What do you think?
Rate this book
Troublesome Young Men: The Rebels Who Brought Churchill to Power and Helped Save England
A riveting history of the daring politicians who challenged the disastrous policies of the British government on the eve of World War II
On May 7, 1940, the House of Commons began perhaps the most crucial debate in British parliamentary history. On its outcome hung the future of Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain's government and also of Britain--indeed, perhaps, the world. Troublesome Young Men is Lynne Olson's fascinating account of how a small group of rebellious Tory MPs defied the Chamberlain government's defeatist policies that aimed to appease Europe's tyrants and eventually forced the prime minister's resignation.
Some historians dismiss the "phony war" that preceded this turning point--from September 1939, when Britain and France declared war on Germany, to May 1940, when Winston Churchill became prime minister--as a time of waiting and inaction, but Olson makes no such mistake, and describes in dramatic detail the public unrest that spread through Britain then, as people realized how poorly prepared the nation was to confront Hitler, how their basic civil liberties were being jeopardized, and also that there were intrepid politicians willing to risk political suicide to spearhead the opposition to Chamberlain--Harold Macmillan, Robert Boothby, Leo Amery, Ronald Cartland, and Lord Robert Cranborne among them. The political and personal dramas that played out in Parliament and in the nation as Britain faced the threat of fascism virtually on its own are extraordinary--and, in Olson's hands, downright inspiring.
On May 7, 1940, the House of Commons began perhaps the most crucial debate in British parliamentary history. On its outcome hung the future of Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain's government and also of Britain--indeed, perhaps, the world. Troublesome Young Men is Lynne Olson's fascinating account of how a small group of rebellious Tory MPs defied the Chamberlain government's defeatist policies that aimed to appease Europe's tyrants and eventually forced the prime minister's resignation.
Some historians dismiss the "phony war" that preceded this turning point--from September 1939, when Britain and France declared war on Germany, to May 1940, when Winston Churchill became prime minister--as a time of waiting and inaction, but Olson makes no such mistake, and describes in dramatic detail the public unrest that spread through Britain then, as people realized how poorly prepared the nation was to confront Hitler, how their basic civil liberties were being jeopardized, and also that there were intrepid politicians willing to risk political suicide to spearhead the opposition to Chamberlain--Harold Macmillan, Robert Boothby, Leo Amery, Ronald Cartland, and Lord Robert Cranborne among them. The political and personal dramas that played out in Parliament and in the nation as Britain faced the threat of fascism virtually on its own are extraordinary--and, in Olson's hands, downright inspiring.
448 pages, Hardcover
First published April 17, 2007
107 people are currently reading
1987 people want to read
About the author
Lynne Olson
17 books709 followers Lynne Olson is a New York Times bestselling author of ten books of history, most of which focus on World War II. Former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright has called her "our era's foremost chronicler of World War II politics and diplomacy."
Lynne’s latest book, The Sisterhood of Ravensbruck: How an Intrepid Band of Frenchwomen Resisted the Nazis In Hitler’s All-Female Concentration Camp, will be published by Random House on June 3,2025. Three of her previous books — Madame Fourcade's Secret War, Those Angry Days, and Citizens of London were New York Times bestsellers.
Born in Hawaii, Lynne graduated magna cum laude from the University of Arizona. Before becoming a full-time author, she worked as a journalist for ten years, first with the Associated Press as a national feature writer in New York, a foreign correspondent in AP's Moscow bureau, and a political reporter in Washington. She left the AP to join the Washington bureau of the Baltimore Sun, where she covered national politics and eventually the White House.
Lynne lives in Washington, DC with her husband, Stanley Cloud, with whom she co-authored two books. Visit Lynne Olson at http://lynneolson.com.
Lynne’s latest book, The Sisterhood of Ravensbruck: How an Intrepid Band of Frenchwomen Resisted the Nazis In Hitler’s All-Female Concentration Camp, will be published by Random House on June 3,2025. Three of her previous books — Madame Fourcade's Secret War, Those Angry Days, and Citizens of London were New York Times bestsellers.
Born in Hawaii, Lynne graduated magna cum laude from the University of Arizona. Before becoming a full-time author, she worked as a journalist for ten years, first with the Associated Press as a national feature writer in New York, a foreign correspondent in AP's Moscow bureau, and a political reporter in Washington. She left the AP to join the Washington bureau of the Baltimore Sun, where she covered national politics and eventually the White House.
Lynne lives in Washington, DC with her husband, Stanley Cloud, with whom she co-authored two books. Visit Lynne Olson at http://lynneolson.com.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 155 reviews
June 15, 2019
This book tells the familiar story of the countdown to 1939. Olson has chosen to tell the story using interconnected biographies of Harold Macmillan, Anthony Eden, Duff Cooper, Bob Boothby, Bobbety Cranbourne, Ronald Cortland, Harold Nicolson and Leo Amery. Each of these had their own political ambitions and rarely agreed with one another. But from 1937 onwards, they worked together to oppose the policies of appeasement, depose Chamberlain as Prime Minister and install Winston Churchill in his place.
The book is well written and researched. The author does a good job in bringing to life the political milieu. Olson also tosses in the extraordinary thirty-year affair between Dorothy Macmillan and Boothby, and its effect on Harold Macmillan. Olson’s description of each of the people involved is detailed, as is her description of Churchill with all his strength and weakness. The book is easy to read and understand. I thoroughly enjoyed this book.
I read this as an audiobook downloaded from Audible. The book is fourteen hours and forty-two minutes. The book was first published in 2007. Dennis Kleinman does a good job narrating the book. Kleinman is a British voice actor. In 2016 he was a Voice Arts nominee for Best Narrator for Biography.
The book is well written and researched. The author does a good job in bringing to life the political milieu. Olson also tosses in the extraordinary thirty-year affair between Dorothy Macmillan and Boothby, and its effect on Harold Macmillan. Olson’s description of each of the people involved is detailed, as is her description of Churchill with all his strength and weakness. The book is easy to read and understand. I thoroughly enjoyed this book.
I read this as an audiobook downloaded from Audible. The book is fourteen hours and forty-two minutes. The book was first published in 2007. Dennis Kleinman does a good job narrating the book. Kleinman is a British voice actor. In 2016 he was a Voice Arts nominee for Best Narrator for Biography.
January 31, 2010
An outstanding history that focuses primarily on a number of second tier historical figures (almost all of who are British MPs) that were instrumental in bringing Churchill to power. Of course, bringing Churchill to power meant bringing down Mr. Peace-In-Our-Time, Neville Chamberlain. It's a story I thought I knew, but didn't. Usually the story is told in other books in historical shorthand, as events hurtle along to bigger things. Olson walks you through the difficult process of getting rid of a prime minister who didn't want to give up power, and who had the overwhelming backing of his party. Chamberlain comes across as a really vain worm in this book, and it's his vanity that nearly sinks the country. But Churchill also comes across as, well, odd. His coldness toward those who lifted him to power leaves a bad taste in your mouth, especially so since many of the appeasers were left in power. Olson also does a good job of creating a context for why appeasement took root in England, but in doing so she never gives it a moral pass. Olson understands appeasement, but she refuses to accept it. Good for her.
July 27, 2010
This book is a cracking read, just as the blurbs describe it. I read it in 2 days.
