people. Carlo D'Este brings out that fallibility in the course of examining where Churchill presumed to be knowledgeable about military matters.

Churchill, born into an aristocratic family on the decline due to the lavish spending habits of his parents, was seeking a way to make himself a prominent member of English society. Driven by his father's humiliating fall from political power after his December 1886 resignation as Chancellor of the Exchequer, Churchill sought election himself to Parliament. First, however, he pursued a military career as a means of enhancing his standing before the electorate.

His time in school and early career in the military are notable for his lack of desire to put in the required work and to use his family's name to create opportunities for himself. Indeed, the Churchill of the 1890s is an arrogant, spoiled, entitled rich boy who wants the title but none of the work to acquire it. This is probably enhanced by the fact that the English army officer corps functioned as a glorified social club where rank was for sale and the need to keep up appearances by having all of the uniforms, horses and accoutrements therein. As expected, a young Churchill left bills unpaid and creditors hanging because of his desire to be a proper part of the army.

His postings included tours of Cuba, India, and the Sudan. It was in the Sudan where Churchill found his first real exposure to war at Omdurman. His experiences in the Sudan led him to write "The River War" which was critical of Kitchener's campaign. After leaving the army, he found his way back to the front lines as a reporter during the Boer War in South Africa. From reading D'Este's account, it is altogether realistic that young Winston Churchill could be loathed by the very society he sought to enter.

D'Este crafts a story that builds from an arrogant young man to seasoned, wiser, but still somewhat reckless man. It can be reasonably argued that Churchill, while possessing a fertile mind and imagination for military weaponry yet was in some respects still hampered by the Victorian mentality he kept. While not as beholden to past strategies as his inner circle and officer corps, he nonetheless deserve credit for bringing the services together and standing alone in those cold days between the fall of France and the entry of the US into the war.

BOTTOM LINE: An alternate look on the life of Churchill that amateur historians need to read.

[Nkenna · Rating 5 out of 5]

I am giving 5 stars for the originality of this portrayal of Chruchill.
Much that is known about Chruchill is the myth surrounding him, the very title of this book conveys that myth "Warlord" the idea that Chruchill was blood thirsty. Myth.
The most iconic revelations contained herein are the criticisms Churchill suffered, his insufferable qualities and shortcomings, the stuff of mortals makes it clearer to understand the wartime British leader.
Even though the book like so many others maintain till the very end, that Churchill was the only British leader who could have saved the Island from Nazi domination, all that proves to me is the strength of Churchill's propaganda machinery. He was ideal but not the only one.
A lot is boasted by the public of how much they understand of Churchill, but I call the collective bluff of every one of them including this author that not enough is or was known of Churchill's actual wartime person, the very fact that details that should have long been out in the open remained hidden long after his death and only started resurfacing in the 1960's is proof enough that this was a man that demanded much to be studied of. Even his wartime life which was the singular focus of this book calls me to question how much really could be known of a man leading a war machinery against a known spy master "Hitler" Churchill must have operated in the shadows most of the time. The hint of a failure to grasp the true consciousness of Churchill is in the presentation of his emotional states, at different times during the second war.
There is much to be written as a review, but none of it takes away that this is a masterpiece into what I believe is the most fascinating mind operating the theatre of war after such a long study of war, the divergencies between the study of war and the waging of war.

[Noah Goats · Rating 5 out of 5]

The best Churchill biography remains the three volume Last Lion series by William Manchester and Paul Reed. (Reed took over the last volume when Manchester simply became too old to finish it, and did a fantastic job.) Churchill is such a fascinating character that a writer would have to be terrible to write a boring book about him. It must be nice to have a subject who simply refuses to be boring (Teddy Roosevelt biographers get a similar boost from their subject.)

In this book Carlo D'Este takes Churchill's massive life and focuses on his wartime activities in just about every significant military conflict Britain got into during his life. As a young man he was always off having military adventures, seeing action as a reporter during a Cuban uprising, participating in the last English cavalry charge at the Battle of Omdurman in the Sudan, escaping from a POW camp in South Africa during the Boer War (Candice Millard wrote a wonderful book about the escape), etc, etc. As an adult he had important leadership rolls in WWI, and, of course, WWII, where he achieved the status of world historical hero who stood up to fascism and led his country through its darkest hours and into glory.

It's all fascinating and D'Este does a good job. If you want a more complete biography, go with Manchester, but if you want to know about his wars, this book won't miss.

[Robert · Rating 5 out of 5]

Initially I wasn't sure if a biography focusing on the military aspect of Churchill's career was necessary. I read William Manchester's three volume biography on Churchill and imagined it would be hard to learn anything new.

Having read it, Carlo D'Este's approach is totally justified and necessary. Churchill is mythologized by many for his role as, essentially, warlord of the UK during WWII. D'Este does well by shedding light on the military relationships and strategy Churchill presided over in WWII. He also covers every point in Churchill's military career. Given D'Este's own military background, I think he is able to provide better context and analysis.

My only gripe is I wish there were more maps in the book, especially battle maps.

Overall, I found D'Este's book a fascinating and balanced account. Definitely a worthwhile read if you're interested in Churchill or WWII.

[Chris Bryant · Rating 5 out of 5]

Supermen do exist on Earth, and this book chronicles one. Superbly researched and adroitly written, this is a magnificent, unalloyed detail of Churchill’s life through the end of WWII. It is not hyperbole to suggest that, absent this flawed yet magnificent man, Western Europe would have fallen to Nazi Germany. A superb book.

[Olav Bergo · Rating 5 out of 5]

A marvellous tale of the real superman of the life and death struggle against nazi Germany.

Detailed, filled with a number of quotes and episodes from Churchills life as warrior, writer, politician and PM. A «must read», if you need to understand today’s world.

[DAVID M. DAILEY · Rating 5 out of 5]

Warlord

Truly one of the best accounts written by any author recounting the incredible life of Winston S. Churchill—“a man for the ages!”
FYI, this is my second reading of “Warlord” by d’Este.

[Mom & Dad · Rating 5 out of 5]

Outstanding warriors biography

Terrific overview of an epic figure of the 20th century. Early life review with detailed second world war following Churchill with all the ups and downs of his time leading Britain.

[J · Rating 5 out of 5]

The World needs more heroes like Winston Churchill. But for the facts, his life would be a novel of epic proportions.

[Cecilia Hernandez · Rating 5 out of 5]

excellent read excellent piece of literature, unbelievable.

[Kraag22 · Rating 5 out of 5]

Incredible book. Sometimes is hard to believe that this really happened.

[Mark Stratton · Rating 4 out of 5]

What an infuriating, compassionate, crime of, deep feeling, conundrum of a man. Still pretty sure I wouldn’t have liked him. Still, you don’t have to like “greatness” to appreciate it.

[Tod Bellrichard · Rating 5 out of 5]

As good a book about history as you will find. The depth of research is exemplary. Reads like a novel of a man and a time not to ever be duplicated.

[Adam Gossman · Rating 3 out of 5]

Could have been much better.

[Felix · Rating 5 out of 5]

This one took me quit awhile but it was an incredible enjoyable and impressive read nonetheless. More later.