I found it eye opening and even startling both in what it had to say about Churchill and about the period. It describes in some detail the events between the British general election of 1935 and 1940 and the machinations in Parliament that brought Churchill to power. It is a book of history but mainly of personality. The obscure and the famous are equally and thoroughly described. This does not take away from the historical drama and enormous tension that the writer creates. Though we know how things turned out in the end, it is shocking to see how fine a line there was between victory and defeat. Chamberlin and the Tory majority of appeasers (of Hitler) had little concept of the danger to Britain and western style democracy. The upper classes were rife with Nazi sympathizers, the press was largely a tool of the government and the vast majority of the population was hopelessly ill-informed - not by choice but through longstanding and traditional manipulation by the wealthy and powerful.
It’s a frightening book. I’ve read quite a bit about Churchill and the war (though never any of Churchill’s books which I think after reading this one must be pretty self-serving) but I had no idea how iffy the whole thing was. If a small group of MPs and prominent men had not agitated for Chamberlin’s removal against overwhelming odds and powerful instincts to just go along with the appeasers, Churchill - who wasn’t their champion until very late in the game - would not have had his opportunity. That he took that opportunity and made the very best of it for all concerned is well known. That he had such a small part in the events of the time is not something that I was aware of even after reading several of his biographies. In these books he has always been at the centre of the action and the inevitable leader. This was not the case. He was the right man at the right time but events were moved more by others to get him there.
After he became Prime Minister he had little use for many of those involved in the parliamentary revolution that brought him to power. He was a one man show and he never let them forget it.
I found it eye opening and even startling both in what it had to say about Churchill and about the period. It describes in some detail the events between the British general election of 1935 and 1940 and the machinations in Parliament that brought Churchill to power. It is a book of history but mainly of personality. The obscure and the famous are equally and thoroughly described. This does not take away from the historical drama and enormous tension that the writer creates. Though we know how things turned out in the end, it is shocking to see how fine a line there was between victory and defeat. Chamberlin and the Tory majority of appeasers (of Hitler) had little concept of the danger to Britain and western style democracy. The upper classes were rife with Nazi sympathizers, the press was largely a tool of the government and the vast majority of the population was hopelessly ill-informed - not by choice but through longstanding and traditional manipulation by the wealthy and powerful.
It’s a frightening book. I’ve read quite a bit about Churchill and the war (though never any of Churchill’s books which I think after reading this one must be pretty self-serving) but I had no idea how iffy the whole thing was. If a small group of MPs and prominent men had not agitated for Chamberlin’s removal against overwhelming odds and powerful instincts to just go along with the appeasers, Churchill - who wasn’t their champion until very late in the game - would not have had his opportunity. That he took that opportunity and made the very best of it for all concerned is well known. That he had such a small part in the events of the time is not something that I was aware of even after reading several of his biographies. In these books he has always been at the centre of the action and the inevitable leader. This was not the case. He was the right man at the right time but events were moved more by others to get him there.
After he became Prime Minister he had little use for many of those involved in the parliamentary revolution that brought him to power. He was a one man show and he never let them forget it.
August 22, 2022
What a fascinating book! Through my recent glom of books about Churchill, I learned that he was held in low regard by much of his Tory party. This book tells the story of a handful of Tories — the “troublesome young men” — who conspired for months to get rid of Chamberlain and install Churchill as Prime Minister, and it was a close-run thing too.
April 6, 2022
With Olson,you're guaranteed to get impeccable reasearch,lively writing and passion about the subject in question.
June 2, 2024
Lynne Olson never disappoints. I was, however, not far into the book before realizing that it would have helped immensely had I known something of the workings of the British Parliament. I have struggled with trying to understand the rationale for the United States and Great Britain's hesitancy in declaring war on Germany.
Olson answered my question as to why the United States delayed entering the war in her book Those Angry Days: Roosevelt, Lindbergh, and America's Fight Over World War II, 1939-1941 Now she explains Great Britain's hesitancy in "Troublesome Young Men." The fault lay squarely on the shoulders of the vainglorious, faint-hearted Neville Chamberlain who insistently reassured the public of "Peace in our time." Chamberlain demurred following the Anschluss. He made light of the invasion of Poland, to encourage Great Brittain's concessions to Hitler, and went on to concede the Sudetenland.
I was surprised to learn how authoritarian the British government had become by 1939. The Members of Parliament (MPs) had to toe the ruling party line (toe the line) lest that member is seen as a rabble-rouser and a troublemaker. Most of the time MPs had to vote with Chamberlain and the Tories to retain their seats. The Tory majority also controlled the press. (The Tory majority supported Chamberlain and appeasement). The British populace knew little if nothing of what was actually happening in Germany and in much of Western Europe.
The "Troublesome Young Men" were a group of young Tories who recognized the danger to their country and indeed to the rest of the civilized world. The parliament called them the "backbenchers." They formed into a few cells and met secretly lest they be seen as dissidents. They were spied upon and their phones were tapped by the "old school" (appeasement) Tory Chamberlain supporters, and indeed still fell within the minority. Although Chamberlain was forced to declare war on Germany on September 3, 1939, it was, snidely (by the anti-appeasement Tories) called the "bore-war", and by the Americans called the "phony war." No move was made to act. The number of troublemakers grew over the winter of 1939 and spring of 1940 to include Labourites and Liberals. Finally, at a meeting of parliament in early June 1940 following many heated speeches, Chamberlain was ousted. He tried to remain in power - "like chewing gum on the bottom of a dining chair", but was forced to resign on June 10, 1940. King George VI named Winston Churchill as his successor at the urging of Chamberlain himself.
Through it all, I couldn't help drawing parallels to the current administration in the United States. Similarities include: the muzzling of the press, and members of congress being forced to vote in ways to keep them in office (and in money) rather than in accordance with democratic ideals and human values. "No one has the courage to vote his heart and soul. We need some 'Troublesome Young Men.''
Olson answered my question as to why the United States delayed entering the war in her book Those Angry Days: Roosevelt, Lindbergh, and America's Fight Over World War II, 1939-1941 Now she explains Great Britain's hesitancy in "Troublesome Young Men." The fault lay squarely on the shoulders of the vainglorious, faint-hearted Neville Chamberlain who insistently reassured the public of "Peace in our time." Chamberlain demurred following the Anschluss. He made light of the invasion of Poland, to encourage Great Brittain's concessions to Hitler, and went on to concede the Sudetenland.
I was surprised to learn how authoritarian the British government had become by 1939. The Members of Parliament (MPs) had to toe the ruling party line (toe the line) lest that member is seen as a rabble-rouser and a troublemaker. Most of the time MPs had to vote with Chamberlain and the Tories to retain their seats. The Tory majority also controlled the press. (The Tory majority supported Chamberlain and appeasement). The British populace knew little if nothing of what was actually happening in Germany and in much of Western Europe.
The "Troublesome Young Men" were a group of young Tories who recognized the danger to their country and indeed to the rest of the civilized world. The parliament called them the "backbenchers." They formed into a few cells and met secretly lest they be seen as dissidents. They were spied upon and their phones were tapped by the "old school" (appeasement) Tory Chamberlain supporters, and indeed still fell within the minority. Although Chamberlain was forced to declare war on Germany on September 3, 1939, it was, snidely (by the anti-appeasement Tories) called the "bore-war", and by the Americans called the "phony war." No move was made to act. The number of troublemakers grew over the winter of 1939 and spring of 1940 to include Labourites and Liberals. Finally, at a meeting of parliament in early June 1940 following many heated speeches, Chamberlain was ousted. He tried to remain in power - "like chewing gum on the bottom of a dining chair", but was forced to resign on June 10, 1940. King George VI named Winston Churchill as his successor at the urging of Chamberlain himself.
Through it all, I couldn't help drawing parallels to the current administration in the United States. Similarities include: the muzzling of the press, and members of congress being forced to vote in ways to keep them in office (and in money) rather than in accordance with democratic ideals and human values. "No one has the courage to vote his heart and soul. We need some 'Troublesome Young Men.''
July 29, 2012
Author Lynne Olson has done an excellent job of telling what the late Paul Harvey used to call "the rest of the story" in this narrative of a group of Tory party Members of Parliament who lead the initial opposition to the appeasement policies of Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain in the years both the years preceding World War II and then the first year of that conflict. Reading this book brought home to me the fact that Winston Churchill becoming Prime Minister in May, 1940 was by no means a "done deal" right up until the moment that Chamberlain stepped down and Churchill succeeded him. While the sometime friends (of a sort) and almost always rivals Chamberlain and Churchill are central to the story, the book is actually about those "Troublesome Young Men" of the title who finally brought down Chamberlain, basically without help from Churchill, who refused to work against Chamberlain once he accepted the Admiralty position in the British Cabinet.
Focusing on some of the leaders of this group of outsiders in their own party, such as Harold Macmillan (a future Prime Minister decades later), Harold Nicolson (remembered now for being the husband of writer Vita Sackville-West), and Ronald Cartwright (brother of romance novelist Barbara Cartwright) Olson tells what I thought was a compelling and interesting story, showing how history sometimes changes on the courage and decisions of a few persistent individuals. I recommend this to anyone who enjoys reading history, particularly those readers interested in the years leading up to the start of World War II in Europe.
Focusing on some of the leaders of this group of outsiders in their own party, such as Harold Macmillan (a future Prime Minister decades later), Harold Nicolson (remembered now for being the husband of writer Vita Sackville-West), and Ronald Cartwright (brother of romance novelist Barbara Cartwright) Olson tells what I thought was a compelling and interesting story, showing how history sometimes changes on the courage and decisions of a few persistent individuals. I recommend this to anyone who enjoys reading history, particularly those readers interested in the years leading up to the start of World War II in Europe.
October 30, 2025
Another book likely more interesting for US readers, this is a history of how the Tory “Young Turks” ejected arch-appeaser Neville Chamberlain and hot swapped Winston Churchill as Prime Minister. I confess much of my knowledge of this four year event came from Volume 2 of the Manchester Biography of Churchill and Jock Colville’s diary. Both of those sources are top-down narratives, with the crowning event being the sole time Churchill actually took someone’s advice to Shut Up!, letting Lord Halifax talk himself out of the job.
This book, the bulk of which spans from 1936-40, follows folks that felt Chamberlain couldn’t be trusted to prepare for, or conduct, a war. Especially after he dealt away Czechoslovakia. In the words of one Tory rebel (describing the period around the Munich Agreement), Chamberlain waged war “without arms, without faith, and without heart.” There were fewer MPs than one would have expected, because so many of their cohorts hadn’t come home from the Great War. So the older Parliamentarians formed a sizable majority (and a sizable Conservative majority) on their own, and treated the youngsters as children. Not only that, the Conservative Party Whips would blacklist any Tory MP who voted against the PM.
Yet this intra-party squabble was far more brutal than I imagined. Chamberlain and the Party Whips heard about the plots from other MPs, and where the “rebel alliances” were meeting. Then the Conservative Whips listened in: “Their phones had been tapped, their meetings spied upon, their constituencies pressured to withdraw support from them at the next election.” In sum, the PM encouraged these dissatisfied Tories to believe that departing from the Party line literally would mean the end of their careers.
Churchill wasn’t so much worried about his seat—his constituents loved him. And he was only a bit younger than Chamberlain. But Churchill properly was convinced that his errors in judgment up to then (Gallipoli, putting England back on the gold standard in the 1920s, supporting the King in marrying the twice-divorced woman from Baltimore, arguing against Independence for India), disqualified him from the premiership. So he was, early on—but alone—attacking his party’s leader: “So [the Chamberlain government] go on in strange paradox, decided only to be undecideds, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all-powerful to be impotent.”
But that’s a fair description. For Chamberlain violated the unwritten British Constitution by not consulting his cabinet before hand: before his first visits, and barely before the final trip to see “Herr Hitler” in Munich, returning with “Peace in our times.” Even, then, the King endorsed it, leaving no more than 3-dozen MPs anti-appeasers.
I knew about Leo Amery, and his interjection in a floor debate to a Labour Leader who said he was speaking only for himself (as opposed to the Labour Party), saying “Speak for England, Arthur.” I didn’t know Amery was a Chamberlain supporter (or at best only a abstainer) until war began.
But Neville Chamberlain “thought he was Britain’s most effective weapon against the dictators. … Clinging to the security of his ignorance, he created a peace-loving image of them that defied reality.”
In the Spring of 1940, Chamberlain writing to his sister said, “The accumulation of evidence that an attack [in the West] is imminent is formidable… and yet I cannot convince myself that it is coming.”
As a limerick much heard at that same time in the House of Commons Smoking Room went:
An elderly statesman with gout
When asked what the war was about
Replied with a sigh
My colleagues and I
Are doing our best to find out
Almost all of this was more, and welcome, detail I never knew. I’m sure the English-speaking peoples on the other side of the Atlantic knew this; or perhaps my error was never taking a college history class. But this is an interesting book, with but one flaw—it extends beyond the war to cover what became of the Young Turks. Two became Prime Ministers—even I knew that—one (Eden) was among Britain’s worst; the other (MacMillan) might be in the top five. But this stretches the history all the way the up to the Profumo Affair of 1963. Other than that, high praises for this cookbook on “how to conduct a Parliamentary coup.”
This book, the bulk of which spans from 1936-40, follows folks that felt Chamberlain couldn’t be trusted to prepare for, or conduct, a war. Especially after he dealt away Czechoslovakia. In the words of one Tory rebel (describing the period around the Munich Agreement), Chamberlain waged war “without arms, without faith, and without heart.” There were fewer MPs than one would have expected, because so many of their cohorts hadn’t come home from the Great War. So the older Parliamentarians formed a sizable majority (and a sizable Conservative majority) on their own, and treated the youngsters as children. Not only that, the Conservative Party Whips would blacklist any Tory MP who voted against the PM.
Yet this intra-party squabble was far more brutal than I imagined. Chamberlain and the Party Whips heard about the plots from other MPs, and where the “rebel alliances” were meeting. Then the Conservative Whips listened in: “Their phones had been tapped, their meetings spied upon, their constituencies pressured to withdraw support from them at the next election.” In sum, the PM encouraged these dissatisfied Tories to believe that departing from the Party line literally would mean the end of their careers.
Churchill wasn’t so much worried about his seat—his constituents loved him. And he was only a bit younger than Chamberlain. But Churchill properly was convinced that his errors in judgment up to then (Gallipoli, putting England back on the gold standard in the 1920s, supporting the King in marrying the twice-divorced woman from Baltimore, arguing against Independence for India), disqualified him from the premiership. So he was, early on—but alone—attacking his party’s leader: “So [the Chamberlain government] go on in strange paradox, decided only to be undecideds, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all-powerful to be impotent.”
But that’s a fair description. For Chamberlain violated the unwritten British Constitution by not consulting his cabinet before hand: before his first visits, and barely before the final trip to see “Herr Hitler” in Munich, returning with “Peace in our times.” Even, then, the King endorsed it, leaving no more than 3-dozen MPs anti-appeasers.
I knew about Leo Amery, and his interjection in a floor debate to a Labour Leader who said he was speaking only for himself (as opposed to the Labour Party), saying “Speak for England, Arthur.” I didn’t know Amery was a Chamberlain supporter (or at best only a abstainer) until war began.
But Neville Chamberlain “thought he was Britain’s most effective weapon against the dictators. … Clinging to the security of his ignorance, he created a peace-loving image of them that defied reality.”
In the Spring of 1940, Chamberlain writing to his sister said, “The accumulation of evidence that an attack [in the West] is imminent is formidable… and yet I cannot convince myself that it is coming.”
As a limerick much heard at that same time in the House of Commons Smoking Room went:
An elderly statesman with gout
When asked what the war was about
Replied with a sigh
My colleagues and I
Are doing our best to find out
Almost all of this was more, and welcome, detail I never knew. I’m sure the English-speaking peoples on the other side of the Atlantic knew this; or perhaps my error was never taking a college history class. But this is an interesting book, with but one flaw—it extends beyond the war to cover what became of the Young Turks. Two became Prime Ministers—even I knew that—one (Eden) was among Britain’s worst; the other (MacMillan) might be in the top five. But this stretches the history all the way the up to the Profumo Affair of 1963. Other than that, high praises for this cookbook on “how to conduct a Parliamentary coup.”
March 23, 2012
Since a high school history class on World War II, I have known and condemned Neville Chamberlin for acting as the chief architect of Britain's policy of appeasement towards Adolf Hitler. If Britain had held firm against Nazi demands far earlier, if the British Government had moved towards rearmament in face of the growing threat from Germany, the course of the 20th century would have been vastly different. While abandoning appeasement, or even just aggressively responding to German actions in the first eight months of the war, might have resulted in a shorter, less devastating war are discussed at length in survey courses, what is often ignored is how things might have gone disastrously worse.
In the traditional telling, a miracle, in the form of Winston Churchill's elevation to Prime Minister, saves England just as the Phony War comes to its abrupt conclusion. With indomitable will, Churchill rallies the British to fight valiantly and stoically for survival. The bit that is glossed over in this mythic version is that Churchill's elevation was far from certain. Nor is it made clear that Chamberlin, for all of his gentlemanly stance towards diplomacy was ruthless in protecting his own position at the head of government suppressing political dissension within the Conservative party for years to retain power, even going so far as to tap phones of those he perceived to be scheming against him and controlling, if never outright censoring, press coverage of the government.
Lynne Olson's "Troublesome Young Men" tells the story behind the fairy tale, to shed light on the small band of dissident Torys, some familiar names to readers of British history (Harold MacMillan, Harold Nicholson, Anthony Eden) and some virtually unknown today, that worked and waited for the right time to mount the coup that brought Churchill into the top job. She takes what could be a dry recitation of back room dealing and gives it dramatic sweep, revealing the complex, and often conflicted characters that succeeded despite long odds, misplaced loyalties, and deep seated animosities. Olson adroitly stages her historical narrative to make political history epic, cinematic and thrilling. This is a fun book to read.
Despite its entertainment value, "Troublesome Young Men" is more than just a diverting elucidation of an earlier era. Ultimately it is a reminder that a democratic government relies upon elected officials to serve as more than mouthpieces for popular opinion and individual ambition. The rebels finally broke out of the cage built by long schooling in a culture of obedience and loyalty by summoning the strength to vote for what was best for the country and according to personal conscience. It is a lesson that resonates in modern democracies, particularly here in the United States where Congress stymies action more often than not by demanding adherence to partisan lines. One can only hope that when the United States is confronted with a crisis that enough members of Congress discover they too can break from the demands of party machines to think independently, clearly and selflessly.
In the traditional telling, a miracle, in the form of Winston Churchill's elevation to Prime Minister, saves England just as the Phony War comes to its abrupt conclusion. With indomitable will, Churchill rallies the British to fight valiantly and stoically for survival. The bit that is glossed over in this mythic version is that Churchill's elevation was far from certain. Nor is it made clear that Chamberlin, for all of his gentlemanly stance towards diplomacy was ruthless in protecting his own position at the head of government suppressing political dissension within the Conservative party for years to retain power, even going so far as to tap phones of those he perceived to be scheming against him and controlling, if never outright censoring, press coverage of the government.
Lynne Olson's "Troublesome Young Men" tells the story behind the fairy tale, to shed light on the small band of dissident Torys, some familiar names to readers of British history (Harold MacMillan, Harold Nicholson, Anthony Eden) and some virtually unknown today, that worked and waited for the right time to mount the coup that brought Churchill into the top job. She takes what could be a dry recitation of back room dealing and gives it dramatic sweep, revealing the complex, and often conflicted characters that succeeded despite long odds, misplaced loyalties, and deep seated animosities. Olson adroitly stages her historical narrative to make political history epic, cinematic and thrilling. This is a fun book to read.
Despite its entertainment value, "Troublesome Young Men" is more than just a diverting elucidation of an earlier era. Ultimately it is a reminder that a democratic government relies upon elected officials to serve as more than mouthpieces for popular opinion and individual ambition. The rebels finally broke out of the cage built by long schooling in a culture of obedience and loyalty by summoning the strength to vote for what was best for the country and according to personal conscience. It is a lesson that resonates in modern democracies, particularly here in the United States where Congress stymies action more often than not by demanding adherence to partisan lines. One can only hope that when the United States is confronted with a crisis that enough members of Congress discover they too can break from the demands of party machines to think independently, clearly and selflessly.
August 22, 2013
I don't read much non-fiction, but whatever I read tends to center around World War II, and its various component pieces. The birth of Churchill (as a PM and a war-leader) isn't something I've read in detail. I do know that Churchill changed the shape of the war, and that he was the one who gave England and the Allies a fighting chance. I didn't know that the maneuvering that went on behind the scenes to get him to that position was so extensive. And from a book and plot perspective, tense and edge of the seat. This was a great book to have read.
I do wonder sometimes, would Chamberlain have been persecuted for war crimes had he lived to see the end of the war? His gross negligence and arrogance did cost a lot of lives... It would have been fair. I only knew him as a weak PM from history lessons, not as a righteous and stubborn man he plainly was. History (at least the kind taught in school) is way too kind to him. Anyway, this is a great book, eminently readable, and a must read for anyone interested in World War II or English politics. 5 stars.
I do wonder sometimes, would Chamberlain have been persecuted for war crimes had he lived to see the end of the war? His gross negligence and arrogance did cost a lot of lives... It would have been fair. I only knew him as a weak PM from history lessons, not as a righteous and stubborn man he plainly was. History (at least the kind taught in school) is way too kind to him. Anyway, this is a great book, eminently readable, and a must read for anyone interested in World War II or English politics. 5 stars.
November 7, 2008
I'm constantly surprised to discover (and it's one of the reasons why I read histories as frequently as I do) what I know about a particular event or period turns out to be just the tip of the iceberg.
We are all generally familiar with the basic facts of this book--how Neville Chamberlain, as Prime Minister of England, appeased Hitler by sacrificing Czechoslovakia in the vain hope that Hitler would honor his agreements and stop his aggression, how World War II started and that Churchill replaced Chamberlain.
What I didn't know, until I read this well-written and engrossing book, is how difficult it was for the small group of anti-appeasement Conservative Party members of Parliament to dethrone Chamberlain, how long it took and how devastating to England's ability to wage war the Chamberlain government was. It's a fascinating story of what the author in the final chapter calls "resoluteness and moral courage".
Nearly every foreign entanglement or potential entanglement is compared by someone to Munich; it's an overused and almost always highly misleading comparison. However, one of the fascinating things about reading this book near the end of the Bush II administration is that there are a number of parallels between the Chamberlain government and this administration. The MPs who are the subject of this book exhibited moral courage because, by voicing opposition to the leader of their party, they truly risked (and in a few cases forfeited) their political careers. Chamberlain was an authoritarian personality, who ruled the Conservative Party with an iron fist, did not tolerate dissent, and treated disagreement as a personal affront. Sound familiar?
We are all generally familiar with the basic facts of this book--how Neville Chamberlain, as Prime Minister of England, appeased Hitler by sacrificing Czechoslovakia in the vain hope that Hitler would honor his agreements and stop his aggression, how World War II started and that Churchill replaced Chamberlain.
What I didn't know, until I read this well-written and engrossing book, is how difficult it was for the small group of anti-appeasement Conservative Party members of Parliament to dethrone Chamberlain, how long it took and how devastating to England's ability to wage war the Chamberlain government was. It's a fascinating story of what the author in the final chapter calls "resoluteness and moral courage".
Nearly every foreign entanglement or potential entanglement is compared by someone to Munich; it's an overused and almost always highly misleading comparison. However, one of the fascinating things about reading this book near the end of the Bush II administration is that there are a number of parallels between the Chamberlain government and this administration. The MPs who are the subject of this book exhibited moral courage because, by voicing opposition to the leader of their party, they truly risked (and in a few cases forfeited) their political careers. Chamberlain was an authoritarian personality, who ruled the Conservative Party with an iron fist, did not tolerate dissent, and treated disagreement as a personal affront. Sound familiar?
October 4, 2025
In this reader's opinion, Lynne Olson has written the definitive, historical account of the British men in the government during the 1930's and the 1940's.
August 28, 2019
Lynne Olson conducts monumental research, finds telling material, and deploys it expertly to bring to life an era and the people of whom she writes. That era is WWII and the depression years that preceded it, especially in Britain and the United States. The people are the political figures from those years, many of them familiar to readers, as well as journalists, businessmen, and other lesser known figures who played key, if unrecognized roles. Here, the Troublesome Young Men, are drawn largely from that latter category. They are the Young Turks of the Conservative party in Parliament who chafed under Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain's continuing appeasement while Hitler appropriated territory and nations in Europe. The great adventure of these Young Men lay in their effort to replace Chamberlain with a leader who understood the risks to Britain and who would challenge Hitler to avoid those existential risks.
It is often said that civil wars are the bitterest of wars; the Troublesome Young Men learned that applies to politics as much as to nations. Chamberlain's controllers and friends in the Conservative party fought against their realist colleagues with every means available to them: withholding party offices and ministry appointments, defamation campaigns, threatening to replace them with other candidates at the next election, and resorting to illegal means such as wiretapping. If Chamberlain had applied such vigor to opposing Hitler, the geography and history of Europe might have been much different.
Olson details how close ties between Chamberlain and his allies with the press, coupled with government control or pressure in other cases, such as the BBC, kept the people unaware of what was happening. Both the very slow pace of British rearmament and the rapid growth of German military strength, for instance were not made public. She makes this point tellingly with a limerick circulating at the time:
An elderly statesman with gout
When asked what the war was about,
Replied with a sigh
My colleagues and I
Are doing our best to find out.
Her overall portrait of Chamberlain, drawn from many diverse sources, is devastating. From his harsh use of party power and illegal methods to survive, through his meaningless promises to rearm at home and come to the aid of other nations, such as Czechoslovakia and Poland when they were attacked by Germany, Chamberlain's image is ugly. She writes, for instance, "Despite abundant evidence to the contrary and despite the fact that he never met Hitler or Mussolini until 1938 and did not know much about them or their countries, Chamberlain could never bring himself to believe that they wanted to go to war. Clinging to the security of his ignorance, he created a peace-loving image of them that defied reality.
Olson describes the long effort by the Troublesome Young Men on their anti-appeasement campaign. It started with the concerns of Member of Parliament Bob Boothby who met Hitler in 1932 and became alarmed when the man became the head of German government in 1933. After years of surges and wavering the group succeeded in bringing down the Chamberlain government in May 1940, after which Winston Churchill became Prime Minister. The group was never large over those years. It had a core of abut a dozen rising from time to time to 20 or 30. The leadership was sporadic. From time to time Harold Macmillan and Anthony Eden were looked to, but others such as Leo Amery, Harold Nicolson, and Ronald Cartland (brother of novelist Barbara Cartland), all played roles in this long campaign while serving in Parliament.
Surprisingly, Churchill as Prime Minister kept many of the appeasers, including Chamberlain, as members of his War Cabinet. He was perhaps following the sage advice to keep your friends close, but your enemies closer. His friends, however, the young men who gained him the position were initially given more minor roles, or none at all. With time, some of them did well in government; both Eden and Macmillan would eventually become Prime Minister after Winston left office.
While many readers are familiar with the major points in this history, Olson's many details make it suspenseful and, in the end, far more comprehensible. The book is highly recommended for those with an interest in the history of the WWII period, and for those who might gain insights by acquiring such an interest. It is hard to imagine a Lynne Olson book that is not bountifully rewarding.
More to follow, but the book is highly recommended.
It is often said that civil wars are the bitterest of wars; the Troublesome Young Men learned that applies to politics as much as to nations. Chamberlain's controllers and friends in the Conservative party fought against their realist colleagues with every means available to them: withholding party offices and ministry appointments, defamation campaigns, threatening to replace them with other candidates at the next election, and resorting to illegal means such as wiretapping. If Chamberlain had applied such vigor to opposing Hitler, the geography and history of Europe might have been much different.
Olson details how close ties between Chamberlain and his allies with the press, coupled with government control or pressure in other cases, such as the BBC, kept the people unaware of what was happening. Both the very slow pace of British rearmament and the rapid growth of German military strength, for instance were not made public. She makes this point tellingly with a limerick circulating at the time:
An elderly statesman with gout
When asked what the war was about,
Replied with a sigh
My colleagues and I
Are doing our best to find out.
Her overall portrait of Chamberlain, drawn from many diverse sources, is devastating. From his harsh use of party power and illegal methods to survive, through his meaningless promises to rearm at home and come to the aid of other nations, such as Czechoslovakia and Poland when they were attacked by Germany, Chamberlain's image is ugly. She writes, for instance, "Despite abundant evidence to the contrary and despite the fact that he never met Hitler or Mussolini until 1938 and did not know much about them or their countries, Chamberlain could never bring himself to believe that they wanted to go to war. Clinging to the security of his ignorance, he created a peace-loving image of them that defied reality.
Olson describes the long effort by the Troublesome Young Men on their anti-appeasement campaign. It started with the concerns of Member of Parliament Bob Boothby who met Hitler in 1932 and became alarmed when the man became the head of German government in 1933. After years of surges and wavering the group succeeded in bringing down the Chamberlain government in May 1940, after which Winston Churchill became Prime Minister. The group was never large over those years. It had a core of abut a dozen rising from time to time to 20 or 30. The leadership was sporadic. From time to time Harold Macmillan and Anthony Eden were looked to, but others such as Leo Amery, Harold Nicolson, and Ronald Cartland (brother of novelist Barbara Cartland), all played roles in this long campaign while serving in Parliament.
Surprisingly, Churchill as Prime Minister kept many of the appeasers, including Chamberlain, as members of his War Cabinet. He was perhaps following the sage advice to keep your friends close, but your enemies closer. His friends, however, the young men who gained him the position were initially given more minor roles, or none at all. With time, some of them did well in government; both Eden and Macmillan would eventually become Prime Minister after Winston left office.
While many readers are familiar with the major points in this history, Olson's many details make it suspenseful and, in the end, far more comprehensible. The book is highly recommended for those with an interest in the history of the WWII period, and for those who might gain insights by acquiring such an interest. It is hard to imagine a Lynne Olson book that is not bountifully rewarding.
More to follow, but the book is highly recommended.
May 12, 2013
Lynne Olson's Troublesome Young Men provides a nice recounting of the story of those parliamentarians, particular in the Conservative Party, who opposed their party's leadership in its policy of appeasement. The book is best understood as a series of mini-portraits of those men who stood both apart from PM Chamberlain and Winston Churchill in their opposition (i.e., they were acting on their own instincts rather than under Churchill's direct leadership).
Olson's thesis as expressed on the book jacket and subtitle "The Rebels who brought Churchill to Power and Helped Save England" is really not justified. In fact the "Troublesome Young Men" really were little more than just that - troublesome. Churchill was not brought to power by Conservative back benchers, but rather a Labour Party that expressly declared that it would not participate in a coalition government under the leadership of any Tory save Churchill.
Further, Churchill himself is really portrayed as more of a Hamlet type figure, unsure about whether to confront Chamberlain or join him. One would think that he merely found himself in the PM's chair due to the work of others rather than as the fruits of his own labor. Perhaps Olson assumes we all know what Churchill did during the 1930s and doesn't think it bears repeating, but she runs the risk of leaving the wrong impression of a passive, ineffectual Churchill to readers less familiar with the Churchill story.
The men portrayed by Olson deserve to be remembered for their clarity of conviction and their courage in withstanding the punishments and criticisms that could only really be visited upon them in a parliamentary system where the Prime Minister is the leading voice and figure of authority in the legislature, unlike the U.S. Olson is not a professional historian, though, and she clearly lacks an understanding of the bigger picture that would have led her to better assess the overall impact of the individuals portrayed.
Olson's thesis as expressed on the book jacket and subtitle "The Rebels who brought Churchill to Power and Helped Save England" is really not justified. In fact the "Troublesome Young Men" really were little more than just that - troublesome. Churchill was not brought to power by Conservative back benchers, but rather a Labour Party that expressly declared that it would not participate in a coalition government under the leadership of any Tory save Churchill.
Further, Churchill himself is really portrayed as more of a Hamlet type figure, unsure about whether to confront Chamberlain or join him. One would think that he merely found himself in the PM's chair due to the work of others rather than as the fruits of his own labor. Perhaps Olson assumes we all know what Churchill did during the 1930s and doesn't think it bears repeating, but she runs the risk of leaving the wrong impression of a passive, ineffectual Churchill to readers less familiar with the Churchill story.
The men portrayed by Olson deserve to be remembered for their clarity of conviction and their courage in withstanding the punishments and criticisms that could only really be visited upon them in a parliamentary system where the Prime Minister is the leading voice and figure of authority in the legislature, unlike the U.S. Olson is not a professional historian, though, and she clearly lacks an understanding of the bigger picture that would have led her to better assess the overall impact of the individuals portrayed.
July 7, 2017
I had never given much thought to how Churchill came to power in World War II. I knew about Neville Chamberlain (he of appeasement, Munich and "peace in our time" fame), but it had never really occurred to me to wonder how England got from Chamberlain to Churchill. If you had asked me, I probably would have speculated that there had been an election, without ever realizing that I was thinking in American terms.
As I said, the subtitle gives the whole story: Chamberlain and Churchill were both members of the same party, and Chamberlain was ousted by rebels within that party who were dissatisfied with his appeasement policy and later lackadaisical approach to prosecuting the war. For all that the outcome is known, the author manages a real nailbiter here.
The author doesn’t have much fondness for Churchill, whom she depicts as being ungrateful and even hostile to the Conservatives who broke party ranks to bring him to power and stubbornly loyal to Chamberlain even after becoming Prime Minister. She brings into the light names I had previously not known, or known only in different contexts: Harold Macmillan (who would be Prime Minister in the 60s), Leo Amery, Alfred Duff Cooper, Robert Boothby, Lady Violet Bonham Carter, Harold Nicholson, and the author’s particular hero, Ronald Cartland.
And while the author doesn’t particular like Churchill, she reserves her greatest scorn for Chamberlain. He rejected any opposition to his policies as "disloyalty" (gee, where have we heard that one recently), punished party members who disagreed with him, and criminally failed to defend Britain’s interests.
Olson brilliantly violates Philip Roth’s dictum that "History is where everything unexpected in its own time is chronicled on the page as inevitable" and makes it clear just how far from inevitable were Churchill’s rise to power and Hitler’s subsequent defeat.
As I said, the subtitle gives the whole story: Chamberlain and Churchill were both members of the same party, and Chamberlain was ousted by rebels within that party who were dissatisfied with his appeasement policy and later lackadaisical approach to prosecuting the war. For all that the outcome is known, the author manages a real nailbiter here.
The author doesn’t have much fondness for Churchill, whom she depicts as being ungrateful and even hostile to the Conservatives who broke party ranks to bring him to power and stubbornly loyal to Chamberlain even after becoming Prime Minister. She brings into the light names I had previously not known, or known only in different contexts: Harold Macmillan (who would be Prime Minister in the 60s), Leo Amery, Alfred Duff Cooper, Robert Boothby, Lady Violet Bonham Carter, Harold Nicholson, and the author’s particular hero, Ronald Cartland.
And while the author doesn’t particular like Churchill, she reserves her greatest scorn for Chamberlain. He rejected any opposition to his policies as "disloyalty" (gee, where have we heard that one recently), punished party members who disagreed with him, and criminally failed to defend Britain’s interests.
Olson brilliantly violates Philip Roth’s dictum that "History is where everything unexpected in its own time is chronicled on the page as inevitable" and makes it clear just how far from inevitable were Churchill’s rise to power and Hitler’s subsequent defeat.
August 21, 2022
A splendid book and a real page turner - I couldn't put it down. I can add little more to its many excellent reviews.
However, having read it for the first time during the early weeks of the Russian invasion of Ukraine I am struck by the apparent repeat of history which seems to be taking place in 2022.
During the 21st Century, the West had been turning a blind eye to the wanton and aggressive actions of Putin's Russia in Syria, Chechnya and elsewhere, whilst making themselves ever more dependent on imported Russian energy. When Crimea was annexed in 2014, nothing worse than relatively mild sanctions were imposed on Putin, which gave the green light for him to promote insurgency in the Donbas, resulting in the deaths of thousands of Ukrainian soldiers during the subsequent seven years. Meanwhile Germany and other European democracies became ever more voracious users of Russian gas with the consequent need to maintain good terms with the Russian dictator. There are obvious parallels to the appeasement of Hitler by Britain and France in the 1930s.
Crimea to us was what Austria, Sudetenland and the remainder of Czechoslovakia were to our parents' generation, yet we failed to recognise the familiar dangers unfolding yet again and are now paying a very high price for that blindness. For Poland and Hitler in 1939, read Ukraine and Putin in 2022.
This book has been of immense value to me for seeing the present in a historical context.
However, having read it for the first time during the early weeks of the Russian invasion of Ukraine I am struck by the apparent repeat of history which seems to be taking place in 2022.
During the 21st Century, the West had been turning a blind eye to the wanton and aggressive actions of Putin's Russia in Syria, Chechnya and elsewhere, whilst making themselves ever more dependent on imported Russian energy. When Crimea was annexed in 2014, nothing worse than relatively mild sanctions were imposed on Putin, which gave the green light for him to promote insurgency in the Donbas, resulting in the deaths of thousands of Ukrainian soldiers during the subsequent seven years. Meanwhile Germany and other European democracies became ever more voracious users of Russian gas with the consequent need to maintain good terms with the Russian dictator. There are obvious parallels to the appeasement of Hitler by Britain and France in the 1930s.
Crimea to us was what Austria, Sudetenland and the remainder of Czechoslovakia were to our parents' generation, yet we failed to recognise the familiar dangers unfolding yet again and are now paying a very high price for that blindness. For Poland and Hitler in 1939, read Ukraine and Putin in 2022.
This book has been of immense value to me for seeing the present in a historical context.
October 8, 2016
One of those rare books I read straight through in a short time. (I'm a slow reader.) An excellent reprise of that critical period between 1933 and 1940 when Britain was slowly realizing Hitler was an evil man determined to rule the world and exterminate much of its population. It's a period most of us are familiar with seeing through Churchill's eyes, but there were other clear-eyed men and women who saw what Churchill saw, some of whom didn't have his negative baggage and mercurial personality. To interpret the waking up of Britain as an individual effort would be like crediting American independence to Washington or Jefferson alone.
I found this especially relevant reading because of many Americans' wilful blindness to the fascist tendencies of the Republican Party these days, and the accompanying blindness to the great existential danger of our era, global climate change. When later generations write our history (if they have a civilization to write for) it will be about how America woke up and repudiated the dangerous and greedy crowd of climate change denialists and the fossil fuel billionaires who pay their salaries and underwrite their air time.
I found this especially relevant reading because of many Americans' wilful blindness to the fascist tendencies of the Republican Party these days, and the accompanying blindness to the great existential danger of our era, global climate change. When later generations write our history (if they have a civilization to write for) it will be about how America woke up and repudiated the dangerous and greedy crowd of climate change denialists and the fossil fuel billionaires who pay their salaries and underwrite their air time.
September 18, 2021
If you are interested in British politics or Britain in the days running up to the onset of WWII, Olson’s book is a must read: it’s an unvarnished look at the strengths and foibles of the members of Parliament who played a role in bringing Churchill to power.
January 24, 2008
Great book. I never understood how hard it was to get Chamberlain out of power and fight Hitler.
March 19, 2019
An impressive research effort which delivers a history of this era well beyond what you would read or see elsewhere.
September 1, 2025
Entertaining - even though we talking about the future of our country. Loads of detail and lots of emotion in the writing.
March 24, 2019
If you think that Churchill’s accession to power in 1940 was inevitable and pre-ordained, then this book is a handy corrective, focusing on the small band of Tory rebels who worked for two years – against improbable odds and vicious opposition – to dethrone Neville Chamberlain. It’s not the whole story, but Olson makes a decent stab at making it stick.
I’d always thought the ill-fated PM himself was decent if misguided, but he comes across here as arrogant, vindictive, self-pitying, myopic and disastrous, refusing to fight a war as he betrays Britain’s allies, feeds disinformation to a compliant press, and relentlessly brownbeats his ‘enemies’ (not to mention tapping their phones).
Those adversaries include two future prime ministers: the weak-willed Anthony Eden, apparently a major heartthrob back then, and sensitive publisher Harold Macmillan, as well as Macmillan’s cuckolder, Bob Boothby, the raffish, brilliant Duff Cooper, and Leo “Speak for England” Amery, an old rival of Churchill’s from their schooldays. There’s also young, idealistic Ronald Cartland (brother of Barbara), a rebel MP who enlisted in the TA, and whose story is particularly affecting.
And their hero? Churchill is painted as being largely aloof from the politicking, remaining scrupulously loyal to Chamberlain from the moment he is appointed to the War Cabinet – and far beyond his eventual appointment as PM. Again, that’s more of a thesis than an incontestable fact, but it’s convincingly put.
The earlier chapters here are muddled, leaping about through time rather confusingly and betraying the (American) background of the author, who laboriously explains quirks that will seem everyday and obvious to a British reader, while exhibiting a tourist’s fondness for socialities, Royalty and the Ritz.
Once it settles down, though, it’s a good read: a fascinating, somewhat neglected story told pretty well, Olson drawing on diaries, letters, memoirs, archive newspapers, secondary sources and – perhaps somewhat excessively – weather reports.
While the colourful pen portraits of the conspirators are somewhat artlessly shoved into the narrative, and a few sections plod (do we need another list of the same eight MPs?), the passages in Parliament are frequently electrifying, while a postscript about the debacle of Suez makes for a heartbreakingly ironic pay-off.
What endures, though, is the spectacle of politicians who risked their careers – and their friendships, their reputations, in one instance their life – to save their country, and perhaps Western democracy itself. The story of those “troublesome young men” – or the “glamour boys”, as they were derisively tagged by their opponents – remains moving, humbling and genuinely inspiring.
I’d always thought the ill-fated PM himself was decent if misguided, but he comes across here as arrogant, vindictive, self-pitying, myopic and disastrous, refusing to fight a war as he betrays Britain’s allies, feeds disinformation to a compliant press, and relentlessly brownbeats his ‘enemies’ (not to mention tapping their phones).
Those adversaries include two future prime ministers: the weak-willed Anthony Eden, apparently a major heartthrob back then, and sensitive publisher Harold Macmillan, as well as Macmillan’s cuckolder, Bob Boothby, the raffish, brilliant Duff Cooper, and Leo “Speak for England” Amery, an old rival of Churchill’s from their schooldays. There’s also young, idealistic Ronald Cartland (brother of Barbara), a rebel MP who enlisted in the TA, and whose story is particularly affecting.
And their hero? Churchill is painted as being largely aloof from the politicking, remaining scrupulously loyal to Chamberlain from the moment he is appointed to the War Cabinet – and far beyond his eventual appointment as PM. Again, that’s more of a thesis than an incontestable fact, but it’s convincingly put.
The earlier chapters here are muddled, leaping about through time rather confusingly and betraying the (American) background of the author, who laboriously explains quirks that will seem everyday and obvious to a British reader, while exhibiting a tourist’s fondness for socialities, Royalty and the Ritz.
Once it settles down, though, it’s a good read: a fascinating, somewhat neglected story told pretty well, Olson drawing on diaries, letters, memoirs, archive newspapers, secondary sources and – perhaps somewhat excessively – weather reports.
While the colourful pen portraits of the conspirators are somewhat artlessly shoved into the narrative, and a few sections plod (do we need another list of the same eight MPs?), the passages in Parliament are frequently electrifying, while a postscript about the debacle of Suez makes for a heartbreakingly ironic pay-off.
What endures, though, is the spectacle of politicians who risked their careers – and their friendships, their reputations, in one instance their life – to save their country, and perhaps Western democracy itself. The story of those “troublesome young men” – or the “glamour boys”, as they were derisively tagged by their opponents – remains moving, humbling and genuinely inspiring.
March 19, 2021
Like all Lynne Olson's books, this is a good one. It covers a somewhat narrow time span, exploring how a group of men (and a few women) worked to get rid of appeasement-with-Hitler-minded British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and his associates and put Winston Churchill in as Prime Minister. This was made more difficult by some of Churchill's mistakes, but eventually was the basis of saving Britain and Western civilization from Nazi takeover. Of course, hindsight is 20/20, but it should have been apparent that negotiating with Hitler was a stupid, futile idea--so soon after the First World War, Britain was completely averse to losing another generation of young men to yet another war with Germany. And if Chamberlain, and thus Britain, had acted sooner (such as when Hitler invaded the Rhineland), the war could possibly have been avoided, although the Third Reich might have flourished in Germany and Austria even longer than it did, which would have been terrible. One thing I didn't realize is that Churchill kept Chamberlain in a position of influence and the "peace at any price" people continued to work to get the latter back into power and undermine Churchill's government for some time. I'm glad I know how it all turned out or I would have panicked. Well-researched and written.
January 25, 2018
In 1940, a small group of British politicians dared to protest the current prime minister's weak stance against Nazi Germany. In protesting as they did, these men - and a few women - bucked hundreds of years of tradition, rebelling against national and class standards and expectations and so offered themselves as sacrificial lambs to save Britain, Europe, and, ultimately, Western Civilization. In the end they prevailed, Churchill became prime minister, and Britain dared to stand against the Nazis' march across Europe.
In compact yet flowing prose, Olson relates this tale of a political struggle that truly determined the course of modern history and the fate of the world as we know it today. She paints fascinating character portrayals of the involved individuals and their interactions and often complicated relationships. (For example, two men, one a future prime minister, were in love with the same woman for decades.) Although the story ends in 1940, Olson does provide an epilogue so the reader learns about the participants' post-war lives.
I found this an absorbing read that I had difficulty setting aside. This is the type of book that makes history come alive.
In compact yet flowing prose, Olson relates this tale of a political struggle that truly determined the course of modern history and the fate of the world as we know it today. She paints fascinating character portrayals of the involved individuals and their interactions and often complicated relationships. (For example, two men, one a future prime minister, were in love with the same woman for decades.) Although the story ends in 1940, Olson does provide an epilogue so the reader learns about the participants' post-war lives.
I found this an absorbing read that I had difficulty setting aside. This is the type of book that makes history come alive.
January 18, 2014
This is a good introduction to the appeasement days in late 1930s Britain. It spells out how backbencher anti-appeasement Tories gradually accumulated the numbers to indirectly force the resignation of Neville Chamberlain.
I said indirectly. I had for whatever reason thought Chamberlain lost the no-confidence vote shortly after the invasion of France. Not true; he won, but by narrow enough margin that, after vacillating, and even dreaming of scheming, he decided to step down.
On the biographical side, Chamberlain comes off as an unconstitutional autocrat domestically, even more than a dithering appeaser. Eden is portrayed as someone rightly abandoned by the rebels as the man to replace Chamberlain. Churchill is shown as too blindly loyal to Chamberlain in some ways, especially in the days between the no-confidence vote and his resignation.
The one big name from all of this to actually go up, if you will, is Macmillan.
Also, as an American wishing we had a parliamentary system here, seeing it at work in daily detail, both its good and bad sides, at a period of ongoing stress, is another reason I found this a good read.
I said indirectly. I had for whatever reason thought Chamberlain lost the no-confidence vote shortly after the invasion of France. Not true; he won, but by narrow enough margin that, after vacillating, and even dreaming of scheming, he decided to step down.
On the biographical side, Chamberlain comes off as an unconstitutional autocrat domestically, even more than a dithering appeaser. Eden is portrayed as someone rightly abandoned by the rebels as the man to replace Chamberlain. Churchill is shown as too blindly loyal to Chamberlain in some ways, especially in the days between the no-confidence vote and his resignation.
The one big name from all of this to actually go up, if you will, is Macmillan.
Also, as an American wishing we had a parliamentary system here, seeing it at work in daily detail, both its good and bad sides, at a period of ongoing stress, is another reason I found this a good read.
July 21, 2010
Really interesting book, and I learned a lot. I didn't realize how sooo many countries dragged their feet for sooo long in getting into it with Germany. The book featured a lot of intriguing people that I want to learn about more (hello, Dorothy Macmillan, wow, she had something going on. Actually a lot of the women in the book were really interesting). The only frustrating part of the book was that it sometimes dragged with too many details, though I do appreciate the author wanting to fit in everything so we get the clearest possible picture. Okay, also frustrating was just reading about Germany and Hitler time and again being completely horrible and everybody sat around twiddling their thumbs, not wanting to offend them, wanting to give them another chance, not wanting to mess up their own lives, yaddayadda. Oh, gracious, the whole Rhineland part repeatedly had me slapping my forehead, feeling like, AHHHH, are you kidding me?! Read it to get more history about WWII, especially if you're wondering about England's part in it.
December 30, 2010
This was a very good read. It took from diaries and journals that were done contemporaneously, as well as reflections people had later about that critical time in the 1930s and 40s when Germany was preparing for, and starting, what was to be the second world war.
It made me want to read some of Churchill's autobiographies, as some of his actions were most puzzling, if somewhat explained in the book. For instance, his keeping many of the appeasers in his cabinet, including Chamberlain himself. That was not as inexplicable as his a) actually listening to their advice, but b) his specifically excluding the anti-appeasers that put him in power from the positions of power they seemingly should have had.
Alls well that ends well, but I would like to find out more.
It made me want to read some of Churchill's autobiographies, as some of his actions were most puzzling, if somewhat explained in the book. For instance, his keeping many of the appeasers in his cabinet, including Chamberlain himself. That was not as inexplicable as his a) actually listening to their advice, but b) his specifically excluding the anti-appeasers that put him in power from the positions of power they seemingly should have had.
Alls well that ends well, but I would like to find out more.
July 27, 2007
This is an interesting book for those who have studied Churchill and also provides insight into the workings of the English Parliament.
May 31, 2024
Quite a well-researched story. Excellent history and character development. I enjoyed this “behind-the-scenes” story/stories of the Chamberlain/Churchill war era.
January 2, 2026
An excellent political thriller about moral courage in times of crises. If only modern politicians had the same level of conviction and a willingness to put the country above party.
Olson effectively creates an engaging story backed up by copious research and use of primary source material.
The role of Churchill was particularly fascinating in all the political intrigue adds another dimension to an already complicated man.
Well worth a read!!
Olson effectively creates an engaging story backed up by copious research and use of primary source material.
The role of Churchill was particularly fascinating in all the political intrigue adds another dimension to an already complicated man.
Well worth a read!!
Displaying 1 - 30 of 155 reviews